Nominated for Deletion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan (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 keep. John254 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan
Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan (2nd nomination)
Edward McSweegan(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
Was up for deletion last year as a result of the previous version being a BLP violation. Article was kept after I found sources to establish notability, and the dodgy edits were oversighted. However today, I got an email from Dr. McSweegan demanding that the article be deleted, as he seems to think even the cleaned-up version constitutes stalking and harassment. Subject meets WP:N--question here is whether it's marginal enough that it should be deleted per his request. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Blueboy96 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Ugh. I feel for all that Blueboy96 and the subject have dealt with here. Still, whatever the issues may have been previously, the subject is notable under WP guidelines. I also think that his notability is beyond that magic line at which his article can be deleted at his request. Notability is not temporary, and the treatment given to the subject by major sourceslike this- and there are plenty of others as reflected in the article or via a quick search - is too much to ignore. The problem then becomes whether this is a WP:BLP-mandated deletion. I conclude that at this time it is not. Oversighting would appear to have kept the worst of the problem in check, although I do see that there were some attempts to reintroduce material on the article's talk page. Semi-protection of both pages may be appropriate if there is a problem with anonymous editor adding unsourced POV-pushing material, which will make it relatively easy in the event it becomes necessary to sanction editors. Xymmax (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The subject keeps running for the spotlight, then crying that he can't see because it's too bright. We went through this a year ago; I stubbed the article to almost zilch, and an admin deleted all previous versions. The subject is whining that he can't control his public image anymore, not unlike numerous other malingerers who 'demand' we remove them. Works for the government, in a post of some responsibility, where he goes and gets press by speaking out, then writes books and promotes them, gets senators talking about him in public and private, writes for Salon.com, and so on? He meets notability.(Personal attack removed) ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notable scientist, involved in a long term public controversy due to the NIH benching. Passes notability easily, several reliable sources used for references. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein(talk) 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep -- beyond the borderline that gives the subject a voice in deciding whether he should have an article or not. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as others above, I feel that Edward McSweegan has become a public figure and deletion of his article is not warranted. HOWEVER, I don't feel that saying that he should just shut the fuck up is appropriate, and urge User:ThuranX to retract that. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Horrorshowj, clearly a notable scientist and public figure. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, as per my comment last time around. The article has one or two apparent inaccuracies but I don't currently have time to work on it. Agree semi-protection might be warranted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. The article does indeed have some POV problems. But he's notable enough that it should be kept.DGG(talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (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.
This page was last modified on 30 March 2008 at 23:06.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_McSweegan_(2nd_nomination)