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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wines[edit]

Michael Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject of this article seems to fail WP:N, in that there are not multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject which discuss the subject in-depth. The only notable aspect of this biography is a matter of contention, and has been removed yet again, after being repeatedly removed as "scatological material". As I believe this is the only notable information on this subject, apart from a couple of sentences in a FAIR media release, and having failed to find any sources myself, I don't think there is clear notability of this subject. Russavia ^Dialogue 15:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Finally, someone wants to kill this thing instead of edit warring over it. Delete: non-notable, except for one incident which isn't really "notable" in any sensible way, and is arguably a BLP vio, and causes nothing but trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, but... The journalist is "marginally notable" or maybe "borderline notable", but rather than continually having to remove the gross BLP violations, it's better to delete. The incident constantly inserted is certainly not notable and should be deleted as well in the article the eXile. This is subject, of course, to recreating the article if something more notable happens to the guy. Idlewild101 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only real notable aspect of this person that I could find was this semen pie incident. Is it suitable for the eXile article? Yes, because it is absolutely notable for the eXile, and it is written in an NPOV way. To give you another example, on an article of an individual there was a very poorly sourced, "stated as fact" accusation that this individual made against another BLP; the accusation being that the other BLP is a paedophile. This was removed by myself, as it was a very clear BLP violation, but was later reworded and totally NPOV'ed and placed back into the article, as it indicative of the types of accusations this person made, and as the NPOV'ed text stated, it was unsubstantiated, wild, and there was absolutely no evidence to support it. So it is completely valid for that particular article, but if it were to be inserted into the article of the person who had this accusation levelled against them, it would be removed in a flash. And it is for this reason that I have just undone your revert on the eXile article, because it is a notable aspect of the eXile, and it is neutrally worded and sourced reliably; hence there is no BLP in that article. The only problem with this article which is at AFD is that this incident is really the only thing that gives this person notability due to it being covered in-depth by a range of reliable sources, so if that goes, the article needs to go also, and it is why this is now at AfD, as I made clear on the article talk page. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete I agree he's mainly notable through his relevance to other subjects. This would be not only the eXile's stunt but also any other subjects covered in some depth by secondary sources, such as his involvement in the Frankel/Kahane/CIA/PKI affair. dsol (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - nothing really notable, no major awards and it's not like he's the managing editor of the NYT fr33kman -s- 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clear WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT here, the latter being a BLP vio anyway, as per nom. A BLP shouldn't be allowed to exist simply because the subject had 15 negative minutes of fame. §FreeRangeFrog 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Heads of major units in the NY Times and other internationally known major papers are notable. not just the ed. in chief. . Whether he counts as one is not quite clear to me. We do not delete articles because people keep inserting inappropriate material--we can watch, and if necessary protect. The implications of deleting in such cases is that one troll can force us to remove an article. DGG (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I would agree with DGG (although I dispute that the material is inappropriate). The article was a stub previously, and is brief now. I don't think there are any "trolls" here - just people having an honest dispute about whether a factual event is Wikipedia material or not. Now the question is if Michael Wines is Wikipedia material. I feel that he is, but doesn't warrant a longer entry than this one. Richard Cooke (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I generally agree with DGG, with the same view of Richard that the material is appropriate. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. A notable person. Edit warring is not a reason for deletion, especially when the deletion nomination was made by one of the warriers.Biophys (talk)

Are there any secondary sources that mention him, aside from those relating to the pie attack, the FAIR criticism, or his self-authored Q&A? dsol (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to his career achievements, his postings, and the controversy you mention, his work has been cited numerous times by other authors [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His career achievements, controversies, the citations by others authors to his work, and his body of work itself, make him worthy of inclusion. High profile postions at one of the most influential media sources is a good foundation of notability, and his work puts him over the top. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Connolley. Offliner (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kepp per DGG, Biophys and ChildofMidnight. With the caveat of keeping in mind the usual BLP rules when editing the article. Dc76\^talk 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Meets WP:BIO. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would be nominating the NYT's former Moscow bureau chief for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should perhaps be noted that bureau chiefs aren't what they used to be... I don't think there are "bureaus" to be chiefed these days, but I agree this guy seems to be notable enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previous comments supporting retention. Frankly, I'm amazed. My first thought when I spotted the title of the article in question was, "This must be a different Michael Wines, because they obviously wouldn't be talking about the NYT correspondent." It seems to me the only reason we're here is because the ongoing dispute over controversial material has led to skewed perceptions of Mr. Wines' notability as a journalist. Cgingold (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2009 (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.