Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lemire (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   Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The only problem that I see is PoV issues, which can usually be fixed without deletion if the person meets WP:N, which indeed appears to be the case. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Marc Lemire
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Massive NPOV violations, and thus BLP violations, throughout the article, mostly evident in the lede: "violently racist and extremist", flinging around the use of the word "neo-Nazi", "violent ... organization", "bigot". It's a textbook G10 candidate; however, survival of the article in an AFD, sadly, precludes any avenue of the deletion process bar another AFD. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- Notability and verifiability are established, and point of view issues can be fixed. Reyk  YO!  00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way to fix POV issues is deletion per WP:BLP, as the extent of BLP violation is so much that the normal editorial process is inadequate. Sceptre (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'll give it a shot later today. Reyk  YO!  00:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if every point you make is accurate (and I would dispute this) it would still not justify deletion of the article. Marc Lemire is a notable figure in Canada, and is quite appropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article. If there are legitimate BLP violations, the proper course of action is to remove them -- not to delete the article outright. CJCurrie (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BLP says  If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed.  There has been no effort by Sceptre (or anyone else) to identify BLP problems on the talk page. Sceptre has never edited the article, and so the assertion that deletion is the only remedy appears precipitous. The sources in the article appear reasonable, so I'm not sure which BLP problems Sceptre is alleging. As the past presient of the Heritage Front, it's not surprsing that the subject would be called a "neo-nazi" or a "racist". Such folks do exist and it does not automaticlaly violate BLP to use those terms if sufficiently sourced. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the terms used are so perojative that they must not, per WP:NPOV, be used as definitive statements. For example, no-one would ever willingly admit to their own racism of neo-Nazism. Sceptre (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the terms aren't sufficiently-well sourced then you can remove them, and they can be attributed if they're POV. Note though that NPOV also requires we include all significant viewpoints, not just the subject's view of himself.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a UNDUE argument here. What I mean is, we should not use terms as definitive when the subject would not themselves. For example, actor or lawyer are fine. Racist or cult are not, even where they are technically accurate. We risk causing harm to people if we use those terms as definitive, and as that mostly overlaps with opinion, we shouldn't assert them as facts either. We can say who says he's a racist, but a common problem is the inappropriate use of the lead to introduce spin; we should stick to bare facts in the lead section. Sceptre (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, but you're not giving any reasons why this article should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There, no, but I believe it should be deleted because I think, as an outsider to this article, it extensively violates BLP to the point only deletion or officesque pruning would suffice. Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a last resort, not a first one. Nothing in the article is unsourced. We can review whether the sources are really sufficient, or if more of the material should be attributed. Now that you've started a thread about fixing it on the talk page I'm sure we can make progess. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and address BLP concerns in Talk. JJL (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep possibly a SNOW, Will states the situation correctly. DGG (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Will Beback. Issues can be addressed through means other than deletion. Maxamegalon2000 07:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sadly, sometimes words like "neo-Nazi", "racist", "bigot" and "violent organizations" are accurate descriptions rather than epithets. BLP doesn't mean we have to whitewash people to whom these words are applicable. CRakovsky (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator misunderstands NPOV. NPOV means we reflect what indepdent reliable sources say.  If there's a clear consensus something is a fact, we state as a fact, even if the subject, and some unreliable sources disagree.  That's why we say Hitler carried out the Holocaust in the lead.  In Wikipedia, neutrality means reflecting reliable sources, and not introducing one's own biases.  If one doesn't like what reliable sources are saying, then one should argue with those sources.  It would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD not to mention the most notable facts about the subject, even though they sound awful.  --Rob (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (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.