Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Rudolph Crew


 * 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure. Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Rudolph Crew

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a page about a non-notable person. It is extremely POV and is a hidden attack page of Rudy Giuliani. It is basically claiming that Giuliani is a racist. An article about a non-notable person that was only created just to place Giuliani in a bad light should not be here.-- Southern Texas  00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per CSD G10 only purpose is to attack Rudy Giuliani Change to Keep article has been edited so it is no longer an attack page on Giuliani TonyBallioni 14:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Parties are POV themselves Giuliani had a history before 2001. He took many actions that were of note. You need to keep in mind that some of his actions were controversial. Raising truths is not creating an attack page.
 * Giuliani did not appear out of thin air. You have a problem with critical comments by his former administrators.  If so, then raise your points on the Talk Page of the article.
 * The quotes that are upsetting to you are from established commerical newspapers.
 * Your actions are POV in and of themselves. Dogru144 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but wikipedia is not the attack Giuliani site. Its hard for me to imagine hating somebody enough that all you can do with you time is edit wikipedia to disparage the individual. This time you have gone to far. Everything you added to Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 was biased and luckily I was there to fix it everytime. This time you create an attack page hidden as an article about a non-notable person. You need to think about what you are doing here on wikipedia. Reading WP:NPOV will be a good start.-- Southern Texas  02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment; I have no opinion on the notability yet, but this plainly isn't an attack page. If we start deleting pages just because they contain sourced criticism of politicians we'll have to delete most politician articles on Wikipedia. Better start with Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Masaruemoto 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the attack on Giuliani, calling him a racist.-- Southern Texas  03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A sourced quote of this person saying ""I find [Giuliani's] policies to be so racist" isn't an attack, it's sourced criticism. Masaruemoto 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, User:Dogru144 is now Canvassing. This is against the wikipedia policy, WP:CANVASS.-- Southern Texas  03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work in two areas: (a) its discussion of Crew's relationship with Giuliani, which was much more complex than the article currently describes and (b) its discussion of Crew's career, which is deeper than his battle with Giuliani over school vouchers. But if, after the article is improved and better sourced, it still makes Giuliani look like a racist — well, you can't delete articles because of the way they reflect on other people. Note: I was contacted by Dogru144 and asked to "help defend" this article. I probably wouldn't have known about this AfD without Dogru144's comment, but his message hasn't influenced my opinion of this article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note, Southern Texas, that I brought WP:CANVASS to Dogru144's attention: User talk:Dogru144. I was also writing that I had been canvassed, but you posted your comment before me. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a google search and it appears that he is more notable than I thought. However in its present state I believe it is an attack page and so we must follow the guidelines for this type of page and it shall be deleted and rewritten as a NPOV stub.-- Southern Texas  03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., 'John Q. Doe is an imbecile'). These are sometimes called 'attack pages'. This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary (CSD G10)"
 * Comment You can't say on the one hand that Crew is notable and on the other that the article "serve[s] no purpose but to disparage" Giuliani. This article is not "entirely negative in tone and unsourced". If you're so bothered by the article's allegation of Giuliani's racism, delete the offensive sentence and withdraw this nomination. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see what happens. If Dogru removes the content I already pointed out and promises to write with a more neutral tone when he edits articles about Rudy Giuliani I will pull the nomination. I understand that it is hard to be neutral when writing about someone you hate so my advice is that maybe he shouldn't edit Giuliani articles. I dislike Hillary Clinton so I stay away from her pages.-- Southern Texas  03:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment When you say "If Dogru ... promises to write with a more neutral tone when he edits articles about Rudy Giuliani I will pull the nomination", it sounds like you're using this AfD as part of a larger agenda. Please read WP:POINT. If the two of you have POV problems, this isn't the appropriate forum to resolve them. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please directly address the controversial parts Where are the controversial parts? The parts that reflect on Giuliani and race are a minor part of the article. The main part deals with Crew's own education and work.

Really, I only created the page to write a bio on Rudy Crew. I happened to notice his comments on Giuliani. He actually criticized Giuliani on the latter's character, not only on the race issue.

I think that the opposing editors should just edit the article itself, raise your points on the Talk Page, or communicate with an editor that has supposedly written controversial edits. Just because there is something negative on Giuliani does not mean that the edits are done in an unprofessional or libelous manner. Dogru144 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Crew was a major figure in NYC's school system in the 1990s. Without question, he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.  --Eleemosynary 04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I just deleted the section that discussed Crew's allegations concerning Giuliani's views concerning race and class. In such a short article, they were clearly given WP:UNDUE weight, especially when one sentence had a heading of its own. Southern Texas, you seem to agree that Crew is notable. Please consider whether you still think that the article, with a promise of future improvements, is "an article about a non-notable person that was only created just to place Giuliani in a bad light", and think about withdrawing this nomination. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Public figure, holder of a significant official post, involved in notable controversy. Could use some trimming, though. Do we really need to know that his father was a stern taskmaster?  It seems that some editors have gone overboard to demonstrate that it isn't a coatrack to hang criticism of Giuliani on. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't look like an attack page in its current state, and wasn't much of an attack page when the nom posted this.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep; I suspected this was a bad faith nomination when I made my earlier comment, after noticing the nom had been involved in content disputes with other editors (where he had been removing sourced criticisms of Giuliani from articles). But Southern Texas's above comment; "If Dogru removes the content I already pointed out and promises to write with a more neutral tone when he edits articles about Rudy Giuliani I will pull the nomination" is unacceptable, and an abuse of AFD. AFD should not be used to win a content dispute, so this should be closed. (Also, this person is clearly notable, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources about him.) Masaruemoto 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep A noted school administrator who has run two of the nation's largest public school systems, including the nation's largest, in NYC. This search for "Rudy Crew" in The New York Times archive found 1,645 articles, though I must admit that there are a few duplicates. Any genuine POV issues should be addressed by editing or applying appropriate tags, not by AfD. There are more than enough reliable and verifiable sources to support an article that clearly passes the Notability standard. Alansohn 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously, the motivation for this nomination was not a good-faith belief that the subject was nonnotable.  The real objection to the article was that it revealed some unfavorable information about Giuliani. JamesMLane t c 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability as nominator later admitted. Appears to be using AfD to make a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorshowj (talk • contribs) 09:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination I was wrong to bring this here. I should've just removed the content myself.-- Southern Texas  17:46, 16 October 2007 (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.