Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Paul A. Bonacci

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Paul A. Bonacci

 * – (View MfD)

Talk page for a former BLP article that was redirected in 2006. First redirected to Franklin Coverup Scandal and then to Franklin child sex ring allegations after a rename in 2008. The leftover talk is full of BLP violating material and bizarre conspiracy theories. There is no positive value to the project in retention of the page or any of its content and the persistence of the BLP violation 14 years later is dismaying. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the above is true, you should have quietly redirected, not drawn attention to it. If it is so bad that redirection is not good enough, WP:Oversight is the answer. The redirect title name is not mentioned at the target, so I think the redirection might want to be deleted.  The article looks to have been about a victim who went to court seeking justice, and the talk page crosses WP:NOTADVOCACY. I do not immediately see anything at the level of “BLP violation”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: No value to readers or contributors. I'd maybe suggest redirecting this but the page has 1) stuff that qualifies for suppression and 2) stuff only useful for the (now-redirected) page.  I'd say delete and maybe suppress the deleted content. Aasim 17:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: In looking at this nomination (which I may come back to), I did a Google search on the subject's name, and this page&mdash;i.e., the talk page&mdash;showed up as the first Google hit. I was under the impression that article talk places are "no-indexed" and not included in search engine results. Is that no longer the case, or is there some specific reason this one appeared? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I honestly do not have an answer to your question but I suspect that this IP editor found the old talk page the same way. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've manually NOINDEX'd the page. Most BLP talk pages transclude WikiProject Biography, which NOINDEXs the page, but this one did not. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have always thought people naive to believe that _NOINDEX_ will be respected. Google, and other search engines, are Artificial Intelligence (AI) learners, and if their users want this information, the AI learner will accommodate.  Maybe, Google won't crawl and index, but Google tracks what its users do, and if its users search for this, and then go to that, Google will surely learn.  AI learning machines, like the web generally, will find ways around barriers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Google gives me the talk page as the top hit. Yahoo gives as the fifth hit "en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org/.../Talk:Paul_A._Bonacci We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us."
 * Google doesn't respect the request to not repeat the page content. Yahoo knows this is what I am looking for, facilitates me getting there, and pointlessly respects the request to not repeat the page contents.
 * Bing.com gives talk page content in the hit, hit #5.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background on this. In this instance, though, it looks like it was WP's mistake not to have designated the page as no-index properly in the first place. Now that that's been done, the page will hopefully disappear from the search results, although it will take some time for that to happen. The broader question is how to make sure this doesn't also happen on other, similar pages ... there's a related discussion on the Village Pump now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Utterly valueless. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete immediately. It will still show up from mirrors etc, but not as prominently.  DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 24 August 2020 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.