Carl Freer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting that the closure of the discussion for the deletion of article Carl Freer from December 2013 be overturned and allowed to run for a better consensus to be reached in the discussion. I have previously discussed this with the closing administrator who advised that I come here.

The page was recommended for deletion in December 2013. I made the recommendation as the article is a BLP that appears to be an attack page. The subject of the article is mentioned as being involved in a failed business and also lists alleged criminal activity. Although I have made edits to the page in an attempt to make it more neutral, I still feel that the only notability for the subject would fall under WP:CRIME, and that he falls way short of that guideline. While WP:GNG could be considered, there is not substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. There are 2 articles that seem to meet reliable source guidelines, but being accused of fraud and having 2 articles about it wouldn’t really meet notability. Assuming this person came out and admitted that they did everything stated in the article, I still do not believe in my opinion that he would meet notability guidelines.

That aside, after recommending the article for deletion, I see that it was previously recommended for deletion in May 2008 with the result of the discussion as no consensus. A link to that discussion can be found here. After reading that discussion, I see that there are neutral point of view issues with this BLP all the way back then. The talk page also shows a good history of such.

The deletion discussion from 2013 which can be found here was originally relisted after 10 days as there were no votes. Then on the 2rd of January, a keep vote was provided by User:Universaladdress. This user has a history of pushing a negative agenda on the page which I will not detail here but you can see on the talk page and edit history. Then, there were two keep votes with one stating “I came to Wikipedia to look the guy up” and another that states “per Universaladdress.” Neither would be rationale for keeping the article and the first vote was from a user whose only contribution was to the deletion discussion. Another keep vote followed by a user who stated “as the two above me have given no reason at all for Keep I will……It is within the criterias for WP:GNG.

This article is attached to three other articles which appear to be used as attack pages. The first is Tiger Telematics which was the parent company to a video game (the second article) called Gizmondo. The third page is for Stefan Eriksson who was also a board member of Tiger Telematics.

I planned to leave additional rationale or request additional information from users about their rationale; however, the discussion was closed as keep a day after the final vote was made. So, the first 7 days there was no discussion at all. It was relisted on the 31st and closed on the 4th with only 5 days of discussion, and a day after 4 keep votes came back to back to back. When I logged in to leave a comment, I saw that it was closed.

I have asked for a review from the BLP noticeboard and there was 1 editor who stated that they agreed with some edits made to the article. However, there was no other discussion on the noticeboard about the BLP violation that I believe the article is. I also made a request on the neutral noticeboard with no one responding to that request.

As much as I respect the process of deletion closure, I feel that the consensus of the deletion discussion was not interpreted properly as that was not enough reasoning other than votes (2 without rationale, 1 with a wrong interpretation of WP:CRIME, and 1 that would count even though I don’t agree with). I realize that just because I disagree with the rationale in the discussion does not mean that this could be overturned. I would ask that it be reopened for discussion as I feel that there was not enough information for the closer to make an appropriate clear keep decision of the article.

I would ask in the least that the article be reopened for additional discussion in order to reach a more clear consensus. I apologize for such a long writing but wanted to make sure that I provided as much information as possible. I also apologize if I am in the wrong place to request this be done. If I am, please kindly point me to the correct board where I can make this request.--JakenBox (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're in the right place, but I think the consensus in the discussion was clear, and in my view it was based on policy. Our BLP rules say we're to remove unsourced negative material about living people. They don't say we should delete articles about living people. They don't say we should remove well-sourced negative material about living people.

  We also have a rule about attack pages, which is at WP:G10. Among other things, G10 empowers our sysops to delete unsourced pages that disparage their subject. This page does disparage its subject, but it's well-sourced. I think this guy deserves his Wikipedia biography, and I'm not minded to protect him. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I tend to agree with Marshall. It seems that the sources are accurate and therefore worthy of inclusion. If anyone could provide reasoning behind the sources being invalid, unreliable, or otherwise just not worthy I'd consider it further of course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Any other closure would have been perverse. The requester is free to relist the article if he still feels it should be deleted. ✄ (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because the consensus was to keep but there is a stronger case for this being an attack page than S.Marshall suggests, albeit not a speedy-deletable one. WP:Attack page, a policy, does not seem to demand lack of sourcing before a page can be treated as an attack. In particular it says

"If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person".

So, depending on people's opinions of the article and its prior versions, there could have been a policy-based decision to delete. I suspect the discrepancy between the policy and the G10 criterion is a mistake. Thincat (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, yeah, that does look like an error in WP:Attack page.—S Marshall T/C 21:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus and applicable policy. If anything, this article is unfairly favorable to its subject; it looks to me like the claim he won a judgment against Patton Boggs for defamation is incorrect; the cited sources seem to say only that an order throwing his case out was reversed; the case itself apparently is still pending. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you and additional - Sorry for the delayed response. I wanted to let the discussion run a little bit before chiming in with my 2 cents. This is kind of long winded, but hopefully addresses everything that has been discussed here over the last couple of days.

The article states that Tiger Telematics Inc was a Swedish company. If that was the case, it would be denoted as “AB” and not “Inc.” Inc. would indicate it was a U.S. company. The article states that the subject was convicted of fraud. I do not see anywhere in any of the references where it states that he was convicted of fraud. I cannot see the piece from The Times as it requires a subscription. It would be nice to see what it actually says if someone has access to it. The L.A. Times reference does not state that the subject was convicted. The word “convicted” is only used in connection with a subject by the name of Stefan Erikson who also has a Wikipedia page. The L.A. Times piece states that Freer was “sentenced” but does not state anything about being tried or convicted. I am not sure how German courts work, but regardless, stating he was “convicted” is drawing a conclusion from a reference and not stating what the reference actually says. It also says that they “suspected” him several times over the last decade, but that he was “never charged.” The 3rd citation from Eurogamer doesn’t state anything about criminal charges or fraud so not sure why it is being used as a citation for that content. Reference 12 uses the word “found” in regards to searching the subject’s home, but the Wikipedia article uses the term “raided.” Not sure where raided came from and again it is being used to draw the subject in more of a negative light.

The Wikipedia article also states that Freer and Erikson were “business partners.” There is nothing in any reference that states that they are business partners. The original reference used an SEC filing showing that they were both on the board of directors. This is again drawing a conclusion. Are all people on a board considered business “partners?” This is trying to lump these two together as hardened criminals.

As far as an attack page goes, I believe that it fits the definition. What I was hoping to comment about on the last deletion discussion is how it would not fit the definition of WP:CRIME. For him to meet the guidelines, his “criminal” activity would have to leave a lasting impression. First, there is nothing I see that says he was ever convicted of a crime. If he was convicted of the crime that it states in the article, then how would such activity meet the threshold of a lasting impression. I see that there was an argument that he meets WP:GNG, but that would mean that anyone who is ever convicted of fraud and has an article about them in the L.A. Times would meet WP:CRIME and WP:GNG. I just don’t see how that is. I don’t see how deleting his page is “protecting” him. If he did wrong, then let’s compare it to WP:GNG and WP:CRIME and see if he meets the threshold. I do not believe that it does.

For WP:CRIME, it also states that “a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there “is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.”” Well, at this time there are 2 such articles (Tiger Telematics & Gizmondo). Much of the information in the article about this subject is about both of those. In fact, stating that the Gizmondo is the “worse selling handheld game of all time” is a great statement, but for the article about Gizmondo, not Freer or Erikkson.

Sorry to ramble on. I guess I just see that there are currently 4 articles that are intertwined about the same thing, a company that went out of business. Obviously there are some pissed off investors and there will be whenever a company does not succeed and profit. I just don’t see using Wikipedia as a sounding board for them or whoever else wants to put up information on this guy.

So, to sum up this long story above, I am just asking that the deletion discussion be opened back up. I would send it to deletion discussion for a 3rd time, but fear that I will be chastised as disrupting Wikipedia. If someone else here is willing to do that, I would gladly go on and discuss the information I presented above. If at least the 2nd nomination can be opened up so that there can be a more thorough discussion, I would welcome that as well. Sorry for the essay, just trying to get everything out there.--JakenBox (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Renominate. I think now that attention has been called to it the article will be deleted at afd2 , but it will be at afd2, not here. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with a vote of 4 keeps to 1 delete (the nominator), the closing admin would have no choice but to close it as keep. There's no reason it couldn't be renominated, but with a unanimous vote just a couple of months ago I question if there's any realistic chance of a different result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Parchman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed too soon--consensus not yet established. The discussion was relisted and then closed without additional comment less than 12 hours after relisted with both Keep and Delete positions in active discussion. Asked closing editor to reconsider here. All I'm asking is for the AFD relisting to run its course. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an interesting one. I saw this earlier when I was looking at AfD and raised an eyebrow; far as I can see the sequence of events was that Slakr relisted it and then Daniel deleted it. It's unusual, but as far as I can see, not actually irregular. I can see no evidence that Daniel is aware of this issue as yet, so I'd like to reserve my position until Daniel has had a chance to consider what you say on his talk page.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think there was any bad faith involved on the part of User:Daniel, I just think it was procedurally incorrect. Something I've been guilty of many times myself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of scope of DRV. "Deletion Review should not be used:... when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination". Most people are not on Wikipedia every hour of the day and waiting under 5 hours for a reply, during which time the closer has not edited, is not an attempt to "discuss" the matter, it's a box-tick. ✄ (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Paul, not sure that 5 hours is sufficient for "[asking] closing editor to reconsider". I'm happy to undelete and reopen the debate per your comments on the procedural issue (if someone else could do it on my behalf, that'd be great, I'm on some very slow internet at the moment and page loading is a bit of a chore); I will note however that coming here such a short period of time after posting on my talk page isn't the best course of action, as noted by those above. But, on the matter at hand, if someone can undelete and reopen on my behalf, that'd be great. Thanks all. Regards, Daniel (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment let me get this straight because I'm confused: I made a mistake by opening a DRV too soon after you closed an AFD too soon? I believe it's reasonable to begin the DRV fairly quickly in this case, and I don't think your move was in bad faith. Discussion is not a requirement for starting DRV, and I saw this more as procedural than anything else so I didn't see the need. May I apologize and move on?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, discussion is a requirement for starting DRV, unless there is a substantial reason not to do so. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quote from WP:DRV: "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page." Clearly not a "requirement" but certainly suggested.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ugh, I'll take responsibility for that. When we discussed this in... what, 2009? 2010? I was very much against making it mandatory to consult with the closer. I didn't want the closer to be the gatekeeper for DRV----I felt that some newer users, in particular, might find sysops to be quite intimidating figures and might be put off by the need to ask them, and the process for starting a DRV is arcane and confusing to the uninitiated even without any extra procedures of this kind. I wanted to set the bar low. Stifle's view has always been that it's better to keep things low-key and wherever possible the closer should have the opportunity to correct any mistake or consider any point raised without the need for a formal procedure like DRV. I think we'd agree with each other that an inexperienced user could be forgiven for not speaking to the closer at all, but for an experienced user it's a matter of etiquette. How long to leave it for the closer to reply is a judgment call, and this might perhaps have been just a tad quick off the mark.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, apart from the procedural issues with this DRV as noted above (which are very poor form), most of the Keep votes except that of Paul McDonald were conditional, noting that the subject would be notable if they played in a particular league, but a reading of the comments shows that this was far from certain for most participants. I'd have closed as no consensus, but Delete also seems reasonable under the circumstances. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse - one admin thought it might be helpful to relist, another was able to determine consensus without further commentary. Nothing really wrong with that. The reality is that the article's creators failed in their burden to establish notability and a couple of people were willing to provisionally keep the article if notability could be established. That's not really the way it works anyway. We don't create articles and then later see if we can find sources to substantiate their existence. The close was fine but I imagine even the closer would agree that if sources can be found to substantiate notability in the future (by whatever standard) there would be nothing wrong with recreating the article. Stalwart111 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- most of the keep opinions were contingent on there actually being sources to verify the content of the articles. Since those sources never turned up it's reasonable to infer a consensus to delete. Reyk _YO! 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as reasonable, there was enough time. Encourage acceptance of the closers offer above to reopen to consider further opinion/information, although I'm not seeing further information being offered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn While I still think it was procedurally closed too soon after the resisting, it looks like the result is going to be the same.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Security Industry Specialists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, I would like to have the page Security Industry Specialists un-deleted. I created a minimal page to start with due to limited time, but C Fred killed the page before it had a chance to develop. SIS Inc. is a company that has been the subject of news coverage for its allegedly anti-union stance and its treatment of employees. Solarlive (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have not undeleted this because the content was solely a controversy section without any inline citations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not hard to find sources that talk about Security Industry Specialists' treatment of its employees. Quite a lot of sources. What strikes me pretty clearly, though, is that they're not sources about Security Industry Specialists. They're sources about Security Industry Specialists' attitude to its staff. It's going to be an intensely political topic, and a controversial one. In short, difficult. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's processes don't handle difficult subjects very well. Our processes try to produce simple outcomes, and I'm afraid that what we often get are simplistic outcomes.

  The simplistic outcome we're looking at here is really bureaucratic and unhelpful. At a technical level, C.Fred was correct to delete this as an A7 because the narrow, simplistic definition of A7 was met. So the correct outcome is "endorse". Whoopie doo, go DRV! Another triumph of helpfulness for our content creators!

  But I think we can do better than that. After thinking about this, I feel that what the sources are really about is the Service Employees International Union's campaign against Security Industry Specialists. Looking on SIS's website, I find they've got a whole page whining about how the unions are persecuting them, which is pretty good evidence that there's something going on that Wikipedia ought to cover. But SIS are not their employment policies, and they're not their labour relations problems, so we've got to find the right title for the article and it isn't Security Industry Specialists. Any article with the title Security Industry Specialists that actually reflects the sources would be hopelessly POV, because it would be about labour relations and not Security Industry Specialists. No compliant article can exist with that name.

  I'd be tempted to begin with a subheading under Service Employees International Union. We'd need to set up a redirect from Security Industry Specialists to the subheading, on the basis that Security Industry Specialists is a likely search term for someone looking for the controversy.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation. The deletion was valid, in a technical sense. The claims are referenced, but to offline sources which makes them difficult to verify (not impossible though, I can't imagine that articles in Business Insider and NPR are difficult to locate if you put a bit of effort in). That said I don't see why we shouldn't permit the recreation of the article, so long as it correctly identifies why the company is notable (per WP:CORP), and does not give undue attention to one particular aspect of their business, such as their HR policies. For whatever it's worth, I have a COI of sorts here in that I'm a lifelong trade unionist and proud of it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Responding to the two comments above. First, my concern was that the article did not correctly identify why the company is notable per WP:CORP, and that's why I deleted the article. The only proven assertion of significance is that they provide security for Google, and that's not enough; there were other allegations mentioned in the article, but they were just allegations. So, the article was headed down a slippery slope away from WP:NPOV. Also, I did locate the sources cited in the article and read them: they were substantially about the dispute and not the company itself. All that led to my decision to delete. So that others can see what I was working with, I've restored the history, though the title is the ((TempUndelete)) template.

I think S Marshall raises a valid point that the dispute that SIS is embroiled in may be the topic that better warrants coverage that SIS itself, kind of a corporate parallel of WP:BLP1E. I don't think there's enough in the article for a stand-alone article on the controversy, but mention in another article may be in order. I'm not sure the SEIU article is the best place for it, but that's my personal opinion; if other editors agree that's the best place, I'm open to restoring the history but leaving the page as a redirect; we've then got the history for the purpose of merging it into the article on SEIU, labor disputes in the US, or whatever place seems the best fit. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• allow re-creation. The argument above "that they're not sources about Security Industry Specialists. They're sources about Security Industry Specialists' attitude to its staff" is not relevant. If this is the notable thing about the company, it's appropriate content. There is no corporate parallel to BLP1E, and attempts to make one have been repeatedly defeated. That US law treats a corporation as a person for its own purposes, is not relevant to what we choose to do at WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation and listing at AfD or userfication. All fair comments above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The deletion was wrong, even in a technical sense, and I am surprised any experienced admin would think otherwise.. The indication of plausible significance need only be plausible, it does not have to be referenced, it does not have to be enough to support notability . notability is determined at AfD (or Prod), not at speedy. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn CSD and re-create. I don't want to dump on @C.Fred:, I'm sure the deletion was done in good faith. But, I agree that A7 doesn't apply: does not indicate why its subject is important or significant was not met. I'm not saying it's important or significant for sure, just that the article asserts this, which is enough to disarm A7. I do have some concerns that calling out a specific person by name might have WP:BLP implications, but that's another issue which can be easily dealt with editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]