Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (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   delete. No prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is in violation of the WP:BLP policy by its clear intent to air dubious defamatory allegations regarding a living person. Although ostensibly an account of the court case in question, it is clearly a WP:COATRACK to provide extended coverage of the unsubstantiated - and subsequently discredited - allegations of abuse and tax-evasion that were the subject of the libel action. Both of these topics are already covered in at least adequate (arguably excessive) detail in the Werner Erhard biographical page itself. This article serves no purpose apart from causing further embarassment by drawing attention to the original accusations with an implied "no smoke without fire" innuendo. The court case itself is insignificant and was withdrawn before ever reaching a hearing.

Although this article has previously been nominated for deletion unsuccesfully, I suggest that it merits further consideration in the light of the Arbcom decision to sanction and de-sysop the editor who created it for numerous violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (many of them in relation to the individual disparaged here), under both that user name and previous ones. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs. DaveApter (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Oh, not this again. We went through this all last time and you've brought up nothing that is a new argument. The case was covered extensively within the press and I don't see the BLP issues with the article that you're discussing. If there's writing issues, then change them, but the court case is extremely notable and deserves its own article. Just because an article discusses a negative issue in regards to a living person doesn't mean that it is a BLP violation. Silver  seren C 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me also add that the text that was an issue, the background section, was removed way back in May. Silver  seren C 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Rather than delete, rewrite. There probably should be an article on this subject, but it needs to be one that doesn't violate WP:COATRACK or WP:BLP. Alternatively， this case should be briefly mentioned in the article about Mr. Erhard, if there is one (and if there isn't, is this court case sufficient for him to be notable?) or in the Columbia Broadcasting System article. - Jorgath (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is one and I don't know if he is notable for an article on himself. There is certainly a heck of a lot of primary sources in his article. Silver  seren C 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The lawsuit lasted only 2 months and never resulted in a decision or precedent. It just isn't independently notable enough to warrant it's own article. And yes, the material in this article is already handled in the Werner Erhard article and has been for some time. This article about the lawsuit began as a WP:COATRACK by an editor who has since been sanctioned for creating these sorts of biased articles about this individual.  This article was an attempt to give new life to old allegations that never were anything more than allegations. This is unduly harmful to a living person and against the spirit of WP:BLP. Given that there is no notability to the lawsuit itself, and that the material is handled in the Werner Erhard article already, there is no justification for keeping this article. --MLKLewis (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete then, per MLKLewis. I've gone back over the article with MLKLewis's response in mind, and found several instances where, at the very least, the wording is problematic for WP:NPOV. As long as the case gets relatively significant treatment in the main Werner Erhard article, I see no reason why the case should be kept as a separate article. - Jorgath (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As long as the case is already covered in the article about the individual, that should be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecoveringAddict (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Interesting parallel to AfD for John Kerry VVAW controversy. In each case, a POV editor who didn't like a living person was responsible for the creation of an article designed to air allegations against that person, despite sufficient coverage of the allegations in the original article. I'm also less sold on notability than I was previously, since most of the sources are about the allegations, not the lawsuit, which was withdrawn quickly. Seems like a classic coatrack strategy: since discredited allegations would never stand on their own as an article subject, create an article about a related lawsuit, and throw all the allegations in. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keeep Per WP:GNG, there seem to be many reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * '''COMMENTT can someone see that this is added to all the deletion discussions lists that the first AFD was added to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured out how to do it myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It seems that the entirety of the article is really contained in the lede. A case was filed, then withdrawn by the plaintiff. The remainder of the article (and most or all of the sources but for the primary source of the filing history) are allegations by one side or the other which were not resolved in the case (as it was withdrawn).  Those allegations already have attention in the article on Mr. Erhard (and I note that it appears most or all allegations were withdrawn at some point).  I agree as above that this article takes a non-notable lawsuit (filed and withdrawn with no documented notable impact) and uses it as a WP:COATRACK to expand on the allegations and avoid the scrutiny of WP:BLP that those same expansions would incur if placed in the WP:BIO article. If this article weren't already here at AfD, I would be inclined to speedy-remove the majority of it as WP:BLP violation. Lastly, searches of web content for the case only find mirrors and a single book which is simply a bound edition of this article and others from Wikipedia on this subject.  The existence of that book only serves to further argue for strict adherence to BLP policies, even on non-BIO articles. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2012 (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.