Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Schwyzer (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. L Faraone  01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hugo Schwyzer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP issues. This article was previously deleted in February 2012 as non-notable; it's now a little more complicated than that, as the amount of sources that exist suggests he probably passes WP:BIO. However, he's a pretty minor academic, and the sheer amount of negative content in this biography I think justifies deleting it under WP:IAR.

This brief article contains descriptions of the subject's sexual affairs, mental health problems, attempted murder and attempted suicide. That amount of negative information would be questionable in a biography of a highly notable celebrity; on a minor academic, it's downright awful. If it weren't so well-sourced, I'd have already nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page. As it is, the best argument I can make for deleting it is WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia cannot unring the bell of publicity. The references in the article clearly indicate that this person is now a high-profile public figure. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. The number of high-quality sources for the things in the article suggest that he really is notable for them. Some attention to the quality of sources in the article may be a good idea, per WP:BLP: e.g. source [5], for his circumcision, is primary, and that part should either be removed or its sourcing improved. But most of the article looks ok in this respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now! That Damn Snipergirl 04:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There are 24 references at the article, but most of them are tabloids (LA Weekly, New York Daily News) and blogs (Jezebel), not Reliable Sources. This is not the kind of coverage we should base an article on, particularly not a BLP and even more particularly a mostly negative BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. He probably meets the GNG, but we have IAR for a reason.   There's very little encyclopedic content in this article as it stands right now, and there's unlikely to be any in the near future.  Little harm is done by deleting the article, a lot more harm could be done by leaving it up.  I see no value in leaving up a highly negative BLP about someone who has recently tried to commit suicide over their coverage on the internet.  A few months down the road when things have settled down, the immediate incident is beyond us, and there are more high quality sources available I would not necessarily have a bias against recreation.  We could even work on a draft immediately in non-article space and get it up when it's more appropriately balanced towards his life's work and not the last two weeks. His actions are absolutely inexcusable, but we should still treat him with the basic decency that we should treat all of our BLPs with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- per Slate and New York Magazine coverage -- these are not tabloids by any stretch. But I agree with Kevin Gorman that IAR, common sense, and common decency as well as fighting against recentism bias might mean that stubifying to a very short article and then when everything has passed in a few weeks or months, seeing what should be restored makes sense. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and also I'd like to note that some person is unilitarely deleting mosty of the article becuase "it has the existence to cause actual harm to a living person". [sic, lol] --Niemti (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two people != one person. And last I checked the way to resolve an article content disute was on the article's talk page, not by making snarky comments in an AfD discussion.  And in all seriousness, what potential harm can be done if all the tabloid crap is removed until this AfD runs its course? Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not tabloid, also not tabloid, not tabloid too, and now stop censor-vandalizng Wikipedia because of someone's feelings or whatever. --Niemti (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please either strike your accusation of vandalism or take it to an appropriate administrative forum to be dealt with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the one who originally stubbed the article, and I did it due to WP:BLP concerns. People can see the explanation and make comment at the article's talk page. (I don't have a firm view on whether the article should be kept or deleted). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "accusations", it's factual. There is controversial content, but it is being discussed - right here (and it's not a one-sided discussion), but you can't go and simply delete it just because you don't like it and want to censor because whatever reasons - that is vandalism. But speaking of tabloids, (it's actualy basically all his own confession being quoted). WP:BLP is about proper sources and facts. --Niemti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is very well sourced by very reliable sources. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm afraid I can't see "sexual affairs, mental health problems, attempted murder or attempted suicide" in the article as it stands. It has apparently been deleted? In looking for it, I find lots of articles and interviews by Schwyzer himself about some of those; what most of us consider very personal things. But he's the one writing and talking about them. If someone had been writing this stuff about him, I'd certainly consider deleting it out of ignore-all-rules. But it's his personal life, and if he wants to expose it, we shouldn't be nannies and do it "for his own good". He's got an article on something like that on his own site - we shouldn't be the TSA agent in this picture. So we should consider the article the way we normally do, for notability, by sourcing. And it looks like even the nominator says our article is well sourced. So we keep it. If there are some items that need deletion, we can deal with them individually. --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at one of the earlier revisions. The article got stubbified earlier today. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

They were actually Iselilja's cuts, not mine. I just reinstated them once they'd been reverted. I tend to agree with you that the stubbification was harder than was necessary, but I didn't have time to make a perfect stubbification attempt at the time, and didn't want to leave the article up in its entirety until I did. I think it's probably a good idea for some of us to start a noindexed sandbox draft of a better stub attempt; if no one beats me to it, I will when I have time Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein and others. Well sourced, and plenty of additional sources can be added and undoubtedly even more will become available in the following weeks and months. The controversy at hand here is all quite verifiable and doubtful that BLP is being violated. Laval (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep : Well sourced stuff has to stay, even if the subject could dislike it, that's part of WP:BLP. He is notable, there is no question around it: the amount of coverage along the years for multiple events is big enough. It's useless, and a bit ridicolous, to shut up our mouth when all newspapers scream around. Also, while for sure some trimming was in order: but the axe of User:Kevin Gorman and User:Iselilja has cut a bit too much, in my opinion. -- cyclopia  speak!  20:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me say for the record, that in Pasadena, where I am employed at CalTech, this is being talked about a lot and it is definitely a serious enough situation to be acceptable per Wikipedia standards. Considering how many non-notable articles are kept due to declining numbers of editors in recent years (making it easier for non-notable articles to be kept), this certainly fulfills all the requirements of notability! Laval (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment One can only question the motives of the nominator and why this article is being placed for deletion again after the recent explosion of his name in the media. I hope the feminist groups that exist to mass edit and purge articles from Wikipedia will be dealt with and banned for their biased editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.4.220 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)  — 173.246.4.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Please don't make personal attacks or assumptions about the motives of your fellow editors. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I hate to go on a tangent but I'm significantly disappointed in the number of people who are trotting out accusations of censorship just because an article about a living person was temporarily stubbified while discussion was ongoing. No permanent deletion was made, and it's almost certain that most of the material will return, just worded and weighted in a better way than it originally was. The absence of material about him for a handful of days has done absolutely no harm of any sort to anything. We are supposed to veer on the side of caution when we are dealing with living people for a reason - our actions can have real effects on the rest of the world when they go wrong, and not infrequently, do. If the intention had been to censor the article, there are a million ways we could have done so more effectively. Not to get too beansy, but if someone had sneakily redirected his BLP to a small subsection of Pasadena City College's article and then argued that keeping in most of the material would've been undue for that article as a whole, there's a good chance it would've worked. If censorship was the goal, censorship would have been achieved. Robofish brought this here because he wanted an earnest discussion about a possible BLP issue; Iselilja stubbed the article pending discussion because that's not only what you're supposed to do by policy, but the morally right thing to do. Many of you need to go reread WP:AGF - I know it's a policy frequently ignored, but it exists for a reason.
 * Comment The reason this article is even up for debate, despite ALL the many reliable sources, is a handful, or perhaps just one, person(s) doesn't like it, that's no excuse for censoring or deleting a Wikipedia article. Just because someone on Wikipedia doesn't like it is no reason to censor or delete a very well sourced article.  The article has already been partially censored and locked so as to not offend a few people. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a reply to this and the anon comment above on my motives - I'm not trying to 'censor' anything. My motivations were as expressed in the original nomination, that I felt the amount of negative material compared with the relatively low importance of the subject justified deletion. That said, I'm OK with the stubbed version, and I should have thought of doing that myself. In hindsight I should probably have taken this article to WP:BLPN rather than going straight to AFD, but the fact it was deleted as recently as 2012 inclined me to come here instead. If the general consensus is that he should have an article, perhaps we should close this AFD and move the discussion on to talking about exactly what its contents should be. Robofish (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The 'stubbed' version is the censored version where all the so-called offensive information has been miraculously removed, even though ALL of it is well sourced with reliable sources, no one has pointed out where any of the references are not reliable or notable, no one. That's because they can't.  Just because an article hurts the feelings of a few would-be do-gooders is no reason to cover up well sourced article information.  If any of the article wasn't well sourced that would be one thing, yet it is.  Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson did some bad things, should Wikipedia not allow those sourced facts because a few editors find it offensive? Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - looking at the history, it appears a large amount of sourced material was unilaterally removed, probably due to IDONTLIKEIT based on the talk page discussion. Even with what remains, it's notable enough to retain. Kelly  hi! 06:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As a causal reader of feminist and academic sites, he's definitely been a significant presence and his essays and actions have generated a great deal of intelligent discussion about real issues, not merely gossip and certainly not slander. I would have been genuinely surprised to not find an article on him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.170.214 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with all of the above listed reasons to keep. Also, the primary focus of his academic work has been sexuality, from a feminist perspective.  There is some conflict about the coincidence of this with the facts that he (1) once attempted to murder his intimate partner,, and (2) slept with "a not insignificant number" of his students .  That conflict is central to his status as a public figure, and should be mentioned in the stub. Tadeina (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest we close this AfD and begin to work on a noindexed sandbox of a new version of the article, so that we can discuss what belongs in the article, at what weight it belongs in the article, and how things should be worded. I'll do so myself tomorrow AM if no one else beats me to it (I'm taking my last final today, and am thus pretty busy.) That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, not just by shouting NOTCENSORED. The actions taken by Robo, Ise, and myself in this situation have been in line with both Wikipedia's ideals, Wikipedia's black-letter policies, and the resolutions about living people passed by the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees, and have been responded to with personal attacks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration. But for an external, casual observer it is sometimes hard to distinguish between whitewashing and genuine BLP-sensitive editorial efforts (and sometimes the line between the two is crossed, honestly). I'm certain of your good faith but to people not acquainted with our procedures and policies, it may look baffling. WP:BLP and its application is relatively complicated and counterintuitive stuff at times. I think that the best course of action is simply to explain very clearly what one has cut and why, as you did here. -- cyclopia  speak!  17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment So now the editors who flagged the article because they didn't like it are now going to be the arbiters of what's allowed in the article and what's not? So it can meet with their approval?  And anything that offends them, no matter how well sourced, can or cannot be removed?  Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, nor how it is supposed to work. And I don't think it is what happened here. WP:BLP concerns are a delicate affair, but as anything their application is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a matter of what offends editors, but of what is appropriate to include and what due weight to do to the various parts of the article.-- cyclopia  speak!  18:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As one of the “flaggers”, I will sign Cyclopia here. This will be decided by ordinary consensus, as usual. You are free to argue for the original version, and others may write (as Gorman has kindly volunteered to) and argue for an alternative. And as indicated; the alternative may well include much of the same that was in the pre-stubbed article; the change may be rewording, adding context to some of the content,  shortening other parts and expanding some less controversial sides of his work. I think some changes along those lines may make the article more encyclopedic and less sensational.  But this will be decided by consensus, which may require a bit of compromise between editors. (I understand some of the opposition to the stubbing, and I shall not insist that I did everything right, but it was always meant to be the beginning of a discussion, not the end). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also approve of this approach and the solution proposed by Kevin Gorman above. Do we have consensus to close this AFD and move on to working on a BLP-compliant article? Robofish (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2013 (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.