Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP zealot (2nd nomination)

 __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. It has been pointed out that we already have WP:CRYBLP, which states much the same without the anti-Semitic history that taints this essay. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP zealot


This might be OK in user space, but not in project space. It is a diatribe against WP:BLP by a now-departed user with a history of antisemitic edits. It is not greatly different from the version he created other than removal of references to "BLP Nazis" - the main change for the original. This essay is at odds with Wikipedia's conservative approach to biographies. Guy (Help!) 01:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and delete its shorcuts: WP:BLPZEALOT + WP:BLPZEAL. The very misguided user essay includes "That editor would remove a statement like "Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570" under this policy." What nonsense—anyone trying that would be violating WP:POINT. Other unsubstantiated claims of BLP excess such as "Chairs are unhealthy if sat in for long periods of time" demonstrate that no one cares whether this essay has any relation to reality. The essay has no advice and while a handful of editors may share its opinions, those opinions are strongly rejected by the community as demonstrated by the strong support for WP:BLP. Wikipedia would not benefit from an essay "balancing" each of the core policies with nonsensical contrarian views. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the essay isn't criticising BLP, it's criticising the overuse of BLP (which yes, can happen). Expressing dissent from widely held views isn't a valid reason for deleting an essay.  Hut 8.5  07:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine to think the BLP card is sometimes overplayed, and that obviously happens because everything is misused occasionally. However, the essay is 100% nonsense—do you think anyone has ever done any of the things listed in the essay (see my above comment for examples)? Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The statements were changed after the essay's creation. Your examples were orginally "Muhammad was bad" and "Tables are bad". World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have seen a number of cases where people attempted to apply BLP to articles about people who have obviously been dead for some time, or to articles about fictional characters. Granted, it's not a well written essay, but the basic point it's trying to make is sound and an essay which makes that point has value.  Hut 8.5  19:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The basic point it's trying to make is that people who try to enforce BLP are Nazis. that was literally the language until someone did a search and replace. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have WP:CRYBLP for that. This essay, by contrast, is terrible advice from a terrible user. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh OK, I wasn't aware of that one. I'd support a redirect to that page, there isn't much point in having two project-space essays on the same topic and that one is better written.  Hut 8.5  21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy- This essay misrepresents the position of the alleged "BLP zealots" by erecting an immense strawman. Critiquing an opinion that some people hold is a very different thing to inventing an opinion nobody holds, assigning it to people you don't like, and then critiquing it. This is a poor use of Project space. I suggest userfication because, although this doesn't belong in Project space, people should be allowed to be as wrong as they like as loudly as they like in their own user space. Reyk YO! 10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, except the user has left the building years ago. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The problems called out here remain real problems, though not as the specific examples used are those from a few years back. (Alternatively, since I use the term a good deal, I'll adopt it) DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have WP:CRYBLP, which does not have the antisemitic history.
 * The BLP zealot would take the policy to apply to long-dead historical figures where the above provision cannot realistically apply. That editor would remove a statement like "Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570" under this policy.
 * When did that ever happen?
 * As the policy says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" must be removed. The BLP zealot would take this to apply to all contentious material, no matter how well sourced. He would remove a statement like "Roman Polanski was charged with having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl"[1][2] under this policy.
 * Diffs? Who argued this? Guy (Help!) 09:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And if anyone did, was it because they were a "zealot" devoted to the BLP policy, or because they were trying to whitewash Polanski's biography and would have used any acronym they could as justification? The latter would be much more typical of what I've seen in my time here, and WP:CRYBLP covers that case much better. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete along with the redirects to it per the above arguments for deletion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the essay describes a real phenomenon, one that is highly damaging to the wikipedia's integrity. People mis-use BLP to call for deletion of articles when they don't want to share their real reason for calling for deletion, afraid it will be recognized as a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  As I noted, on Wikipedia talk:BLP zealot, one of the worst mis-uses of BLP I saw, about eight years ago, was a call to delete an article on a woman who had become notable as an advocate for the reform of some truly draconian laws on sex offenders.  She was notable, fulfilled the requirements of GNG, but those in the delete camp argued that BLP over-rode GNG, and she had to be protected against the wikipedia publicly covering her listing as a registered sex offender.  It was a hugely insulting and disingeneous claim, as she had made the conscious decision to forgo privacy when she chose to appear on National TV a decade earlier.  BLP Zealotry can be a very serious problem.  Okay, after re-reading the discussion more fully, I have some additional comments:
 * I read above that an earlier version of the essay contained anti-semitic passages. Am I missing something?  Am I missing anti-semitic passages in the current version?  What would we do if someone added anti-semitic passages to a wikipedia article on a genuinely notable topic?  Hopefully someone would notice it, and revert it as vandalism.  If the passage really represented a danger to a living person, and even its presence in the revision history represented a danger, we would have that specific revision oversighted.  We would not delete the article.  So why shouldn't the same hold true here.  If the danger of anti-semitic passage(s) is over, this is not grounds for deletion.
 * As for whether it was started by a former contributor, who left under a cloud. Okay, but don't most people who were long term contributors, who ended up leaving under a cloud, have an initial period when their contributions were almost all positive contributions?   I have been here for a long time, and I suspect other long time contributors can think of at least one individual who left under a cloud who we thought got a bad rap.  So, I do not agree with deleting contributions of former contributors, who left under a cloud, unless there is something uncorrectably wrong with the current version.  This decision should be made on a case by case basis.
 * Diff tells me over a dozen people thought enough of the essay to work on it, after it was started, who all had an opportunity to remove or rewrite any passages they recognized as being genuinely anti-semitic.
 * I just read the original version of the essay, and, while doing so, I was reminded of the Soup Nazi Seinfeld episode. Nazi Germany was terrible, had shockingly terrible policies.  Today's anti-semitic Neo-Nazis are terrible too.  But language is slippery, and some people use the word Nazi in a context that is not meant, to be anti-semitic.  The Soup Nazi article doesn't say anything about critics calling that episode anti-semitism, which I think shows lots of people agree Nazi wasn't being used in an anti-Semitic way in the Soup Nazi episode.  Of course we want to be more careful than comedy writers, so I support renaming the article Zealot, etc.  But, unless I am missing something, I don't see a problem with anti-semitism here.
 * Thanks for the pointer to WP:CRYBLP. It is a good essay.  But there are other areas where we have multiple essays, saying the same thing, or saying similar things, or that agree in some parts and disagree in others.  We probably have some pairs of perfectly adequate essays that disagree on almost every point. So I don't see the existence of CRYBLP as an argument to delete this essay.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Tries to undermine a policy by denigrating those who would follow policy. Justifies the violation of policy by offering up illogical arguments and appeals to emotion.  LK (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP is one of our most important policies and the one that arguably has the most real-world influence. This essay serves to undermine it. While I am for free expression and challenging policies, this one take it across a line, IMO, to a place where we'd do best not to have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely VER, NPOV and NOR are, overwhelmingly, the policies with the most real-world influence? Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting philosophical question, and actually I agree in principle, but in practice BLP is the policy which is most often treated as a bright-line rule, in my experience. Certainly very few people get summarily blocked for OR or verfiability issues, at least on a first offence, whereas egregious BLP violation is and rightly should be a one way ticket to the door. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (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.