Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Campbell


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Let me know if the page still requires protection. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Campbell
Wendy Campell, the subject of this article is a peace activist and supporter of the Palestinian people. Peace activism aside, Campell has also aligned herself with white supremacist and white pride groups such as National Vanguard and is a supporter Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust revisionist organization. Understandably, her support for such groups in addition to her frequent use of the term 'Jewish-Supremacist' has branded her with controversy.

Consequently, many people on the left, on the right, and on both sides of the Israel-Palestine dillema consider her to be racist and anti-semetic/anti-Jewish.

When the one-sided, soapbox article on the subject first appeared, many Wikipedia users have attempted to balance the article with mention of issues that have branded her with controversy. However, the user with IP address 71.102.67.133/email lioness4@ix.netcom.com (possibly Ms. Campell herself.  a google search of the email adress provides plausable evidence) has repeadedly deleted any additions that attempt to bring the article to a NPOV.

Campell, or one of her supporters have repeatedly prevented others from contributing to the article and has repeatedly censured the associated discussion page. Through her actions, the subject has insisted that Wikipedia serve as a soapbox and has refused to assume good faith.

Consequently, the article has no place on Wikipedia as it is being used as a soapbox and there are questions concerning Cambells notableness. Limbojones 04:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and protect the page. This helps to prevent IP adresses from vandalizing the page and solves the above problem. -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already asked that any future contributions of Lioness/Wendy Campbell be banned-NOT because she is a revolting racist/nazi activist as the links below demonstrate her to be-but because of her and her allies attempts to censor and silence all contributions to Wikipedia that draw attention to that fact. She and her pro-Hitler supporters seek to deny the very freedom of speech to others that they so hypocrtically demand for themselves. She has done this in repeated violation of Wikipedia rules for participation and has failed to contribute to this discussion in good faith, constantly removing all critical posts. I would be happy with either allowing the discussion to go on, with full participation of those who do not attempt to censor others, or simply removing this topic altogether. What is utterly unacceptable is for her and her allies/agents to be allowed to fascistically dictate the entire terms of discussion, especially in response to an original entry that was little more than a (deliberately) misleading sanitized puff piece, one quite possibly written by Wendy Campbell/Lioness herself. (anti-fascist activist).


 * keep and block 71.102.67.133 if POV edits keep being made M1ss1ontomars2k4 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep & protect per User TBC. Clearly notable: protection should reduce soapboxing. -- Simon Cursitor 07:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Links:
 * Wendy Campbell's website
 * Photo of Campbell participating in IHR Rally/Protest
 * Cambell article posted at National Vanguard Website
 * Keep and protect per TBC, vandalised pages don't need to be send for AFD. That is not the purpose for AFD. --Ter e nce Ong 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable Celcius 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, these allegations are definitely not what AfD is for. Moreover, there are tons of pages with POV problems, and these problems get solved, in other ways. --Deville (Talk) 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've added the above-mentioned links to the article and put it on my watchlist. If we have some POV editting problems in the future, we can bring it down the RfC route. --Deville (Talk) 13:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep & protect but only from unconfirmed user edits, please allow ordinary logged in users to edit it. Also, please add back all the controversial stuff.  JeffBurdges 15:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and protect; this, unfortunately, isn't the only subject on Wikipedia where POV warriors relentlessly delete information unfavorable to them. ProhibitOnions 16:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable crank. Failing that just keep and protect from unregistered editing.  Marcus22 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote (because I don't have any first-hand knowledge): The only valid reason for deletion I can see would be if Campbell fails notability as a film-maker. Peter Grey 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and PROTECT. This is RIDICULOUS... Someone alignes themself with National Vanguard and the Institute for Historical Review, has their picture taken, has material on those organizations' websites... And then goes out and tries to cover up evidence of it on Wikipedia?! WOW that's dumb. Grand  master  ka  21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:KIT. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-30 21:12
 * Keep & Protect as per above. Notable. Chairman S.  Talk  21:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep = as above. For great justice. 01:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and protect - The POV editors are the problem, not the subject. She's notable. Fishhead64 06:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Campbell -or one of her delegated lackeys- has YET AGAIN removed critical comments on the discussion page, even after being expressely warned not to vandalize and NPOV this article and even after this discussion page had to be set up in response to her constant attempts at censorship. This is further proof that while the article itself should be kept, her failure to participate in good faith makes an irrefutable case for her own removal from the discussion. [[User: Antifascist activist]


 * 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.