Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Nygård


 * 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. Rewrite makes the reason the article was nominated for moot. - Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Nygård
Seems like a perfectly notable Finnish-Canadian businessman, but the article has an entirely negative slant. In accordance with the principles of WP:BLP, I would suggest a deletion unless someone is willing to rewrite it to give a balanced view of the person. up+l+and 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a correct use of AfD. If the articles needs to be rewritten, do so, rather than initiating an AfD. I have rewritten the article to remove the attacks. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no wish to write about Peter Nygård, nor am I under any obligation to do so just because I happen to stumble over a hatchet job on the person. As far as I understand WP:BLP, it is better to have no article at all on a living person rather than one which is defamatory. up+l+and 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are under no obligation to write an article about Peter Nygård, true. But you should consider that initiating an AfD rather than attempting to fix an existing article is asking other editors to spend time evaluating the article, time which could better be spent creating and revising other articles. In any event, there is a substantially revised article in place now, and there is no justification for deleting it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the position I would usually take where the article is in need of a minor cleanup but basically harmless, but with attack articles, I think it is reasonable to delete unless someone actually rewrites the thing (and in some cases deletion and rewrite from scratch may even be needed). Thus, in a case where I'm not interested in making the rewrite, my alternatives are a) to ignore the article and pretend I never saw it, or b) to turn to the larger Wikipedia community. Since I have no idea where else to report an article that seems to be on a notable subject but should be deleted unless rewritten, I took it here. There seems to be no other way, or should we have a special place for reporting pages like this? (BTW, the rewrite is fine, and I suppose the discussion can be closed.) up+l+and 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite works for me. About this discussion. Based on precedent I think getting rid of defamation is a fair use of deletion policy. In fact he was cautious and brought it to people's attention when there was in fact an speedy deletion criterion for deletion of attack pags he could have used. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite works for me. --Wafulz 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten and close the discussion; nomination is now moot. RFerreira 19:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BIO says to delete the unacceptable information immediately but does not say to delete the article. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:15, 22 August 2006 (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.