Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Afil/Ligia Filotti

 __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. MER-C 12:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Afil/Ligia Filotti


Article was deleted at AfD in 2011, and no work has been done on it since then. - Biruitorul Talk 23:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see where Afil was notified. If subject of this draft received awards from Dept of State or some independent RS are found about the art career to establish notability, this article may make it to mainspace and stay. The writing, layout and photos are good. I have a couple of old drafts I'm working on but off-line (going to Smithsonian Archives next week) doing research with no apparent activity on Wikipedia. I'll give Afil benefit of the doubt and a chance to comment before expressing an opinion on keep or delete. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Objection There is no reason to delete the page. The proposal of Biruitorul is only the result of a personal dispute between me and him and is simply based on different political views. I consider that opponents to oppressive political regimes (in this case the communist regime) should qualify for articles. Biruitorul does not. I simply consider that personal views of some wikipedians should not be imposed on others. Due to his aggressive attitudes I have given up contributing to Wikipedia after having tens of thousands of contributions (Wikipedia statistics can be checked). I tried to cut all discussions with him to avoid further confrontation, hoping that this would avoid more clashes. In this care I moved the page from an article of wikipedia to one of sections to accomodate his views. If this is not acceptable, I want all articles I have contributed to Wikipedia to be deleted. I want nothing to do with an organization in which one user can impose his views on the entire community.Afil (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep The entire discussion is only the result of a personal dispute between me an Biruitorul. As it is a dispute, the matter should be discussed in the forum for arbitrating disputes, which I have requested. For the time being, accusing me of not improving an article while I am waiting for an accessible climate for further contributing to wikipedia is incorrect. I still consider that Biruitorul is personally motivated. Information about all the anticommunist student movements in Romania in 1956 are extremely scarce. That does not mean they did not happen. The same is valid for the Tiannamen Square movements in China and others. Communist regimes were obviously trying to suppress these information as much as possbile. It is absurd to compare the number of sources you have for events in free countries and in oppressive regimes. That is what Biruitorul does not understand. The problem is not that Biruitorul authored an article on an opponent. The problem is how many articles does english language wikipedia have on the various anticommunist movements in Romania. I am not talking about the politicians who opposed the instauration of communism in Romania, like Victor Rădulescu Pogoneanu. I am talking about the various groups who tried to induce some kind of change, like the students who fought in 1956, 1959 and 1969, like the armed groups in the mountains or various resistance movements in Romanian factories in the 1980s such as the Brașov movement. If very little has been written about them, does it mean they never occurred? Does is mean that they are not important? As the entire press in communist countries was controlled by the party, does it mean that because the communist regime tried not to make them public that they are nor notable? All the objections of Biruitorul are due to a fundamental nonunderstanding of what any dictatorial oppressive regime is and therefore not understanding the importance of resistance movements. Requesting "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" for what happened behind the Iron Curtain is simply a pretext for not accepting any information of what happened. It is just a pretext for a political coverup of what happened. And those movements are notable not because there were hundreds of articles written about them, but because they occured. What JohnCD seems to ignore, is that the article was deleted as a consequence of a previous personal attack of Biruitorul. To prove that Biruitorul is very personal in his assessment, you just have to look at other similar articles for which he had no objection and for which he requested no deletion. Therefore I definitely request an arbitration regarding the entire dispute between Biruitorul and me. As indicated before, I have given up contributing to Wikipedia because of the bulling of Biruitorul, just to avoid further confruntations. But this continues and therefore should be investigated in its entirety, mot just the proposal of deleting this article. Afil (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Afil's reply is replete with non-sequiturs. No, I don't consider that "opponents to oppressive political regimes" do not deserve articles on Wikipedia. After all, it was not that long ago that I authored an article on Victor Rădulescu-Pogoneanu, perhaps one of the purest examples one can find of a principled opponent of Romania's communist regime. However, I also believe, in line with WP:BASIC, that an encyclopedically notable individual must be the subject of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - something which this text plainly does not meet, as was overwhelmingly determined by the consensus to delete the article from the mainspace as a result of this discussion. Four years have passed in which notability could have been demonstrated, but it hasn't happened, and there's no sign it will. Userspace is a place for articles to be improved, not kept as a way of circumventing deletion. I have nothing at all against Afil, but really now, either show notability or let's get rid of this. - Biruitorul Talk 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is nothing to do with political views, but the article was deleted at AfD four years ago, and per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * The WP:Verifiability policy is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia. If you think it should be abandoned in regard to anti-communist resistance movements because reliable sources are so few, you can propose that at WP:Village pump (policy), but in my view you have no chance. Unless and until that policy is changed, it still applies, whether you like it or not.
 * The article was not deleted "as a consequence of a previous personal attack of Biruitorul"; it was deleted as the result of the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ligia Filotti. Biruitorul was not even the nominator: as well as the two of you, six users took part in the discussion, and yours was the only voice for keeping the article. The result can be challenged with the closing administrator, user, or at WP:deletion review, if you think the close did not properly reflect the discussion, or if you have new information, but not if you simply disagree with it.
 * If you have a particular disagreement with Biruitorul, see WP:Dispute resolution for what you should do.
 * But in the mean time, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host... deleted content". JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let us not confuse the issues. The discussion with Biruitorul was concentrated on the issue of notability, not verifiability. The issue I was raising was that notability is determined by the importance of the facts, not by the number of references to a particular fact or person. Just to give you an example, Wikipedia has a long article on Natali Holloway, a young girl who went to Aruba on a vacation and disappeared after partying with some friends. It is a tragic event but that does not mean that Natali Holloway has accomplished anything notable in her life, which would justify her being mentioned in an encyclopedia, even if, when all this occurred, many articles were written on the issue. The number of articles in itself is not a measure of notability. In the case of the student movements in Romania in 1956, as long as there are references which make the information verifiable, the articles should be published as notability is determined by the importance of the action. And this is not related to any particular person. It is simply a dispute on the attitude of Romanians towards the communist regime, and specifically if the anticommunist movements of 1956 took place only in Poland and Hungary, or if they also took place in Romania. I therefore object on the issue of notability because it implies a certain incorrect historic view of Wikipedia, which is not acceptable according to Wikipedia rules.
 * The article has references which are verifiable. It is difficult to understand why this article is worse than for instance the articles on Alexandru Dincă or Mihai Rădulescu.
 * I have attempted to solve my dispute with Biruitorul, but the arbitration system does not work. The question is if it is acceptable for somebody to be bullied indefinitely without anybody taking any action. This is the main issue. Raising the issue of the article is just a pretext to hide this.
 * I am tired of all these useless discussions, which do not seem to have an end. I am simply asking a question. Do the people who take part in this discussion accept me as a contributor to Wikipedia? I don't necessarily want to be a contributor, but if I am not accepted, I do not want any of my contributions to be used by Wikipedia. Afil (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not up to the contributors to this discussion, or anyone else, to decide whether to "accept" you. The question is for you to decide: whether you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, which means accepting its rules and standards. If you do not wish to, that is up to you, but you cannot now withdraw your contributions: just above the "Save page" button you used to make them, it says "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution". JohnCD (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I don;t see the potential for an article, especially as there is none on the Romanian WP., just a redlink in ro:Mișcările studențești din București din 1956. I cannot tell if an article was every written there, or whether one was deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Having failed the AfD, WP:NOTWEBHOST is the rationale now. She sounds like a fascinating woman, but there's just no verifiable claim to notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (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.