Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Judy


 * 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 delete. (Closed early due to BLP concerns.) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cody Judy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, the only reliable coverage of this individual is in the context of an event 15 years ago.At best, he'd get a mention in a LDS article about the event (which I'm not convinced is that notable) but not a separate article (Which article I have no idea as it's not an area I know anything about). Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cameron here is obsessed with an LDS criteria. This article was just recently removed from under the control of the LDS Faith and promotion of the LDS Faith at the expense of a 'living person'. Cameron has been the biggest contributor to editing the article and eliminating important references. For those who are interested a libelous law suit has been given a 'NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ACTION' to Wikipedia, which apparently changed the criteria of the page to "a living person bio'. Not only has Cameron disregarded the Judical Branch of Governement, the Legislative Branch of Government Contributions of this individual as a matter of record, in the persons Bio, but given no credit to the many articles up to date on proceedings through print media,internet articles, and evan national TV. It is clear Cameron has an agenda to destroy the public works and information of this person which also includes an Autobiography published by iUniverse, and listed on "google book search" as an independent on line library. In reference to Wikipedia HOWARD W. HUNTER, not only is Cody Judy listed in his works, but Cody Judy has been the topic of many college articles and reports for LDS People, and wikipedia has been a terrific source for a consolidation of a large amount of material Cameron here wishes to delete. This is the Spirit contrary to Wikipedia policy as it seeks to educate, inform, and progressively maintain high standards that do not report 'Libelous' material about living persons, otherwise becoming subject to civil proceedings. Just about two weeks ago this article was given a biography status, and isn't it interesting that Cameron is the one who in seeing himself lose control of editing so much and so many times this article is now the one proposeing it be deleted.75.169.98.4 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC) — 75.169.98.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I'm an english atheist and have no connection to the LDS. The version I have reverted to is the last good version I can see in the history (not written by me, I came across the article yesterday) that meets our BLP standards. I can't make heads nor tails of the version the IP likes, and blogs and the like are not reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cameron, this isn't worth paying attention to. Let them rant and invent conspiracy theories. "Pfff" is enough. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well just so others can do the research intended for "high standards" of wiki, which you obviously haven't done in the time frame you just articulated..here's a version for others to consider. Please make specific what you can't make heads or tails of because every single sentence is pretty much backed up with references 75.169.98.4 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(note this is the IP's preferred version Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC) )


 * Delete. this is more or less the definition of a BLP1E case, and the version preferred by the IP above doesn't meet BLP, NPOV, or Verifiability. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * DELETE as per WP:BLP1E also suggest that 75.169.98.4 be blocked for making legal threats.Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - so warned -- B figura (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Tan has now blocked this IP for two weeks. The editor previously used a different IP, which was also blocked for making legal threats. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment To 75.169.98.4, please do not insert entire articles into a discussion on deletion. A simple link from the history will be just fine. Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a perfect example of why we have policies like WP:BLP1E. Nothing to suggest any real notability aside from one event. B figura  (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from being WP:BLP1E, the article seems to be some sort of soapbox for 75.169.98.4. –  j ak s mata  16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot say that this action makes anyone notable ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Mitt Romney go ahead and delete. Dealing with edits by the subject of the article Shortcut: WP:BLPEDIT In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.
 * Delete: not notable aside from this one incident - unfortunately for this gentleman (as I'm sure it has blighted his life), all other attention is predicated on the basis of "this is the nut who...." Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * delete as very much BLP1E. If there was any coverage of his running for election in in non-trivial reliable sources I might change my mind. But the altercation that is the primary matter seems like textbook BLP1E. Nor is the event noteworthy enough to have its own article not focusing on Cody Judy but the incident. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. I have a hazy memory of when the event happened, it being a kind of big deal, but that's not enough to overcome the BLP issues. Unit  Anode  21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as one event. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this article is deleted, should it also be WP:SALTed, given the recent "persistent editing" of the article? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and salt. The !votes so far look like WP:SNOW to me. Outside of the WP:BLP1E itself, I'm not seeing that the guy's done anything except spend money on a few odd hobbies (self-publishing a book, running for office, etc.). Just for your future reference, User:75.169.98.4: having a book published by iUniverse (i.e., self-publishing) does not contribute towards anyone's notability. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this may be an attempt by the subject of the article to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:

For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.

– Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)

75.169.188.7 (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) — 75.169.98.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Is it okay to erase a comment that's made by someone who's supposed to be under a two week block? I wouldn't mind.  Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I've gone and collapsed the wall of text below. It's still there if anyone needs to read it, but I don't feel that it contributes to the deletion discussion -- B figura (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for 75.169.188.7: are you saying that you are Cody Judy, and other editors should therefore show you leniency? –  j ak s mata  13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, are you the same person that previously edited this article under, , , , , &/or ? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: interesting IP activity also in the article. I've just reverted to an earlier version by Sarek, after some not so helpful edits, incl. an enormous amount of fluffy and irrelevant links, by 75.169.188.7. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per above commenters. Totally. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A nobody, it would seem, although the list of external links in an earlier version tries hard to provide Z-list celebrity by association in US fruitcake politics. I smell snowball. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (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.