Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Graaff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Graaff

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is an an autobiography as admitted by the subject [1]. It has repeatedly been deleted at the Dutch Wikipedia and the subject is banned there for self promotion and for falsifying sources. Another editor has detailed on the article talk page that some of the sources here are, again, fabricated and that some facts are falsified. This article is not salvageable. It should be deleted as WP:TNT and started from scratch by someone neutral who is not the article subject. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my GOODNESS I don't think I have ever seen an article with that many cleanup templates. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 02:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. If there is an actual claim to notability here (via "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), it is so buried under unsourced and questionably-sourced promotional waffle that it is almost impossible to discern. Wikipedia is not a platform for unfettered egotism... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE The Dutch Arthur Graaff article was published for six years until about 2013 and 'the subject' was not banned for self promotion or falsifying sources. 'Another editor' on the English version was repeatedly corrected over the laast weeks for unjustly using the accusation of fabrication (not the case, unproven) and 'falsifying sources' (not the case, and unproven). It is clear 'the subject' is an important figure in the anti-fascist movement and has gained international recognition.

The article is not an autobiography but a translation of the old Dutch article the existed for over six years, and has been edited by and contributed to by some three dozen Wikipedians. It now features some 60 refs. It is clear that most of the content is therefore proven and sourceable.

The main accuser is a Dutchman who has been stalking Graaff for over 2.5 years, and here uses aliases and false names, such as 'John A Drummond' or simply the IPs 86.95.90.103, or 84.86.115.84 practically all edits are negative, and with unfounded accusations. The first IP edited the article 48 times over the last two weeks, most of which was reverted, and the man behind this IP has written over 70 very negative Dutch articles on Graaff, which led to a formal criminal complaint for libel and slander against this accuser.

Nevertheless, the article seems a bit long. I think about half would be fine.

Webnetprof (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? You have already stated that you are Graaff. And no, Dutch-language Wikipedia article content (whether subsequently deleted or not) is not a reliable source, as far as this Wikipedia is concerned, so who may have contributed to the article there is of absolutely no concern to this discussion. The article is, per English-Wikipedia standards, poorly sourced where it is sourced at all, unambiguously promotional, and full of trivia that only the subject would know about. Or care about. That is what matters. Not some spat you've had elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get hits on an antifacist/activist person with the same name in Dutch sources, I can't tell if this is the same individual. There is so much wrong with the citation tags here, I wouldn't know where to start the clean up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It is almost the opposite of verifiability and neutrality. Attempts at improvement by myself and others are undone, and falsified sources put back. Hopeless. Wammes Waggel (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons outlined in the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I'm a Dutch user. I know his name and I've cleaned up the article. Graaff gets a lot of flak from opponents in Holland, also active on this WP. In Holland he is a regular item in the news since about 2012. On Google he gets about 3,000 hits - see here: https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22arthur+graaff%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.98.200 (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you've known Graaff's name for a very long time, given the number of promotional edits to the Graaff biography made by anonymous Dutch IPs. And of course, the ongoing unsuccessful attempts by Graaff to restore his biography to the Dutch-language Wikipedia. Which you seem to have participated in. [2] Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User 86.82-98.200 = Webnetprof = Arthur Graaff.

See: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/86.82.98.200

And of course the editing by 86.82-98.200 on Wikipedia pages in English.

The "Ati Schermel" mentioned on the NL-Wikipedia was a woman with whom the subject allegedly had an affair - according to the diverse IP addresses that can be linked to the subject. John A. Drummond (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N and WP:Soap 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons outlined in the nomination statement and because of sockpuppetry. COI: I am a Dutch journalist who has written several articles about the subject. In my opinion the subject might be worthy of a WP lemma, but then categorized as Dutch Walter Mitty, or something like that.John A. Drummond (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't 'categorise' people based on contributors opinions. And we try to keep external disputes out of these discussions - the outcome needs to be determined according to Wikipedia policies (e.g. on notability, and on the proper use of published sources etc) only. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I seriously doubt the selection of sources because at least seven of them are written by the subject of the article + I agree with the reasons stated in the nomination. ThegaBolt (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested by nom, after having done the entire research anew. The subject is notable under the WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. By itself that would lead to supporting keep. The problem is that the article is part fact and part fiction. This overlap of fact and fiction runs much deeper than a bit of WP:CLEANUP because of WP:COI. I'm not afraid of cleanup and do it all the time. This article is really bad. So bad that WP:TNT applies. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if notability can be established, which is possible, an entirely new article would need to be created and probably have to be submitted as a draft to ensure proper review. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As several have noted, there might well be a case justifying an article for Graaff. That would have to be built from the ground up, though, since this is beyond fixing. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are arguments for a whole new Arthur Graaff article. But... the person behind "Webnetprof" and countless IP addresses will no doubt try to bend such an article in the same direction as the current one. This person, coincidentally the same as the subject, did so on the Dutch variant in the past and does so on the current one. Only if it will be possible to prevent his (or his sock puppets') interventions will the creation of such an article make sense. Otherwise, the same misery will start up again. John A. Drummond (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why I do not suggest creating a new article. It's begging for trouble. gidonb (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.