Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination)

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 Keep. There is a clear consensus to keep the article, based on the comments below. Though this is a biography of a living person, the information in the article is cited to reliable sources, and insofar as that information is in the public sphere, then the article itself passes all requirements for Wikipedia articles. Insofar as it is a living person, scrupulous effort must be made to insure neutrality and verifiability, however issues of vandalism and of slander can be handled via cleanup and, if necessary, the oversight system. Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon

Magibon, the subject of this article has contacted me about her fear for the public using private information found on her wikipedia article. Also, she states that this article is damaging to the contractual agreements she signed. And that the various slander and vandalism is damaging to her popularity. As this article is about a relatively unknown personality, She and I ask of you, would it not be in the better interest of english wikipedia that it be deleted. So that the damage done to her image, may be contained. Pedofenion (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) — Pedofenion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment What? All the article contains is boring, flat statements lifted from publicly available sources. Please explain how any of it is "private information", "slander" or "damaging to contractual agreements". the skomorokh 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyPrivate information as in her full name, the place of her birth. the full name can't be seen now but it is repeatedly added, if you would check the article's history you will find a lot of personal info relating to Magibon. Particularly, the ones contibuted by the user arguecat. As to the breach in contractual agreements, I shall not be disclosing that as it may be slanderous in it self.Pedofenion (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Magibon's place of birth is not stated in any news sources, yet it is stated in the article. Further to add, this is all the proof one needs to show that contentious lies may be subtly pressed in to the article. Pedofenion (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove (or source) any unsourced information (like place of birth). Independent sources in the article indicate the notability of the subject. If bad information keeps getting added, perhaps some sort of protection is in order? Umbralcorax (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G10) — I would rather see the person's personal information kept that way (as personal) than the article kept and be open to attack vandals or others willing to defame a living person (see WP:BLP). Unless someone is willing to rollback all edits going back to sometime around June or request for oversight, I have to side for deletion. The fact is that the personal information will still be present in the article's history unless rollback, oversight, or article deletion occurs - that is something page protection cannot accomplish in this case. Nothing against the article, it notability or lack thereof, etc.; but protecting the actual person is more important than keeping the article. MuZemike (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Umbralcorax, I'm one of the editor for this article. Some of the information is available in Japanese Wikipedia Magibon and media. A protection is needed to prevent vandalism, some user try to vandalize, unconstructive edit or delete this article. BTW Pedofenion, would you explain of "slander" , "damaging to her popularity" , "contentious lies" in detail? Harmonic gear (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I'm not familiar with this kind of subject: but as there's nothing wrong with the article now for BLP grounds, this should not be deleted. If oversight is desired, those wanting it should email the oversight people. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and semi-protect - Article is fine as it is. If it's prone to vandalism then protect it. Also... I REALLY don't see how a Wikipedia bio can be a breach of contract for someone unless they are the ones who created their own article which would be a WP:COI. I would venture to say that there are hundreds of vandalisms a day that "slander" other people and we are not deleting their articles! Argument to Delete is not a proper argument under Wikipedia policies as far as I know... --Pmedema (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this is an appropriate article, I totaly agree it should be deleted, it should of been a long time ago. I vote for deletion.Ariana-hime (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been nominated for deletion an other two times. Doesn't that say something? It needs deleting for good. All the vandalism it receives, means it will always look bad and be a bad article. And it is not even informative, unimportant and no one wants it. Please delete to avoid future situations like this, the article being nominated for the third time. Besides, it's really bad written and not much can be done about it. It'll never ever be a ok article.Ariana-hime (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Magibon for some reason doesn't want it, so respect her wish and delete. Besides, who wants an article that gets damaged all the time? It will keep on geting damaged till it's deleted, so why not do something about it? It is the ONLY way to solve this problem. And as I've said, it's been nominated another two times, so that shows something's not right here.Ariana-hime (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ariana-hime?? This user vandalize the article, 2 times blanking, several disruptive and unconstructive edits. Harmonic gear (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons seems to approve of deleting the information, since staying neutral is virtually impossible with the amount of "sensitive" information wanted removed. Quite frankly, I see her only as popular for being mysterious, so naturally public knowledge of anything is bad for her. :/--SquareOuroboros (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing there now that seems sensitive by any customary standard. The subject has a self-commercialized presence on the internet, & is therefore not a private figure. DGG (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason given by DGG, above. Wikipedia has the WP:BLP policy to guard against unsourced information being put into articles. If there's something here without a reputable source, delete it. If certain personal information has been made available via reputable media, then it's fair game. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is about notable net-personality with sufficient non-trivial references. Measures exist to prevent and remove unsourced personal information about living people, but deletion is not one. --DAJF (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the article being reliably sourced, the nominator provides no valid reasons for deletion. For all the talk of the article being slanderous, they are unable to give the slightest example of anything in the article being even remotely slanderous. And even if it were, that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. There is no private info on the article, either, and both that and the alleged vandalism are grounds for improvement, not deletion. The nominator's claim that Magibon wants this article deleted should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, and even if the nominator's unsupported claim could be proved true, that is still not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few months ago, I would have declared it fit for speedy deletion. However, inlight of recent Japanese press activity and cleansing of biase material relating to the article. I think it should and can be kept relating to grounds that the subject of the article has passed wiki grounds for notabilty. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article of the same title, shows a plenty more links and references to Japanese press article. Hetelllies (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - If she wants it deleted, delete it, how would you feel if someone refused to delete something about you that you wanted to delete? And besides that, I've given other reasons above. Ariana-hime (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps the nominater has a point. what if Magibon's Personal info, somehow compromise her online security, as in the republican american vice president candidate incident. Also, the article still as of yet contains a small piece of unsourced info, take the first name margaret as an example, it is never mentioned by any of the notable news links nor any of the references. Also I note that all if not most of the references refrain from using her real name, always referring to her by her alias. Even though, such an info might possibly not be harmful to the subject, who is to say how it can be used to gather more incriminating info related to her. Hetelllies (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment sorry about the long text description, had a hard time writing down sarah ,p,a,l,inHetelllies (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the nominator (and the subject her/himself) - There is nothing to prevent somebody to create an article about somebody else. If the subject is notable, then the article stays and should follow WP:BLP policy. However, if you are the subject him/herself, then I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. Dekisugi (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of non-controversial and non-damaging content in here. Remove the uncited problem content and put a semi-protection on the rest. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if she passes the relevant notability guidelines for "Internet celebrities" (not an area I'm very familiar with) then the article should be kept. Whether she wants the article removing or not is neither here nor there. Obviously remove any unsourced information, but requests like this are inappropriate. There doesn't appear to be any contentious material in there at present, but if the page is being vandalised some form of protection can be put in place. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This article gives out personal info such as, where she currently lives, what she used to work as, and the fact she is unemployed. As I have said, this pages receives to much vandalism, so deliting it is for the best. Besides that, she wants it deleted. Respect her privacy!Ariana-hime (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Ariana-hime Your opinion has been duly noted above. Please refrain from commenting further to simply repeat yourself, as this just gives the closing admin more to wade through. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- Under WP:BLP this person is not even remotely notable. The article has serious sourcing as well as WP:NPOV issues as well. Undue weight is being given to her job situation as well: WP:UNDUE Delete, delete, delete, a thousand times delete. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the claims of this person called "Pedofenion" are wrong. He is not in any contact with Magibon and Magibon has never said anything like that. I have recommended Magibon to contact a lawyer about this incident. After Magibons recent media appearances there is no more doubt about her notability and therefore no reason for a deletion. It seems that even her haters have noticed this fact and therefore try to change the tactic.--Firithfenion (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Firitheon is a fan of Magibon who thinks it is ok to keep the article even with problems because of his "admiration" for Magibon,and with the fact she is not notable. In my country you have people coming out of reallity shows, being famous for a month and then forgoten. That happens all over the world and it does not make her notable. Also the article is unimportant, has been nominated another TWO times, wich means something is going on. Firitheon, a thing like this does not requier a lawyer, otherwise she would of hired one a very, very long time ago with all the hate she receives. Think first! You have been threatning Wikipedia and you expect people to take you seriously? No. It has nothing to do with hate by the way, it has been explained countless times. Delete the article to solve all the problems. Then Magie wont need a lawyer for sure! See? And how do you know he hasn't been in contact with her? She might of just stated it somewhere. You never know. You don't know everything she does. She could of said so. Ariana-hime (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pedofenion is a fan and friend of Magibon and obviously he keeps in contact with her. You DONT know. So dont say that he doesnt. Even he thinks this should be deleted. What does that say?Ariana-hime (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But this article is scandal of my Magi. I know you no like magi than me but you must keep this article it is for popularity of magi. she can keep coming to japan if her popularity high. So i want you protect her from people hating her a lot. she make good wife for me. please keep article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forryga (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/delete This article is serously just too hot of a topic to touch by people who are so involved with it. What we need is reliable nonbiased third party opinions on the article. Those such as Ariana Hime, Harmonic Gear etc really have no bearing in that they have edit-warred with one another and continue to do so. Is anyone even taking Pedofenion seriously by the way? She/He is obviously a troll. Pedo being short for pedophile, and fenion being the half end of the name of the actual creator of the article- User:Firithfenion. I have stated my reason for keep. My reason for delete is very similar in that this has never been an unbiased article. The person who created it is actually the president of her fan club, and the people who vandalize it come mainly from Encyclopedia Dramatica where there is a rival article, written before the Wikipedia version, that slanders Maggie. The editors there will continue to wage war on this stub of an article as a personal vendetta until it is deleted. So My consensus is: IF and only IF this article can be greatly improved in a short span of time supplemented with reliable sources and accurate content BY A NONBIASED< NONINVOLVED RELIABLE THIRD PARTY, then it should not be deleted. However, if it is just going to continuously be a hot spot for vandalism and warring between fans and trolls, then it might as well be deleted. Also, to address Forryga, this article should not be used as a tool for vanity any more than it should be used for edit warring. Popularity of the person in question is not the issue, the issue is the article itself. I saw the comment you left on pedofenion's page when I did a google search of the name. Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing so, even if pedofenion is an obvious vandal.Yariau neko (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Hi Yariau neko, to be honest, I never want to involved in any kind of edit war, I had stop edit that article for 3 days, now DAJF is the editor, you can ask him what happened to the article, you can also check the Magibon article history too. I have contacted with administrator for advice before, but I got no good feedback. Ariana-hime received several notices from other users, but he/she refuse to stop. I couldn't find a better solution, unless someone apply Protection to the article. I also aware of this Encyclopedia Dramatica, this is another reason we need protection for the article. By the way, please take caution that ANYONE can create user account using ANY NAME to disturb the article and this discussion. Harmonic gear (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on Comment The present Magibon article was recreated by user:Exxolon not any of the fenions. However, it is to note that the article was deleted twice in the past. And that the user:firithfenion signed up after the first was deleted and before the second deletion. So, whatever it is, Firithfenion cannot have been the original creator of the article. Just to get the facts straight. Also DAJF, has totally reshaped the article, the current revision is better than what it used to be.Hetelllies (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I have reported this issue to WP:BLPN. MuZemike (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — unless you want me to start making wikipedia articles about Charles Trippy, the amazing atheist, sxephil, the YTwatchdog, and every other minor youtube "star". Being on youtube as your only claim to fame does not make you notable. ʄ!•¿talk? 09:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per Fennessy above. How many hundreds of thousands of minor youtube "celebrities" are there? And they all deserve an entry in an encyclopedia? I don't think so. -- Codeine (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How many minor Youtube celebrities there are is not particularly relevant to this discussion. The subject of this particular article happens to have the most viewed Youtube channel in Japan, and has received extensive mainstream media coverage. Could you be more specific as to how you think this fails WP:Notability criteria? Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and semi-protect because the discussion didn't show what the real problem is with this article. There is a fair share of fans and anti-fans, if vandalism becomes a problem then protect the article. - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many problems with this article. Many. And they will be till it's deleted. Besides, Magi herslf wants it deleted. If I was her I would to. It has to much personal information about her, but then again, if it didn't the article would be useless, since there's absolutely nothing to write about. She is NOT notable, just because she is famous for a week and then nothing, she hasn't done anything notable so it is useless. Either one way or the other it should be gone. Ariana-hime (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel if someone gave personal information about you and left it for the world to see?Ariana-hime (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given that the reasons for the AfD are "private information found on her wikipedia article", "damaging to the contractual agreements", "various slander and vandalism" and "she [asks] that it be deleted". None of those are reasons for deletion. The "private information found on her wikipedia article" is a violation of Biographies of Living Persons, and is a reason for editing the article and protecting it, not an argument for deleting it. The "damaging to the contractual agreements" isn't an argument for anything, really, because Wikipedia has no interest in whether articles damage or strengthen contracts. The "various slander and vandalism" is, again, an argument for editing and protection, not deletion. And the "she [asks] that it be deleted" reason is just silly. If that were Wikipedia policy, we wouldn't have any wikipedia pages for any living criminals, frauds, or quacks. We'd just convert wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a PR machine. Perhaps the article should be deleted because of lack of notability, I'm not sure. If that's the case, it would be best to resubmit that AfD as a separate one, to keep the notability issue separate from all of this hand-wavy "the article isn't very good, so instead of improving it, let's kill it" logic. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It sure is, and it has been done before. See WP:DEL. MuZemike (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading everything here, I don't know what is best to do. Tending to err on the side of caution, I would go with delete. It can always be added again later when the facts are actually on the table. FX (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eye-rolling keep. I can't see any hint of notability here outside YouTube. I see credible evidence that this person is top of the pops in Japanese YouTube. (And if this weren't enough to tell me that she's of no interest to me, the description in the Salon article would do the job. This appears to be Japanese "pop culture" infantilism at its most soporific. But my opinion is by the way.) If you reach number 10 or 20 in the musical pops of Japan, you merit an article; I'd have thought that if you're even momentarily number 1 in the Japanese video pops you merit one too. After all, Japan is populous. For Fennessy above: I've never heard of "Charles Trippy, the amazing atheist, sxephil, the YTwatchdog", and if they're merely "minor youtube 'star[s]'" I'd advise against creating articles on them. But if -- whether because of their own talents, or mass idiocy, or mere happenstance -- they're even briefly major YouTube stars and you can create articles on them that satisfy en:WP policies, why not? -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep In detail: First claims that the individual is not notable are not credible. The individual meets WP:BIO. Second, the specific information that the individual does not want in Wikipedia is in multiple other media sources. Whether that information should be in Wikipedia is a distinct issue that is a matter of editorial decision making not a matter for AfD. Third, Magibon has willingly participated and continues to participate in her public interaction as a celebrity (now having been a voice actor in a movie and having appeared in a public event as recently as October 22). Courtesy deletion for a willing public figure is not a great idea for reasons I and others have enumerated in the past. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I am missing something as to where this specific information can be found. (If pointed out, then I will gladly redact by G10 !vote.) MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears to be in the non-English sources. There are references for all these claims in the article. Since I don't speak Japanese I can't verify that they are correct. But I presume editors would not have added sources that didn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's first contribution to Wikipedia, 45 minutes before nominating this article for deletion was obvious and slanderous vandalism of the article in question. If this request seriously came from the article's subject herself, why would she request help from the owner of an SPA who's only edits were to vandalise her article rather than contacting Wikipedia directly? --Fugu Alienking (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To "obvious" and "slanderous", add "puerile". To save the time of anyone who's interested, here is the first edit of "Pedofenion", the troll who started this AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Please Delete. Thank you.Magichan (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason? -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2008 (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.