Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcia Pally


 * 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 delete. Courtesy delete based on the feedback from experienced editors. Missvain (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Marcia Pally

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination on behalf of the article subject, who is invoking WP:BLPDELETE on the claim of being a non-notable individual. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the sources in the article, I believe the subject of the article more than passes the threshold for inclusion according to WP standards. Angryapathy (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has been hijacked by one or more editors who have used it to post misleading, disparaging, and poorly sourced information about the subject.  This harassment has extended across a period of well over a year and has corresponded to a real-life pattern of harassment occurring across the same time period.  It seems very likely that the offending edits to the article have been made by the real-life harasser, and that he has been using multiple screen names to do so, in violation of Wikipedia policy on "sockpuppeting".  One strongly suspects that 'Angryapathy', who on this page argues for the article’s preservation, is yet another alias for this same offender.  Moreover, the fact that he posted a comment on this page less than three hours after the deletion notice was posted strongly suggests that he watches this article closely and is personally invested in its preservation and content, in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules.  The subject herself has appealed to Wikipdeia for the deletion of this article, to relieve her of this ongoing harassment.  It should be removed immediately.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Wikipedia's article on assuming good faith. Angryapathy (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One assumes good faith, initially, in the absence of reason to assume otherwise. As indicated in my comment above, there is abundant reason to override that initial assumption in this case. In any event, whoever the person or persons might be behind all the screen names, the article has been edited in an factually inaccurate, contentious and harassing manner and should be deleted.  I note again, for whoever is the referee of this discussion, that Angryapathy responded to my comment within 24 minutes of its posting.  He obviously has a personal interest in this article.    Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Angryapathy" has never edited the article, but I wonder who "Angryapathy" actually is, and whether it's the same person who edits as "PaulKovnick" and/or "AlexaVamos". The anonymity of Wikipedia is really pernicious and is the fundamental condition that allows such harassment to occur.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just in regard to that last comment - there are a number of people who have the page watchlisted and are thus aware of this discussion being opened; commenting on an AFD (in and of itself) within any time frame should not be viewed as any sort of agenda or COI. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Primefac. But that goes to the whole point of the subject being a low-profile person.  It is highly peculiar that the page of a mostly non-public and entirely non-controversial person should be watched so closely.  I have it watchlisted as a friend and advocate for the subject, solely for the purpose of engaging in this deletion discussion.  It is not at all clear why others would be so interested in this low-profile individual's article as to watchlist it.  I respectfully suggest that it may be appropriate to infer ulterior motives.  Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I, too, have this page watchlisted, mostly due to past disruptions. There are some pages I watch where I am one of two editors, and there are pages I watch where I am one of thousands of page watchers. From an editorial perspective, I watch pages when I think there is reason to, either because it is a new page and I want to see it grow, or a page with a problematic past and I want to ensure future changes are productive. In other words, I find nothing peculiar about any one editor watching any one page. Also for what it's worth, I'm happy to carry on this conversation, I'm just collapsing it because it is off-topic to the AFD as a whole. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The mildly amusing part of this discussion (which has thankfully been collapsed) is that Aaabbbyyyzzz obviously does not know that every edit made by a user is logged. Anyone can freely see that I've never edited this page or any page related to it. Aaabbbyyyzzz is implying that I started an account over a decade ago, edited Wikipedia off and on since then, created dozens of articles, all for the purpose of one day lodging a neutral-worded keep vote at this AfD. Angryapathy (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on your editing history, you created an account on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of getting this article deleted. You obviously have not been able to read through the many policies and guidelines we have regarding editing on Wikipedia. But assuming good faith is important. Please don't make allegations that I am a sockpuppet with the only proof is that I happened to check the Articles for Deletion page soon after this article was nominated, and that I happen to be responding quickly. Just because someone disagrees with you (at "suspicious times") does not mean they are part of a conspiracy to defame the subject of the article. Angryapathy (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the account was created at the beginning of May 2021 in order to contact editors about this article (primarily me). Primefac (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Angryapathy" makes valid points in his/her comment of 18:52 UTC. It is impossible to know who is who in this shady anonymous world of Wikipedia. As I noted above, anonymity creates an environment that enables harassment without accountability. And it also creates an environment in which I may have misidentified an innocent editor as the troll. I am neither coceding nor apologizing, but rather calling out the pernicious nature of anonymity. Not only does it eliminate all accountability, it makes it impossible to police behavior. If the parties involved in this article were identified as real people, then their relationships, interests, motives and conflicts of interest would be readily visible. Such visibility would likely prevent inappropriate behavior in the first place. Responsible people behaving within the community's norms should not require anonymity.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for what I would consider the absolute worst apology in the history of apologies. Angryapathy (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself: as I specifically said, I was not apologizing. I was being intellectually honest by acknowledging that I do not conclusively know your identity, and that culpability cannot be conclusively inferred from the actions that I consider suspect. However, I still do consider them suspect and have strong suspicions that you are who I think you are, which you notably have not denied. My larger point, which I made at some length, is that anonymity is a big problem. Indeed, if you are who I think you are (and if you're not, let's call this a hypothetical), the anonymity of the W. world has enabled you to behave badly and then equally enabled you to cite W. policy in your defense. W policy, which, contrary to your assertion abvove, I have reviewed extensively, and whose lack of enforcement I decry. Again, not an apology. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that the world has been so cruel to you that you assume I am this mystery person who is tormenting you. I don't know who you think I might be, but I can guarantee you that I am not that person. And if others vote to keep this article, may I kindly suggest that you disregard your gut reaction that anyone disagreeing with you is part of a conspiracy. And you may think you are a strong person for not admitting you are wrong, but trust me, it is the ultimate sign of weakness. Angryapathy (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Angryapathy: Your psychoanaylsis is misplaced. This is not a matter my feelings; it is not personal matter of any kind. It is an effort to correct the record, in which misinformation has caused harm to the subject of the article. Someone has been posting incorrect and disparaging information, presumably with a personal agenda. In the real world, we know exactly who this person is. In Wikipedia's anonymous hall of mirrors, it is impossible to know which one -- or two, or ten -- of the contributors is/are that person. I have acknowledged that you may not be that person, though I have reason to suspect that you are, and you have not denied that you are. It's not a matter of personal posturing, it's a question of fact. I have no wish to falsely accuse anyone of anything, as I would not wish to be falsely accused. But I do wish for the troll to be exposed and shut down. All this anonymity makes this effort nearly impossible.Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

to have initiated this.
 * Delete. Per article subject's request. Furius (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: something’s not right about this article: (a) evidence of COI, (b) too much evidence about a living person from 35 and 40 years ago with no updating, (c) evidence that appears within the last 20 years relies on evidence twice as old, (d) obscure evidence looks like someone spent a lot of time drudging up sexual material, inappropriate for a low-profile Wikipedia biography, in a confused homophobic attempt to defame, etc. The Talk page for this article shows an editing war and attempt to control the page by “PaulKovnick,” “AlexaVamos” and others. Overall, material not reliable for Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosyoua1b2c3 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — Whosyoua1b2c3 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Per article subject's request and WP:TNT. Beccaynr (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject’s work in regard to HIV/AIDS, her leadership positions in three national organizations (GLAAD, Feminists for Free Expression, ACLU) and her work as a prominent journalist, film critic, and political, social and cultural critic in the U.S. and Germany certainly pass the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion. The subject also meets the criterion of being “part of the enduring historical record in a specific field” for her work in GLAAD and FFE, and maybe the criterion of being nominated for well-known awards (Grawemeyer Award, H.L. Mencken Award (https://menckenawards.blogspot.com/2019/11/normal.html)) and the selection of one of her books by the U.N. Committee on Education for Justice. I am surprised this issue is being discussed and that the subject seems
 * The subject is a “public figure” and influencer. In addition to leadership roles in three national civil society organizations and other public institutions, the subject co-hosted a television series (albeit long ago), co-hosted a weekly radio program for several years, was a contributing editor of an internationally circulated magazine, addressed the World Economic Forum, and the vast majority of her publications have been in popular newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and Germany and more recently on the internet. It is her prominence in civil society as a public intellectual that makes her an appropriate subject for WP, not her academic career. But that also means that the subject has a limited right to privacy and almost no right to privacy in regard to her public life. That raises the question of whether she can ask to control her WP entry, request its deletion or object to information of general public interest that comes from second-party sources like books and newspapers, or from her own publications and public appearances.
 * It should also be noted that the subject seems to have been editing the page under at least four different names or proxies (Margarethell, pinkpostitzyxcb, Alisdairxing3153!, JmtAU2017), as well as under her own name, and appears to be posting on this talk as Aaabbbyyyzzz.
 * From her comments here and the editing by the subject or her proxies over the years, it seems that the subject may think that WP is a PR outlet and that she can control its content. As an admirer of her work and career, I find this very disturbing. WP is not a personal website or a platform for a public figure’s publicist or PR firm.AlexaVamos (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC) — AlexaVamos (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Alexa: I am not the subject of the article. I am her friend and advocate, as noted above.  Given the patent absurdity of all these parties arguing over who is or might be whom, I note again the absurd and deleterious effects of all this anonymity.   Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I agree that anonymity has a clear downside. I don't know what would be the best approach, but I think eliminating it might have a chilling effect on WP that could do more harm than good.AlexaVamos (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * BTW, while I understand the distress that this business may be causing, it would be a travesty for the subject not to be in WP. As her friend, you must know that there is no serious study of HIV/AIDs activism or the gay rights movement that doesn't mention Vito Russo, and there is probably no book or documentary about Russo that doesn't mention Marcia Pally. I pulled Michael Schiavi's definitive biography of Russo, Celluloid Activist (2011), off my shelf and her collaboration with Russo is mentioned at least half a dozen times. I don't understand how anyone can say that a central figure in the gay rights movement is not notable.AlexaVamos (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete at subject's request. Notability is barely marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC).
 * Delete per the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request and the borderline notability of the subject. In addition, it is clear from the history there has been a long-term edit war with similarly-behaving single-purpose accounts on two sides, with one side pushing to include material on Pally's personal life, supposed early history and early work (users:, , , , , , ) and the other side disputing the accuracy of this material, removing it, and pushing to focus the article primarily on Pally's academic career (users: , , , ). The added material does not contribute to notability in any way and appears to violate WP:BLPPRIVACY, so I am inclined to take the allegations of a concerted campaign of sockpuppet harassment seriously (although this does not excuse possible sockpuppetry in reaction to this perceived sockpuppetry). We should not let the allegations by one camp of sockpuppetry from the other camp distract us from the main issues of privacy and notability that we are here to determine, we should not be providing a platform for such harassment, and BLPDELETE is exactly the right mechanism to cut it off. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per article subject's request. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (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.