User:MettaAnalysis/sandbox

Hi there! I’d like to request that the decision to delete the Lodro Rinzler entry be reconsidered and discussed further, ideally with additional input from users willing to evaluate the page’s history of content vandalism and conflicts of interest or who otherwise have experience with deletion requests from individuals accused of sexual misconduct. (My apologies in advance for any formatting or etiquette errors, as I'm extremely new to Wikipedia.) I've outlined some of the factors for consideration below:


 * Notability. This article was initially created by Mr. Rinzler’s assistant in 2015; in handling the request, user Finngall stated: “Based on a quick search for sources, Mr. Rinzler is probably notable enough to merit an article here. But it would be better if someone other than his own assistant wrote the article.” Mr. Rinzler received enough third-party coverage about him in real media to meet WP:GNG guidelines, and subsequent coverage of his allegations of sexual misconduct does not diminish (and perhaps increases) his notability, particularly among members of the public with an interest in Buddhism, Buddhist literature, Chögyam Trungpa, or the ongoing developments surrounding Sakyong Mipham and Shambhala Buddhism.
 * Vandalism and Conflicts of Interest. Although the talk page is currently inaccessible, the entry’s edit filter log shows repeated efforts to remove all information regarding the sourced allegations against Mr. Rinzler to the point where the page was protected for persistent disruptive editing. In December 2020, one such account that engaged in disruptive editing was flagged by multiple users for potentially failing to disclose a conflict of interest. On this point, it looks like wallyfromdilbert made several concerted attempts to resolve the issue and thus might be able to weigh in with additional clarity. Given the apparent continued general consensus among editors in support of preserving the sourced allegations, it seems that this broader context should have merited deeper interrogation when discussing deletion of the article, especially since the deletion was prompted at Mr. Rinzler’s request.
 * Right to Remember. As the Wikimedia Foundation states: “We believe in a Right to Remember. Everyone should have free access to relevant and neutral information of public concern; delisting and removing such content from the internet harms our collective ability to remember history and understand the world.” In this instance, deleting this page at the request of the subject is less an act of courtesy than of inadvertent complicity in suppressing information that could potentially be of value to individuals interested in purchasing Mr. Rinzler’s new book, his first following the cancellation of his previous book contract in the wake of the allegations against him. These allegations are of ongoing importance within the Buddhist community, as evidenced by their reference in a February 23, 2021 article published in Tricycle, one of the most prominent Buddhist print/digital outlets. (By way of comparison, one of the other figures in the aforementioned piece is Noah Levine, whose social media footprint is similar to Mr. Rinzler’s and whose Wikipedia entry preserves information about allegations made against him.) Of course, no one should presume Mr. Rinzler’s guilt—and his entry certainly did not, citing his denial—but nor should the allegations be uncritically and entirely omitted at the request of the alleged perpetrator; instead, users should have access to all relevant information and make an informed decision accordingly.

Thanks very much in advance for your consideration. MettaAnalysis (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)