Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koenraad Elst


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 02:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Miserably fails WP:GNG & WP:RS, the reference and citations are of private websites in nature even the crticisim and praise are linking much to self proclaimed personnel website, no where does notablitliy from reliable sources comes into picture also may be WP:OR Shrikanthv (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This article has serious NPOV (Neutrality) issues in a Biographies of Living People (BLP) article:
 * Delete, because of serious NPOV violations in a BLP article
 * The wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
 * Meera Nanda against Hinduism

They were already mentioned here: Apparently, some improvements were made by User:Collect, but they were reverted by another editor.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive178

This article should be deleted in the current state - it fails the BLP NPOV policy miserably. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, the article can be improved, his self-references weeded out. That said, Elst is notable (or notorious?) enough to have a WP article on him. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think so. User:Collect was improving the article, but it was reverted by another user. I think the NPOV issues in this BLP article are very serious.
 * The BLP policy says clearly:
 * If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.
 * Please reconsider your vote. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not an attack page, so my vote stays. --Soman (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the links above? Elst says that:
 * Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia.
 * Either you remove the lemma altogether, or you straighten it out and apply the rules of encyclopedia-writing to it. At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.
 * If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia.
 * From Elst's article on his wikipedia lemma, it sounds like a lot of it is indeed an attack page. And by BLP policy, it may be necessary to delete the entire page. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, per Calypsomusic. Unfortunate, but there's nothing to salvage that isn't problematic... Brigade Piron (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note If anything, an editor with an even strong sense of deleting what does not belong than I have should arrive at the article to remove a great deal of material which, if not overtly negative, is of substantially no value to readers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC) --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC) --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC) --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing note: Boldly closing the AfD as snow keep as deletion is the worth ever option to fight something that can simply be edited. If there is opposition to edits of a particular editor take it to WP:ANI or WP:BLPN or get it protected or simply start editing it yourself. I have known from past few example of nominator's extremely poor judgement on whats need deletion and what needs editing. I see no reason why such poor thinking of nominator be reflected as being that of whole Wikipedia community on the top of the page in bold by saying "is being considered for deletion". Nominator, please be warned by these words itself and don't assume that only templated warnings are warnings. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 3:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)


 * I have undone the above closure as an inappropriate supervote. Snow keep is not a valid rationale when there are three editors arguing in favour of deleting the article. Yunshui 雲 水 08:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Elst obviously passes GNG, AFD is not for cleanup, just stub the article if there are BLP problems and work form there. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep That the general notability guideline has been passed is evident; the article just needs to be cleaned up, but not deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to take a scythe to this article. I read the first half dozen paragraphs on Elst's blog, and what he needs to realize is that Wikipedia articles can only provide what is offered by reliable sources. Unfortunately that means that a lot of possibly useful biographical information simply cannot be stated in our articles, in "our" voice. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Elst passes GNG, and AFD is not for cleanup, as noted by DarknessShines. Article should be cleaned up. For much uncontentious bio info, sources are viewed as reliable about themselves (see WP:BLPSELFPUB). --Presearch (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2014 (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.