Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Shaheen


 * 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 snowball delete as an attack page. Max Semenik (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Shaheen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As I noted in my speedy rationale, which was removed, this is pretty straightforwardly an attack page. Shaheen is not notable and the only source in the article is an unreliable hit piece. This should be fast-tracked to the dustbin as an obvious G10. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment-well its not a outright attack page, but I'm not sure if the guy is notable or not-I would have to look more into it. Wgolf (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Shaheen is notable. He was the United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire. That makes him notable. Beyond this the fact that Shaheen was the owner of a pawn shop with his co-owner going to jail is notable. It is just that the person making this nomination is seeking to keep these truths from coming to light. This is the same person who violated canvassing rules in an attempt to stop the Manhattan Declaration from being described as the religious freedom related document that its creators framed it as and intended it to be. The fact that his speedy nomination was removed by someone other than the creator of the article should have caused him to pause in his attempt to suppress truth. What is extremely suspect is how quick this editor is to sanitize of true statements articles on Shaheen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you feel the BLP policy is an infringement on your religious freedom, but if so, your problem is not just with this article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious and overt attack page, linking him to the criminal conviction of his brother in law, using an article as the only source which states "The Shaheens were never charged or connected to the crimes." Enough said. It is repulsive and repugnant to base a BLP violating attack page on thin soup like this. If this man is notable, then write a well-referenced biography that gives an NPOV overview of his whole life and career. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been significantly expanded with multiple additional sources and more information included in the article than existed at the time it was nominated for deletion or the last comment was made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The added sources only serve to further demonstrate that this individual is not notable. There must be a term for a reverse COATRACK, but I can't think of it right now - but what I'm saying is, all of this trivial material about his being the chair of a local primary committee and whatnot, you'd never have bothered to find it if you weren't desperately trying to fabricate a scandal about J. Shaheen. It's transparent and ridiculous. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, you have ignored warnings about your BLP violations, and doubled down by expanding your hit piece, continuing your attack on a living person using cherry-picked sources selected to paint this living person in the worst possible light. Truly disgusting. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a totally unfair characterization of the sources I have used. The sources are not cherry picked. They are the top sources I have come up with in a google search for Bill Shaheen. There is nothing cherry picked about the sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you well know, a simple Google search in the age of rumormongering, tabloid journalism, and click bait garbage, will highlight the sensationalistic. Have you ever heard of the basic concept of editorial judgment? That means looking for sources that provide in-depth biographical detail, context, and historical perspective. What you have created is an ugly mashup of tabloid rumor mongering. You would rightly be outraged if these tactics were used to besmirch someone you respected. For shame! Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet if I make an article mainly focused around in-depth sources that give adequate and balanced biographies of people it gets nominated for deletion because the sources are not "independent" by a set of criteria that seem to ever expand what is not independent. The fact of the matter is that Bill Shaheen passes the general notability requirement. He has recieved coverage in many sources. Deletion is not the place to discuss the quality of an article, only the notability of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When you write a stunningly poorly referenced partisan hit piece masquerading as a biographical encyclopedia article, then the attack MUST be deleted under WP:G10. If the person is notable, then a neutral biography can be written at another time by editors without axes to grind. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attack page. He may be notable, but we'd need to start from scratch. Calidum T&#124;C 05:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attack page. With the attack items now gone there is nothing notable left.45sixtyone (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.