Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. reason? IAR. Seriously. It is clear that the only reason that Sitush has created this article (draft) is because of the conflict with Carolmooredc. Whether she is notable or not is not important. Sitush should stay far away from any article on her, never mind start it. Do no harm and all that fancy stuff. There is no acceptable reason why we should let this happen. I have no problem if neutral editors (like Milowent) want to have a go at an article on carolmoore, if they believe she is sufficiently notable to override BLP wishes of the subject. But then start from scratch, not from something loaded with this background. Fram (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sitush/Carol Moore

FormerlyUser:Sitush/Carol Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
CurrentlyDraft:Carol Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As posted here the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought on Wikihounding of me the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8)[1][2], urged people to "do some research" on me[3], and even wrote: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her."[4]. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[5] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[6]. The user then posted non-RS material they found out from their opposition research with an insulting and misleading comment. The user suddenly alleged they actually were working on a bio of me, perhaps to avoid someone bringing a Wikihounding ANI vs them. I think this is just a thinly veiled WP:Attack page - and obvious harassment - and should be deleted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later note: I have asked at speedy deletion if it is too late to ask the page be deleted under the criteria: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" and "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_(2nd_nomination) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later note to closer: [Added later to clarify: In my humble opinion, though he denies it Sitush now has admitted he's trying to push for an Arbitration] about me and the Gender Gap Task Force if necessary. (Also see [7], [8]). I think this bio obviously was a ploy to piss me off, cause an ANI to be brought, force an Arbitration. The sickest part is, it seems to be working. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully final note: I've reported this to OTRS and asked them to remove this and any future bios from Wikipedia until and unless I become truly notable. But just in case, feel free to delete it now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AGF, for God's sake. This is a genuine effort, as I've explained to you on my talk page, and I can't see a single attack in what is said thus far. At least one arbitrator is also aware. If you're notable then you're notable. The prior AfDs closed as (1) no consensus and (2) delete, but with many people pointing out that there were sources out there. I didn't see the old version but I'll be astonished if my version isn't better. If that sounds like arrogance then so be it but please give me a chance. WP is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this was sincere, you would be using refs from the old article which your Admin friends easily could give you and not just be relying on my primary source comments, non-Rs and two book reviews. For example, material from the Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press story, Philadelphia Inquirer, ABC News Nightline and several other books. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. (The snarky "your Admin friends" is unhelpful, btw.) I've already explained to you that I am aware of thousands of mentions of your name in sources and that they need to be evaluated: most will be useless fringe stuff but some will be ok. This is not something that will happen overnight but I've also invited you to comment as it develops. Given that you are on record as regretting the previous deletion, I'm surprised that you are objecting now. Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally - indeed, you've called it "opposition research" in the thread on my talk page that you link above. I can be neutral etc and the research is as open as it can be, hence the vast numbers of sources to be evaluated. Carol, I detest what the Brits did to much of India's society but you'll never get that impression from my writings in Indic articles: I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you under the impression this will help you at WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard, someplace you threatened to take me a couple times before I told you to check what was there already? See the history of truly well known writer/activist User_talk:Cberlet. He wrote mostly negative stuff about living people he didn't like and got away with it for a long time even in days when allegedly Wikipedia was more civil. And there are certainly more like that editing now. So getting a COIN about someone trying to write mostly neutral info about issues is even more difficult. ("Trying" because the harassment from guys just does not stop.) The first two COIN's vs. me didn't stick and any new one won't either unless you can prove I'm getting paid to write for Wikipedia and I'm not. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Like I said, try to assume good faith. I know you find that a difficult thing to do but try, please. I'm constructing a BLP and have no interest in whether you are a woman, a man or even a Something From Outer Space. It is true that I think you have had conflicts of interest - in fact, that has been proven in the past - but it has no bearing on writing a BLP about someone who, while not famous, I do think has a reasonable notability. That notability was mentioned in the prior AfDs but not followed-through with additional sourcing etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are making false allegations here? Where has it been "proven" I have Conflicts of Interest? WP:ASPERSIONS is against casting aspersions without diffs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, again. Yet another waste of bluelinks. You've already provided the diffs - you edited your own BLP prior to it being deleted. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I didn't know better in 2006. The original written by some AnonIp said unsourced things like: Her followers prefer to focus on building a comprehensive "not quite a state " capacity for governance in smaller political units and Moore's work is most often compared to that of Jane Jacobs and Donella Meadows, who likewise applied systems theory to ecological and social problems. and I didn't see anyone fixing it up. And didn't know about AfDing. I mostly removed crap and later just put refs on the couple things that were accurate. That has no relation to conflict of interest on other Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, just in case this doesn't represent the whole community, we'll let it run its course. So I've put the bio at WP:BLPN also so they can decide if it's Wiki solid or just wanker.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does relate, although you may not have realised it at the time. You should have mentioned it on the article talk page or BLPN and let someone else sort it out. Carol, even today you often claim not to understand this or that policy. I find that surprising, given how long you have been here. But what p's me off is your continued yellings of wrong-doings where none exist. You've done that at least twice in the last 24 hours in my case. If you act more reasonably, you'll likely get a more reasonable response: I'm not some sort of beastly man. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Strike later since tit for tat is tacky. And what p's me off is your hostile superior attitude that you know everything and everyone is just an idiot and that people you've decided to "educate" better knuckle under, or else... you'll write their bio? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the AfD was split between keep and delete, and many of the deletes were objecting to the poor state of the article, a good rewrite would probably be accepted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I forgot about the split. Well, now that it is clear someone does intend to f*ck with the article, which was my original concern, I might as well make sure that when it goes live I immediately put up all the good refs and what the good stuff they ref and other refs collected since. And, of course, I can have a WP:BLPN fit about all the primary and poorly sourced crap in the article until those parts are removed, just like Chip Berlet did a few months back. I assume that if it doesn't go live, and Sitush leaves it on his talk page, that will illustrate my point it's just WP:Battleground harassment editing. So I'll chill. THANKS! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, indeed. You forgot about the split? I mentioned it in a message above! When it goes live, you should not edit it at all - leave that for BLPN etc. However, I'd rather that you raise any concerns now rather than later: I've no desire to keep unacceptable material or refs in there. So, I'll hang of further development for a while and you can let me know which stuff that is in there fails WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:RS. Or are you just presuming that there will be something in the future? - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For those who actually read the article, it's policy compliant. It's neutral, factually based, and not disparging of the subject. Putting the fact that the subject is a Wikipedia editor aside, this page would not be normally deleted - so I see no reason as to why it should be deleted here. Sitush is doing a great job of being neutral here, and I apologize if Carol finds this page harassing. I can't see anything in it that's private or not found on the internet already. Let's move along now. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly can, e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (2nd nomination).--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative"hasspoken 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and burn with fire: Keeping a dossier bio on another Wikipedia member in your userspace is a terrible idea. I've never seen something like this (would love to see precedent though). They can keep such stuff off wiki if they wish. The closest thing that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) (2011) which was simply a short list of inactive editor names, nothing like what we have here. Come on. I actually !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Moore (2nd nomination) five years ago, and was only a "lean keep" which is faint praise from an inclusionist like myself (and the consensus was clearly to delete); but in any event this discussion is about having a Wikipedia editor's bio in someone's else's userspace, not an AfD about a mainspace article. Furthermore, when one posts "Monday has come round and I'm off again. Should I do anything related to Wikipedia, it probably will involve an analysis of (Carol Moore)" -- this only means one thing: "Monday has come round and I've decided to fuck with Carol Moore." Put an end to it.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're actually encouraged to start articles in our userpace prior to pushing them out to the mainspace when they're ready, are we not? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine when you're not writing a bio about another wikipedia editor. If I started DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com and Glenn Beck was User:Glenn Beck, I should be called on it.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about it, I am actually flattered that User:Sitush considers me the Carrie Moore Nation of the prohibition of incivility and harassment on Wikipedia and even wants to write an article about me to demonstrate the credibility of the cause. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because @Carolmooredc: has an account doens't mean that she's able to dictate if an article is created about her or not. The reference that you're referring to is obviously a BLP violation and wouldn't be allowed. To be clear, as far as I know, @Sitush: doesn't own www.carolmore.com or anything related to her. We have guidelines for this and we even have a category of Wikipedian's who have pages. I doubt any of them had influence on what went into their articles (and I doubt they were allowed to object to their articles creation). What gives Carol the right to? Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep When I saw the link at BLPN I was almost sure I would be !voting delete, due to the well known (and often correct) "dossier" argument as made by Milowent above. However, the content in question is not a collection of Carol's actions on wiki, but a well sourced, and well written proto-article of a possibly/semi notable person. Carol may not like the article or author, and it is possible Sitush is writing the article to jab at Carol, but others rightly point out - writing article drafts in user space is a well-accepted practice. If the article itself does not violate policy, there is not a reason to delete it, regardless of Sitush's motives. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely normal and good practice to work on drafts in your user space. That the subject is also a WP editor is irrelevant. If there are inaccuracies in the article, that should be pointed out on the talkpage and discussed. In the unlikely case that Sitush would not heed such notices, there's always BLPN. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for much the same reasons as Randykitty. Eric Corbett 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, guys, is that Sitush has admitted he hates Carol's guts; that's a fat 'ol COI and he shouldn't be writing this. He has said of Carol (just last week), "She does nothing but stir shit." (look here after Tarc calls out his bullshit). Sitush should simply say publicly "I hate Carol Moore"; now, instead he acts like a total pussy and creates this bio? Come on now, we're all better than that. Find me another case of an editor writing a bio in his userspace about another editor he hates? Eric, I know you despise Carol, but would you REALLY do that? If its gonna stay, it should go into mainspace now, so it can go to AFD, where a clusterfuck approaching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) (son writes article on dead father; enemies descend, never was notable, gets deleted after major drama) will no doubt ensue. A lot of "editors" like that drama though. I'm gonna step away from this debate now and let others weigh in however they wish.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't pretend to know stuff that you can't possibly know. Eric Corbett 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You don't have to like your subject to write a sound article about it. Sometimes it's better not to like it, as there's a greater incentive to be neutral... I would suggest 'protester' rather than 'protestor' (unless that is another of those American things...), and the 'failed to earn' could perhaps be improved upon. Otherwise, it doesn't look like a dossier, it looks like an article. I've not checked the references, but the wording is neutral and there is the distinct possibility that the subject is notable. Whether or not the subject is a Wikipedian is hardly relevant, and so is the liking or otherwise by the subject. When you're leading a public life, you get publicity. Some you like, some you don't. This is not a possible G4, in my opinion. Same subject - different article. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS I don't hate CM - I can't remember hearing of her before. Must have missed something somewhere along the line. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't have any opinion about the suitability of this particular draft, but it seems to me that, in general, (1) Being a Wikipedia editor should have no bearing on whether a person is the subject of a Wikipedia article or not (notability should be the key), so that's not a reason to delete; (2) If a draft article displays bias when it is created (not saying that this one does, just talking about the general case), it can be altered by uninvolved editors, so that's not a reason to delete unless all of the text would need to be replaced; (3) Anyone who is the subject of a Wikipedia article automatically has a conflict of interest about that article, so there 's no reason to be surprised or complain that Carol has one. Her COI is clearly disclosed, and she has a right to express her opinion, point out sources, call for changes, or even call for the deletion of the article as long as those reading it are aware of the context. Neutral editors will take her position as subject into account when reading and weighing her arguments. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Considering Sitush hates Carol Moore, it's a form of harassment, and since he's making facts known about her that are not published on Wikipedia, it's bordering on outing. Rev-Del, Delete then Salt KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous. Eric Corbett 17:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord @KoshVorlon: - how could he OUT her if she's already done it herself? You've outted her more than Sitush has by using her real name just now. Nobody else would have been able to guess that "Carolmooredc" would mean Carol Moore. Now, if only we can figure out what the "DC" part stands for. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Every article includes information that is not already on Wikipedia. What would be the point otherwise? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IMHO, an editor with no history with Carolmooredc (assuming the proposed article, is about her), should be creating an article about her. PS: I'm not questioning Sitush's or Carolmooredc's motives, here. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the editors here decide that the there is enough notability that the article should be kept, it could be moved to Draft: space, a more neutral location, for revision since some editors are reluctant to make changes to another editor's userspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting proposal @Anne Delong: - perhaps @Sitush: and @Carolmooredc: would agree that moving it to Draft:Carol Moore would be amicable? Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gaijin42 and Randykitty. Looks to be a pretty good, policy-compliant BLP in the making. Whatever emotional response Ms. Moore's viscera trigger in Sitush, it's irrelevant to the question of whether to keep or delete the page as it stands. Writegeist (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while this may be an honest attempt to write an encyclopedia article, a history of on-wiki animosity between the author and the subject strongly indicates that harassment is a part of the motivation. While that doesn't affect whether the subject is notable or our other article inclusion criteria, it does certainly affect whether this behaviour is acceptable. The fact that something would be OK if it wasn't for the rules against harassment doesn't mean it isn't harassment - exploiting the rules to get at someone is a type of harassment. If this person genuinely is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia then someone with no on-wiki history with the subject can write the article. Hut 8.5 17:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of one Wikipedian writing a biography of another Wikipedian when there have been protracted disputes and ill-feeling between them. It's nothing to do with Sitush or Carolmooredc personally, or with how well-sourced the article is or isn't—I think that writing a biography in this context is a terrible idea on its face and I would implore everyone involved to delete the article and walk away. I don't think the encyclopedia suffers in any substantial way from the lack of a Carol Moore biography, and I think the potential for harm—either real or in the form of prolonged disputes and drama—far outweighs any benefit that will come from having a biography written under these circumstances. MastCell Talk 17:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read the article? Eric Corbett 18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've read it. But, as I mentioned my view has little to do with the content or current state of the article. My concern is more abstract: I think it's a terrible idea for one Wikipedian to write a biography of another Wikipedian when there's bad blood between them. I view that as a general (and, I would have thought, self-evident) principle, notwithstanding the article's current content. MastCell Talk 19:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. So basically there is no policy-based reason for your delete vote. Eric Corbett 19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, my concern turns on common sense and good judgement, both of which (in my view) would argue against writing a biography of an on-wiki opponent. Our policies generally don't legislate common sense or good judgement, nor do they cover every possible edge case. If your point is that no specific policy forbids Sitush from writing a biography of Carol Moore, then I would say that you're technically correct but focused on the wrong question. MastCell Talk 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let other people write it There is an inherent conflict of interest in writing a biography about someone you have been in a conflict with. If there is to be an article it should be written by other people. The contents of this article should be either merged at the discretion of other editors or deleted if the content is not used. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult, even if desirable, to ensure that only editors with no negative interaction with Carolmooredc would edit the new article. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed. Eric Corbett 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above is apparently open to misinterpretation, so here is an expansion: It would be difficult, even if desirable, to ensure that only editors with no negative interaction with Carolmooredc would edit the new article because anyone who hasn't been specifically banned for a serious infraction of Wikipedia's policies is free to edit any article and most negative interactions are not serious enough to invoke such a ban. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mastcell summarizes my sentiments succinctly.--MONGO 18:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page is available through Google and should be treated as BLP. It can be easily drafted off line.--Nowa (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If being visible on Google is a problem, just put {{noindex}} on the template and remove that again when the article is ready for main article space. --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I added the tag. I still think, however, it would be best to take it offline.--Nowa (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when it's put in article space, it's open to view. Here, we're just seeing it sooner. Are you saying it doesn't pass BLP or should be kept under cover until the launch? I see no objection to drafting in user space subject to the usual restrictions on copyvio, hoax, attack and spam. And I don't see any of those in this. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It’s more than just Wikipedia editors with specific knowledge that can see it. Anyone Googling Carol Moore will see it and see it as a Wikipedia page. Hence in my opinion it should be subject to the same standards as BLP, even though it is a “draft”. BLP is a lot more stringent than simply “no attack”, etc. Everything must be properly sourced and anyone can remove unsupported content without being subject to 3RR. That’s not going to help a user draft a BLP, however, since a user should generally have content control of said user’s space. So I see a large downside to having a draft BLP in a user space without any upside. Plus, given the reported animosity of the drafter towards the subject, removing the draft seems like what is best for the encyclopedia. And yes, I did read the draft. I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m saying it should either be out there as a BLP where we can all contribute to it, or drafted off line until it’s ready.--Nowa (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice User has a history of antagonism against Carolmooredc. Ditto MastCell. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read the article? Eric Corbett 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Corbett: Your concern for this issue is touching. Yes, I have. Why do you ask? Frankly I'd nominate it for AfD as not notable if it went to the mainspace. That a user is creating an article about another user who is not particularly well known is stinks of hounding. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a stench of hypocrisy, dishonesty and double dealing here. Is that maybe what you can smell? Eric Corbett 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those who are TLDR'ing here - I implore you to actually read the article itself and make a judgement based on the content of the page rather than the issue at hand. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume we're not reading the actual article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You've read it! Can you please show me where it's showing bias, and where (had Carol not had a Wikipedia account) it would get pulled into MfD for violating policy? Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. In fact if one bears in mind the premise that, as some other editor here put it, Sitush "hates Carole Moore's guts", the article is a shining example of how to do a BLP that's scrupulously NPOV, totally policy-compliant, and exhibits not a shred of animus towards the subject. Hardly harassment. The page self-evidently does not conform to the delete criteria of "pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" as Ms. Moore claims. As far as I know there's no proscription on editors creating or contributing to articles about people they dislike or disagree with. On the other hand, if Ms. Moore's MfD were based on her non-notability, I'd probably vote delete—she doesn't appear to be notable as an activist or anything else. Writegeist (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no more notable than when it was deleted and Sitush was well aware of that AfD. So it's clear that his motivation was hostile. Superior distain might describe it better than hate. We must be more careful with our words. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. What is clear is that Sitush thinks you're sufficiently notable for a BLP (which is rather complimentary). Your MfD proposal alleges the draft BLP is an attack page that disparages, threatens, intimidates or harasses you. Show me a single element of the page's content that attacks, disparages, threatens, intimidates or harasses you. You can't. Did you claim non-notability as the reason to delete? You did not. Also, noting Sitush's observation that "you are on record as regretting the previous deletion [so] I'm surprised that you are objecting now", and agreeing with the second part if the first part is correct. Nevertheless you'll get what you want this time around—enough comments have sidestepped the merits of the draft BLP and fallen for the BS that frames it here. Writegeist (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Draftspace @Carolmooredc: Carol I am having a hard time finding things wrong with the article, forget who drafted it there are policies we have in place to ensure that BLP articles are treated with the highest respect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I am amending my opinion to Delete per WP:GNG and below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it good enough to post?--Nowa (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is another question, I have amended my opinion that it should be moved to the neutral draftspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. What is a "neutral draftspace"?--Nowa (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than having it under userspace, draftspace invites more people to edit the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And per above, {{noindex}} can be added. I wouldn't oppose a draftspace with deletion from the user space.--Nowa (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutral draftspace" is the [[Draft:xxx]] space. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Nowa (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only way this could possibly any worse of an idea is if it were User:SPECIFICO/Carol Moore. This is plain intimidation and harassment, not an honest or legitimate attempt to write a biography, given the level of invective that Sitush has directed at the subject. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read the article? Eric Corbett 19:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; it is the simple fact that it exists, in any form, that is the problem. Creating BLPs on people that one is in dispute with is a tried and true tactic within this project, cf. Daniel Brandt. I have little doubt that the article..if it even survived an AfD...would eventually turn from its current benign bio into a platform for vandalism and attacks, as they invariably do. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draftspace – While Carol Moore's achieving WP notability is problematic, so far it looks like Sitush is whipping up an Ideological Turing Test. Quite interesting, given that Sitush simply does not like CarolMooreDC's personality and banter that we see on various talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a violation of WP:BLP#Importation of off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia, which refers to offwiki disputes, but having an onwiki dispute with someone obviously carries the same risk. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! My mind's so boggled I couldn't find that today!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CMDC is not going to pass WP:GNG. This is just taking a wiki-dispute into realms that it doesn't need to go. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nope, this isn't creepy at all. It certainly isn't creepy in context.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She doesn't seem likely to meet Wikipedia:Notability; the book is not widely known, the Nightline appearance was not indepth; and she wants it deleted. Given Sitush's relations with Carol, using Wikipedia to post biographical details does seem problematic. --GRuban (talk)
  • The book isn't widely known? I've already given four reviews by notable people. I've already expressed that the thing might end up being more suitably an article about the book than the author. Only time will tell but at least one of the current reviews is an academic journal. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator omitted to transclude this nomination on WP:MFD. I have just done that now. Hut 8.5 20:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hard to concentrate on doing things right under stress :-( Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carolmooredc Do you not use Twinkle for this sort of thing? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per multiple editors above, including SlimVirgin and MastCell, the editor who is preparing this article has a strong antipathy for its subject, and should not be editing the article in user space. Whether the article would pass AFD in mainspace is only indirectly related. It would be a stretch, but not much of a stretch, to request that it be speedied as an attack page. The author has made it just barely civil enough not to be an attack page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Book is not notable, therefore she's not notable and she certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. The rest of the article is just trivial facts. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's just another round of WP:HARASSment in a new form. The policy's lead describes Sitush's behavior: "repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." This recent action is an example of that lead's second, single-sentence paragraph: "Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." Lightbreather (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is more of a user conduct issue than a suitability-of-draft issue. I see poor behavior from everyone involved. Suggest moving this to draft space, and assurance that Carol Moore and Sitush will both keep their hands off - and this includes the talk page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... this userpage is very clearly an attempt to ratchet up the endless war between the subject of the proposed BLP and the article author, and thus is antithetical to everything the project should be about. It is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen; we don't want everyone's biggest and angriest opponents on Wikipedia to be writing new BLPs about their opponents - it really is, and will be, massively destructive. If I may quote RHaworth here, Sitush should kindly wait until someone with no COI finds Carol an appropriate topic to write about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the background to the creation of this draft, it seems entirely evident that the subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and accordingly no useful purpose can be served by keeping it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a favor to Sitush. I'll mention GNG to tick the boxes, but the fundamental problem is that CMDC has got under Sitush's skin, and the latter is reacting poorly. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unlikely to survive a move to mainspace due to GNG is just not there. No significant commentary outside of fringe ones or self-published. But more because this is not nice to Carol the editor. If someone wants to write this one, it really should be done offsite. Carol doesn't deserve this.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 03:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Mastcell. It is a bad idea to write a bio about someone with whom you have a dispute. If someone else creates the article, it may have trouble establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no overall opinion, nor sufficient experience with policy. However, I have read the article, started in the user's own space: it is almost totally neutral and well sourced. It seems to me that the subject does not meet WP:GNG, in which case the article should not be in the main space (which it is not, right now). I generally fail to see the point of this page. But I find SlimVirgin's reasoning not persuasive. As is mentioned in the page: "More generally, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all." It is evident that Sitush has done this. Kingsindian (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not typing the relevant bits out again but I encourage people to read the bits of this post that relate specifically to this proposed deletion. People are not doing their research here and they're stifling content creation on the (incorrect) premise that I'm incapable of writing neutrally or assessing notability. No-one has ever successfully accused me of POV; not one article created by me has ever been deleted. I write GA stuff; I do a phenomenal amount of POV cleaning etc.; I actively seek collaboration; I know what I'm doing when it comes to content creation. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the draft is neutral so far but can anyone guarantee me that the draft will be neutral after the Mfd is closed as keep? Since Sitush has been in conflict with the subject at multiple occasion (even here in this MfD), I'm afraid that Sitush may add stuffs in the draft that may harass the subject if the MfD is closed as keep. Although I believe Sitush can write neutral articles but since he has prior rivalry with the subject, I can't trust him. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another person basing their !vote on what might happen. Have faith in our systems, which include the right on anyone (except CMDC) to directly edit the article/fix any problem in it etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I can't see anyone here who has come up with a good faith policy-compliant reason to delete. All I am seeing are accusations of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims (especially those of CMDC herself, who says that even the extant, part-complete version has errors but seems unwilling to divulge what they are). - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Carter - Public - You seem to be following others votes and providing no policy backed reason. Take my advice, it is better if you learn to spell harass while you are at it. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well just when I thought the comments by CMDC and some of the delete peeps had reached the outer limits of detachment from reality, along comes a delete vote that's based on nothing more than a base speculation, unsupported by so much as a single instance taken from Sitush's edit history, that Sitush might "add stuffs" that might "harrass" CMDC if the MfD result is keep; and which, further, smears Sitush as untrustworthy, again without a single diff as evidence. And all this directed at an experienced and accomplished BLP editor who by their own account has never, ever, been found to have violated NPOV. Writegeist (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blademulti and Sitush:, you both don't have to judge !votes here. Leave it to the closing admin. BTW "Harrass" was a typo, Blademulti instead of asking others to learn something why don't you do your job? Jim Carter 11:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain about the job you are talking about, this time you couldn't spell my username(it is not Blademulti, it is Bladesmulti), you can blame it on a semi-bot program(Autowikibrowser) that you are using but the fault is only yours. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not a fault? You yourself typed "User::Jim Carter - Public" instead of "User:Jim Carter - Public". Don't ask others to do things perfectly until you yourself do it perfectly. Jim Carter 12:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one diff where I did it. You cannot even show. There was no error when I was writing names, you still got the ping. Better don't evade your problematic writing by falsely accusing others. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See this. And don't claim it was not done by you and by a ghost. BTW I haven't got the ping (ping not needed), this page is on my watchlist. Jim Carter 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Name still seem to be correct, unlike what you are doing. If I ask for the picture of your recent notifications, I will find the ping. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why we should delete article only because one user has problem with it? Also agree with the comment by Randykitty. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What a piece of crap. It's badly written, cobbling together bits and pieces of this and that about the subject in to an incoherent nothing. Worse, the COI element makes it impossible for Sitush to write from an NPOV point of view, and there is a clear-cut agenda underlying the article. Sitush has stepped waaaaay over the line here; this piece is designed to out, and to embarrass, serving as to display his overt hostility to another editor. Yet again, the community turns a blind eye to harassment of a female editor and fosters a climate hostile to all women editors. --Drmargi (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is badly written then improve it - I've already said that anyone can edit the thing. What you have to bear in mind is that this is a work in progress. You are yet another who has not given a policy-compliant reason to delete. And that you end with rhetoric about "yet again, the community turns a blind eye" doesn't help your argument. The very fact that this discussion exists shows that no eye has been turned. Perhaps I should nominate all the bios of other past and present female editors for deletion, just on the off-chance that at some point in the future they might become attack pages? And all male editors for the same reason, in reverse. And all politicians. Etc. It is nonsense, it really is. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you have seen User_talk:Sitush/Carol_Moore, haven't you? That explains why I stopped development. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious I don't like it approach. Thanks for the laugh Drmargi! Bladesmulti (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said Bladesmulti, you don't have to judge !votes. Jim Carter 11:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can judge them, its called discussion. Might be your first day in MFD, so first familiarize yourself with the appropriate guidelines, then reconsider before you derail a MFD discussion again. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bladesmulti you think this is a discussion?? huh?? I don't think so, this is looking like a combat zone instead. 12:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are alone with that one! Bladesmulti (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Jim Carter 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGF Would it be too much to ask that people here assume good faith?? I'm baffled by comments like "it's neutral now, but Sitush will make it an attack page as soon as this is over" and others like it. If you're really afraid of that, no need to say it out loud, just put the wretched thing on your watchlist and do something if somebody would indeed insert POV. Also, this is MfD, not AfD. Notability does not really play much of a role here. Perhaps if there was absolutely no case to be made for notability, but as Sitush says, previous AfDs were divided. And the current article lists no less than four (4) reviews of Moore's book. In the whole bloody mess above, nobody has been able to point to a single instance of POV in the draft. Please people, take a step back and take a deep breath. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear for those who may not know Sitush has followed me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages to cast aspersions for more than a year, to do so at the Gender Gap task force after he already stated he thought it should be closed down, to keep reverting my strike of an admitted erroneous talk page statement until I have to get an admin to get him to stop, to call me and “idiot”, to 7 or 8 times harass me cause I started a subsection in a lengthy thread, to say I’m spewing verbal diarrhea for quoting his opposition to the gender gap task force in a relevant forum, to harass me claiming a typical BLPN notice of relevant RSN discussion is forum shopping, to write at the task force page “This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present.” and calls me a “goading prat." (Redacted) - as he has revealed himself to be - harasses me. DO people find that OK? And what do we think of Cambridge now?? [Later note: Sitush said the link to the diffs that prove my point are canvassing so I removed the link. Would you like me to copy all the links at the ANI to your your user page? I keep them in a text file anyway, just have to update it a bit.] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion here is about User:Sitush/Carol Moore, so please stick to the point. Please explain to us what is wrong with that draft. If serious, we'll act upon it. If nothing, then please move to end this discussion. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The draft could be discussed rationally and there would be no need for a discussion here if it's purpose was to create an article that would survive a second AfD. This article would not because that is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to harass me, waste my time, and obviously it ends up wasting a lot of peoples time. (Redacted) is being a big old time waster. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be congenitally incapable of telling the truth, but rather good at fantasising and rabble rousing. How can you possibly know the purpose of the article, and how can articles have purposes anyway? Eric Corbett 13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. You cast them about continuously with no diffs to prove your point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They can understand your battleground approach. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ask Sitush if it can be moved to Draft Space to encourage more collaboration and reduce animosity. I find it very hard to see good faith in Carol Moore's actions wrt this page and find no policy reason to support a delete on the proposed grounds. SPACKlick (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Writegeist, Randykitty, Gaijin42. Carol, the end product may be a perfectly neutral article on you in mainspace. What is wrong w/ that? (Are you ambivalent about that, pro, or con? And why? Just curious.) It could have spill-over effect of increasing respect between you and those you deem as "attackers", via normal discussion/collaboration to reach said neutrality. In fact Sitush has already solicited your inputs and awaits them to rectify inaccuracies. There is potential for a very collegial end to this madness, if the guns can first be lowered. (Just a thought.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the product of a campaign of harassment. It is hard to see this as anything but a blatant act of intimidation from an editor who has a grudge against his subject. It's really creepy that Sitush would decide to draft an article for Carol right after she warned him for hounding her. In this edit Sitush even outlines the various defamatory claims that he may or may not include in his biography of her. gobonobo + c 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious I don't like it approach. Very one sided too. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bladesmulti, please stop harassing editors whose !votes you disagree with. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. gobonobo + c 16:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 votes I replied, don't you think that we had enough misrepresentation of harass(since original poster) over here? Bladesmulti (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't have any particular inclination to lean Keep or Delete on this one - if the subject is notable, or has become more notable since the last AFD (and I make no claims on that score), then an article is indeed appropriate. But on what planet does it seem like a good idea to draft an article about an editor with whom you are in an ongoing dispute? Even if the article is sound, it creates the appearance of bias, and that brings everything else into question. It would be better for all concerned if someone else wrote this article - and you may be assured that, if she is indeed notable, someone else would. But creating this article, on this subject, right after being accused of hounding that subject? I think it shows, at best, an exceptional level of bad judgement. At worst, it is a continuation of hounding behavior for which the author has already been warned. So, Delete per WP:COI (existing dispute between author and subject) and WP:N (No credible claim of notability, No argument that the subject is more notable now than during last AFD). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, an aside - User:Bladesmulti, when you're dismissing other editors' statements as laughable (as here), you're not doing anything to further your point. You're just badgering. If you really want to AGF on this issue, I'd suggest that you AGF that whichever admin gets stuck closing this can tell which responses are IDONTLIKEIT and which are not. Quite honestly, your conduct here on this MFD did more to convince me that the article was tainted, and that the arguments based on WP:HOUND had merit, than anything Sitush has said. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ultraexactzz, your are making the assumption that there is validity to the claim of hounding. As Carolmooredc is demonstrating almost by the minute at the moment, the likelihood of that being the case is slim. All I am doing is responding to her accusations. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, but that's exactly my point. I'm not saying you're hounding her (and I'm not saying you're not). What I'm saying is that a dispute exists between you and the article subject. Put another way, if someone sued me for harassment, I'd have a COI with regard to that individual even if their claims were shown to be baseless. It would not be proper for me to write an article about them, and to do so would be asking for trouble. I believe the same thinking applies here. I don't know whether there is impropriety or not - I'm saying that there is a rather obvious appearance of impropriety. And there seem to be editors who agree, judging by the comments here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ultraexactzz, have you read what I was replying to? As for AGF, we have already suggested before that it was better to talk about the this draft on its talk page. But the nominator hadn't. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a comment is actually laughable, it's a dick move to dismiss it with "thanks for the laugh." And I don't get your comment about AGF. Of course, to improve a draft article, discussion would be best held on the talk page. But that's not what we're discussing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's worse? Its when the other user dismisses this draft as "what a piece of crap". Thus I disagree. You have already got that I was talking about the improvement of draft, and reason to delete, like Peridon has also pointed. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will editors please explain how outing is involved (was CM safely closeted before, or was her identity reasonably widely known?), what is a breach of BLP in the draft article, and what the sex of the combatants has to do with things? I see a lot of 'I don't like it' and 'one shouldn't write about other Wikipedians' with no specifics mentioned or references given to actual rules or even guidelines. I made two points about things in the draft somewhere above. Can we have a bit more reviewing with proper points and less name calling from any of the various sides currently involved? Peridon (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peridon: the biggest BLP issue here is WP:BLPFIGHT. These two users have a long history of animosity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what does the draft contain that makes it deletable? Is there any trace of possible disrespect IN it? Anything APART from the name of the author? I'm not taking intentions into account - both bad and good intentions can lead to good and bad results. I'm getting inclined to join the 'move it to draft space' group, and possibly suggest a hopefully voluntary undertaking by the two main combatants to leave it alone. I'm sure that there are enough people here who can do anything needed to sort out anything that needs sorting, and then ask someone not involved here (like JohnCD, Boing! said Zebedee, Thryduulf - or a committee of like people noted for fairness and the rule of law) to review it. It would save a lot more shit being flung. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to draft while sources are found. The involvement with the Beatles and the women's rights movement of the 1960s may suggest further sources (eg: old newspapers and magazines) could be found to cement notability. I don't worry over who wrote what, and neither should you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, Ritchie333 what involvement with the Beatles are you talking about? Does the article suggest a profoundly notable connection that I've missed?__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Carol was the mysterious 38th beatle, which can easily be added here under the Mitch Benn paragraph.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can get the opinion of Wikiproject The Beatles about what kind of sources we could track down for someone who attended two Beatles concerts in 1964. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've been quoted in both a book (repeatedly) and a magazine article (once) on my seeing the beatles. I made a youtube video about it too. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about The Beatles would be trivial if it were not for the fact that the article subject notes it as a defining moment for her and, yes, links it to some sort of heightened awareness of feminist issues (I'm very roughly paraphrasing here). Carolmooredc is correct to say that there are several references to it, including on some websites (not hers) that may well have copied verbatim from the book. The feminist angle itself, as Ritchie333 notes, may lead somewhere and really put that defining moment into perspective. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's a defining moment for her, that does not convince me it's not trivial to an encyclopaedia, and it doesn't rate anywhere on any Richter scale for notable criticism involving the Beatles. I don't think this soup has any vegetables in it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draftspace I will be blunt; when I came to this page, I was expecting to vote delete, given all the shit flying around at Sitush's talk page. I then read the article, and I don't seem to be finding much problematic material. It needs work, sure, especially the reams of quotation, which I am not a fan of. But this does not make it an attack piece. If the one quote from Kelly were struck, there would be basically no overtly negative material at all. That said, given the size of the confrontation going on between these two, I don't think having this in Sitush's userspace is remotely a good idea. NPOV and all that jazz. So, move. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space - oh, the hypocrisy! St★lwart111 01:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see two problems. (1) Two previous articles on Carol Moore have been deleted for WP:GNG reasons. Has any new material emerged to suggest that she now meets the criteria? (2) If this person is to have a wikipedia article, it should be not be written or worked on by someone with whom she has had an extended conflict on wikipedia, and who she believes is hounding her. In fact this person should be topic-banned from such an article. It doesn't even matter if it's NPOV, the perception of harassment/hounding is what matters here. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) would be a matter for WP:DRV if the article creator wants to argue that previous AFD results should be overturned so that the article can be recreated on the basis of new information. This discussion is about a draft article in user space.
(2) applies to most WP regulars. CMDC is an aggressive and polarising figure. Topic-banning those who happen to have fallen on one side of that polarisation is system-gaming at its worst. We don't topic-ban Democrats from editing the articles of Republicans, nor Protestants those of Catholics. St★lwart111 03:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Must be those four planets in leo of mine, just give me a BIG personality which comes through in my writing and is more than some can take. :-) But seriously, I don't know what/which the heck political/religious/ideological differences you are talking about here and I've been involved. So others must be even more mystified. Please explain. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a metaphor for the extent to which your previous hostility toward others has been polarising. St★lwart111 04:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Past AfDs indicate unlikely to survive as an article, so there's no purpose in keeping a draft around (here or in draft space). Others above have addressed the merits of notability. Even if there is some notability, it would have to be enough to defeat the preference in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE of complying with subjects' requests for deletion. Even if you presume—which I do not—that the harassment claim is simply a tactical complaint, we're still well within deletion territory. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh gods the drama. And no, I don't see the notability. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to draft space if that is consensus. I've got doubts whether the subject is notable, considering the publisher of her book is hardly mainline (22 books published between 1990 and 2008), and the organizations she's associated with are extremely fringey. Still, this page appears to be a credible attempt at creating an article about the subject, and notability can be determined if and when it is moved into mainspace. BMK (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would I be correct in saying that GNG does not apply to the userspace, and so if it is found that there are no concerns over BLP and COI, then Sitush is free to fill his userspace with absolutely anything he likes? And therefore, notability is not a reason to delete in this case? Heck, I've started things in my userspace (not BLPs) that had no sources; should all those be deleted, too? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. Notability doesn't apply directly, but it does apply to a finished article about this subject, if and when. Whether or not the subject is notable is relevant to defining this as either a draft article or a userspace page in the form of an article that talks about a non-notable wikipedian with whom the author is in dispute. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability should play no role in user space. The article reads factual, even mentioning praise of the subject in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let's just pretend this is a preemptive AfD challenge and a GNG failure. Not the person to be writing this bio. Carrite (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article does not meet GNG, it appears to be improper use of user space (or other wikipdia space) due to interpersonal conflict. The author may, of course, blog about the subject on another internet domain but should not import that conflict on the subject matter to this domain per NOT and biodeleterequest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete I thought it was a good move for Sitush to move the page to Draft:Carol Moore and state he would stay away from it. That’s fine. It has a “no index” tag and other editors can work on it to see if it is worth posting. But now I see that CarolMooredc and Sitush are already edit warring over it. It’s time to pull the plug.--Nowa (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? What edit war? Far as I can see, neither Sitush nor Carolmoredc are edit warring. All Carol did was put in a link to this MfD that got broken because of the move to Draft space. Can you please explain why you think this is edit warring? --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've written hundreds of biographical articles. I took a quick swipe at writing this like a REAL ARTICLE, without the fluff and baloney, though I left a little bit because there would be so little otherwise. Here is the diff [9], because I assume warring over it will continue.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lipstick on a pig is what the move to draftspace does, and now we have a handy list of dig up dirt on the subject guide right o nthe talk page. Someone needs to step up soon and delete this, then remove Sitush from the project. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though migration to Draft: space is advisable, despite many precedents being set for development of drafts in User: space. Until the Draft: namespace became available many good editors used their own user space. The draft is well balanced, well sourced and neutral. Moore seems to meet WP:BIO. Fiddle Faddle 12:45, 18 September 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sitush/Carol_Moore&oldid=1151017984"