Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Berlet (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Keep per WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. The fact that the subject requests deletion is not per se a reason to delete, as John254 points out. The article is well sourced, and many other users agree that it is not defamatory. Even if there are problems with PoV and sourcing (as Jossi points out), these could easily be fixed without deletion. Those arguing for deletion are merely comparing this to the Daniel Brandt case, which is apples and oranges — Brandt was borderline notable, but Berlet seems irrefutably notable per the sources. Overall, I feel that this should be closed now before it spirals even more out of control, as the consensus seems rather obvious. If this is in the wrong, please let me know; this was a rather WP:BOLD non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 04:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article has requested that this article be deleted. This is a pro forma nomination and I do not endorse deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I personally might lean toward deletion if the individual wants it, but as this person seems to meet notability guidelines my guess is this would be deemed out of process. For now I'll wait and see on the matter.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So this is essentially a rehash of Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano, but without the legal threats? We've been over and over this.  Enigma  message 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am Chip Berlet. The entry under Chip Berlet has, since it was created in 2004, been off and on a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information. It is currently biased and POV and fails the NPOV standard, much less BLP. It is currently under attack from conspiracy theorists and supporters of neofascist antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. Now being attacked are some entries where my work published in reputable journalistic and scholarly sources is being called unreliable and problematic. I have been trying to work within the Wiki guidelines on the entry Chip Berlet since December 2004. It is obvious that there is no interest in dealing with this ongoing problem and that Wikipedia's leadership ahs no solution to wikistalking and attacks by fanatics, which in my case has extended to a battle at Wiki quotes. Enough. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet. If it is appropriate for Dan Brandt, it is appropriate for me. Wikipedia has shown that it is unwilling or unable to enforce its own policies, and I have no faith that this will change in the near future. I have been through RFC's, Mediations, and Arbcom. It has been an utter waste of time. Please delete the entry Chip Berlet, and when that is accomplished. Please delete my user account. I have no interest in discussing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 July 2008
 * Keep -- Despite 's assertions to the contrary, the article is not primarily "a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information" that would require deletion pursuant to our biographies of living persons policy. The article is currently fully protected to prevent WP:BLP violations -- if some particular material is nonetheless problematic from a WP:BLP perspective, Cberlet should bring the problem to the attention of administrators, who will remedy the problem(s), if any are found to exist.  The significant coverage of Chip Berlet in the numerous third-party reliable sources cited in Chip_Berlet clearly establishes a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline -- we don't delete articles concerning clearly notable individuals solely because the subjects have requested such action. John254 22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that has not been substantively edited since January of this year, though  has been actively editing for the last six months.  If Cberlet really believed that a biography about himself was "a collection of biased, defamatory, and false information", then, having been aware of the existence of the biography for quite some time, he would have requested the deletion of this article well before today. John254 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per John254. Notable and verifiable.  Deleting would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. PubliusFL (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable per the significant coverage in reliable sources of him which is available. I cannot see how he could be described as a marginally notable person. Article has been fully protected since January when it was protected by Doc Glasgow, so I am struggling to see how it is currently under attack as described. I would also note that there does not seem to be much, if any, recent talk page discussion of ways the article should be improved. Have no problem with the article remaining protected indefinitely as there was pretty sustained problems before the protection was intoduced. Davewild (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am sure that there are a lot of people who would rather not be on Wikipedia. If they are notable, public figures then that is not their choice to make. This subject is journalist and a published author. I think that there is clear notability. Deletion seems to be a red herring. What is needed is to get the the article up to standard and remove any bias. We need to document the fact that he is controversial but we should not give his enemies an inappropriate soapbox. Are all the criticisms referenced to reliable sources or are they just people moaning on blogs? Are the book review quotes representative or are they cherry picked to give a bad impression? It would help if he would tell us what his specific objections are. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nominator isn't requesting deletion and is in fact nominating on another editors behalf. If Cberlet wants this article deleted there is absolutely nothing stopping them from nominating it. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that the article is fully protected and Cberlet is obviously not an admin... - auburn pilot   talk  22:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the article's talk page is for? A request could have been made there for the AfD tag to be added, Cberlet could then have nominated in the usual manner. RMHED (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of making the request on the talk page for the article, he made it on the talk page of an admin (Will Beback) with whom he had some acquaintance. In response, Will picked up his mop and tended to this administrative duty.  What's the big deal? JamesMLane t c 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy |Keep. Notability is a no-brainer, protection keeping attacks to minimum. No reason to delete. John254's comments are spot on. Minkythecat (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep, meets notability requirements, and the article looks neutral to my unrelated view. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The last time this went up for deletion, there was a loud clique screaming about how this was a bad-faith nomination and that the editor who did it deserved sanctions. It would be interesting to see which side those same people fall on this nomination. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A good portion of those people don't edit Wikipedia anymore.  Enigma  message 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously notable, based on the number of citations of other Wikipedia articles that cite this person. And what Dan Tobias said. Kelly  hi! 22:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt were deleted. Amerique dialectics 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasons for the deletion of those articles were ostensibly that the subjects' allegedly marginal notability, when coupled with the subjects' requests for deletion, justified the removal of the articles. Such a rationale is clearly inapplicable here, where Chip Berlet's notability is firmly established, and where Chip Berlet is an intentionally public figure. John254 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have asked the closing admin to reopen this discussion to allow an opportunity for those who believe the article should be deleted to be able to develop and present their perspectives. I see he has responded.  Risker (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. Couple dozen references, high visibility. Tan      39  23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously Mr. Berlet has the right to remove any allegedly libelous info that does not come from WP:RS. Meanwhile the page is protected. If he stops editing here, and editing the page, he probably will become less of a target over time. Wikipedia can't have a policy where high profile people - especially people whose views are frequently quoted in wikipedia articles - can just demand that non-libelous articles be removed. Carol Moore 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Keep per John254.  Enigma  message 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He's notable, even if he wants his page deleted. The references have me convinced. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable, regardless of what he now wants. This is an encyclopedia, not a voluntary personal information repository. People should be able to use Wikipedia to find out who Chip Berlet is and what work he has been involved with. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Chip Berlet and User:Amerique. Ripberger (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep While I understand that Chip is unhappy with the project and the direction it has taken, that isn't a valid reason to delete an article. Chip is a willing, public figure, and as such it is not reasonable that such an individual be able to opt out of having a Wikipedia article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is about time we as Wikipedians accept the responsibility that comes with success. If we cannot keep at bay the hordes of POV pushers that hide under the excuse of "it has been published in an RS so it must be cited", to misquote, misrepresent or otherwise edit articles to assassinate the character of living people, then we need to afford LPs the recourse to have their articles deleted or at a minimum stubified and monitored. It is about time that we develop a process to deal with  those editors that will use these excuses to slant articles in a way that portrays these living people in a biased light, forgetting that RS is not a magic word: NPOV is not attained by throwing a number of sources into a page. It requires diligence, respect, and effort to create a BLP that is indeed neutral in its presentation of the subject. There should not be any excuses for sloppy, malicious, and biased accounts of living people in our project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly read this article twice, spot-checked a half dozen references, and I don't see any sloppiness, maliciousness, or biased accounts in this article. It's unfortunate that published accounts have been of a negative quality; it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to ensure that BLP articles are "nice". If anyone is concerned that the article is overly negative, then they can discuss on the talk page and present alternative viewpoints from other significant sources. Tan      39  03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone is concerned - Are you? Because it seems that editors prefer to stay away from these articles and by default leaving them in the hands of others that may have huge axes to grind. Easy to say "others should fix it". What about you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Cberlet has spent years on Wikipedia vociferously insisting on his notability. The price of fame is not having 100% control over how your notability gets interpreted. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Chip Berlet's comment that this is similar to the Daniel Brandt situation -- a notable person who prefers not to have an article.  The Brandt article should have been kept, and so should this one be.  The improper deletion of the Brandt article, in the manifest absence of consensus and after more a dozen or so tries, shouldn't be a precedent for anything.  Of course, there are differences between the two -- Chip has contributed significantly to Wikipedia and has not engaged in off-Wiki harassment of editors.  It's unfortunate that we are, in effect, rewarding sociopathic behavior.  That factor makes this a difficult decision for me.  Nevertheless, I come down on the side of following our policies, and hoping that the Brandt fiasco remains an unfortunate aberration that isn't widely emulated.  (We have, after all, managed to keep the Don Murphy article.) JamesMLane t c 03:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:54, 26 July 2008 (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.