Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Berwick (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 unanimous consensus and the lack of deletion requests beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Berwick
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was recently asked to protect this because of BLP violations. I removed some BLP-violating material, blocked an SPA, and have since been asked to remove more. The result is that there isn't much of the article left. It isn't clear whether the subject is notable enough for an entry, and no one uninvolved seems keen to develop it, so I'm bringing it here. I have no opinion on this myself. Sarah (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * An ethical dilemma is at work with this entry putting BLP guidelines in conflict with the truth
 * There are three major talking points all of which resulted in a less than favorable outcome. (Bitcoin ATM - Libertairian Housing Colony <both did not come to fruition, Nefarious Passport Service)
 * Contentious material is primarily that, if untrue
 * What if, In this case the "Contentious material, is true
 * Since the article is contentious and true, DELETE since it applies to BLP to do otherwise is Denialism Grockeds (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Grockeds has been indefblocked for block evasion/sockpuppetry. Sarah (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: broad selection of 3rd party sources cover the subject. , daily bell bio ; many others listed on Talk by helpful IP contributor. Is also notable enough for the true movers and shakers to appear on his radio show and video cast  ((        etc)). Can stub it until someone decides to write an actual article. --  dsprc   [talk]  07:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are Youtube, his own podcast, and other blogs (about 10). The most notable source you mentioned was an article called "Atlas Mugged" which speaks to the "ethical dilemma". Atlas Mugged talks about the loss of $4.3 million dollars of money and the estrangement of Berwick from the project within the context of a business controversy. The dilemma is that a balanced and truthful article cannot be written without referencing the controversy regarding a living person. As soon as you write an entry here there will be calls for NPOV and BLP because the secondary sources of merit are not neutral. I would appreciate if you could speak to the reconciliation of that point. If that point was not a blocking force, then I would write the article, its just that nobody would be happy with the end result If you cannot say something good about someone, don't say it. Grockeds (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:dsprc, if there is a bangkeep result, are you willing to watchlist Jeff Berwick, per my worries below? User:Grockeds, same question, if an article can be written, which neutrally covers the high-risk high-reward investments that the BLP-article must necessarily cover, are you willing to help maintain it, on your watchlist?  As dsprc points out, the broadcaster-success seems to be largely positive, and I also believe that the bitcoin event will be a positive (once rewritten neutrally).  There are extenuating circumstances for the passport thing, which apparently was legal in the specific country at the specific time, or at least quasi-legal.  Anyways, I believe the article can be written to cover events properly, there are plenty of sources with nice things to say about Berwick, but I worry that the article will easily get out of whack again, in a bad way, if we don't have several people keeping an eye on it.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment See list at Talk:Jeff_Berwick, plus a couple in section below. I am happy to work on the article-rewrite, but do agree there are some BLP-issues at play here (talkpage has some examples of negative commentary by editors who apparently have real-world very strong opinions).  I've never heard of this BLP-subject, but the sources are often glowly-positive and/or fiery-negative, from what I've seen; getting the NPOV balance right, of reflecting what the wiki-reliable sources say, with due weight, will be a bit tricky.  Still, I think this is a keep, easily passes WP:GNG, as long as there are enough long-haul wikipedians willing to watchlist the page going forward, and act as long-term stewards of the rewritten version, to keep it from degenerating into a pro-Berwick puff-piece *or* an anti-Berwick hit-piece.  There are potential real-world-legal-repercussions, to either kind of degeneration-mistake.  p.s.  The first AfD mentions some kind of yacht-accident, covered in pre-2005 newspapers, so coverage bursts are stockhouse.com (hypothetical), yacht-sinking, guests on podcast, chilean real estate, bitcoin ATMs, expat passports, and libertarian campaign, plus background-details like DOB and such. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Chilean real estate, bitcoin ATMs, expat passports <-tell me if any of these elements which make him notable had positive outcomes Atlas Mugged, No source to support Berwicks withdrawal from https://bitcoinatm.com/ other than his own announcement on his own blog, and the Expat Passports the foreign press on the illegality of, other than that original research.   There is not much that can be talked about here.Grockeds (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Youtube are in parenths; is just quick n' easy hack to note guest-list and is by no means being used as source for any particular content in article. wp:Wikipedia is not censored... warts and all that jazz. Have no opinion on subject (stumbled across AfD via recent changes). Is watchlisted but, am out of country with intermittent connectivity, so likely may be gaps in ability to respond to issues. If you want to hack out an article, IP 75.xxx, have at it (I've not time/motivation). I make no promises but can try. Need more eyes on it anyway, however. Can gold, white or orange lock if need be. -- dsprc   [talk]  15:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: coverage is significant, passes WP:GNG. (Note: is listed in Mexico deletion sorting, probably should be in Chile instead.) Vrac (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Berwick had an investment in Chile a few years ago, but does not live there. He does currently have business interests, and quasi-residence, in Mexico.)  User:Vrac, if the page is bangkeep, can you help watchlist it?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added it to watchlist. Vrac (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The quality of the article is irrelevant.  The subject is well-known and easily passes gng. Just to make sure I had the right guy I double checked and found excellent sources including CNN, CNBC, Forbes along with tons of lesser-known sites, some of which are promotional garbage, but a few of which are good sources.  The article may need TNT, but the subject is clearly notable.Jacona (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacona, can you please put the Jeff Berwick article on your watchlist, since there seem to have been a lot of BLP-violations there in the past? Your WP:CHOICE entirely of course, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, which is "changing" from my Comment above, back when I was still neutral. Passes WP:GNG as presently defined.  Summarizing the extant sources wiki-neutrally should be possible, and I will give it a shot.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 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.