311:
I spent hours to find sources for positive facts, but with no success. Just because I have information that is fine according to WP's standards but not liked by the subject, doesn't make me have a conflict of interest. I never deleted any positive fact. Truth is, however, that there was never an objective proof for anything the subject claims. On the contrary. There are a lot more facts that cannot even be put into WP, because they cannot be sourced, such as for example if you call the property register about "his" castle and his name is nowhere to appear (I agree, it can be held through a company) or when he claims to be member of certain clubs and restaurants (like in the original puff piece) and when you call there, they don't know him etc. - again: facts with sources should be in and not constantly deleted by subject's friends. A battleground would further more be a place where parties fight about something. Here's nothing to argue about: if there are ANY positive facts, come on forward, put them and source them and stop just deleting what you don't like.--
224:
search, there is nothing positive that he didn't say or write himself to be found. I am a professional journalist, the editor who was commissioned to write a real world article for a
British newspaper about Pena. However, when I started doing the research, it happened that nothing positive could be proven and a lot of dirt came up. There is nothing bad about disclosing that; and it's sure as hell not a COI - it's simply the fact that I got access to a number of sources and put them out there. However, you and your friends have constantly been deleting those properly sourced facts and never added any positive fact with source. Also some of the scans published via scribd.com come directly from the guy/you, who else would have access to those?--
206:
attempts have been made to make the article neutral with little success. It has been deleted before. This article is not a reliable source of material for an encyclopedia and does not reflect well on the good faith of the
Knowledge community. BLP issues. Neutral point of view (NPOV)/No original research - editors have strong coi. An active editor admitted he was a writer doing a piece on Pena. Some editors using scans which may violate copyright violations. Verifiability - poor sources. numerous citations used are not relevant to subject. Notability - weak sources to prove notability.
519:
google search would not even pullup those negative sources in the first page (i've searched up to page 5 no results). As mentioned in the discussion, the Canada section keeps being expanded and has the longest paragraph in the whole article. Including every detail, even well sourced material, can lead to an unencyclopedic article and shows issues on
310:
I think it is wrong to speak of sides here. WP has the claim to be somehow an encyclopedia. For that it is important that all published facts are sourced. If no positive sources can be found, but many negative come up, is one supposed to not mention them? All facts I put in, I have sourced perfectly.
499:
Deleting a page because of alleged behaviour by editors is not what
Knowledge is about. We'd have no article on Jesus, Mohammed, Israel or any religious or sex subject. I seem to remember changing my mind from delete to keep during the last AfD for this, when the article ceased to be puff and became
426:
You don't delete an article which can be fixed. The guy gets plenty of news coverage, so he is notable. If you believe there is a problem, discuss it on the talk page, and then look for a page where people discuss slanderous attacks on biography pages, there a discussion group dedicated to looking
479:
This is a living person which may already be being subject to harm. The subject is not a public figure whose notability is produced in mainstream news. The subject may be notable enough for an entry, but not generally well known. Restraint is not being used on material irrelevant to his notability
518:
Jesus and
Mohammed are not living persons. It is not uncommon for high profile people to be the target of lawsuits. He already won against the GWR case and was recently cleared of the India case yet some editors keep pushing negative press as his point of notability which is not the case. A simple
223:
it is not an attack page. When you go through the history, you will see that all facts have been properly source, at least the ones I added. It's just a sad truth that nothing of the positive claims can be proven or sourced, however a lot of shady dealings came to the light. No matter how hard you
205:
Attack page. Some editors are just finding as much dirt as they can on the subject. This is breaching
Knowledge's policy on biographies of living persons. This article has a long history of NPOV issues since it began. It started as a puff piece then became a character assassination. Countless
325:
Dreaded Walrus is correct. It has turned into a battleground. The subject of the article is being attacked constantly. Every positive detail is being challenged. Disproportionate space has been given under the controversy section, particularly Canada, including every detail leading to an
348:
I cannot see which positive details WITH SOURCES you put into the article. All your activity shows is the attempts to delete or hide or confuse the properly sourced controversial facts about him. He is making a myth out of him and a business out of that, where is little or no
245:
there does seem be be some POV wording, and the implication should be made clearer, eg "claims" should be counteracted with claims to the opposite effect. If indeed there is too much dirt the page can be protected. However the dirt that is there now seems to be valid.
564:
Cablespy and Ludlom appear to both be new SPAs - taking an article to AfD is uncommon for a new account. Esinclair52 has edited at least one other article, but has mainly focussed on this one for some time. (I edit all sorts of things....)
480:
which may cause adverse effects on his reputation. There are parts which are not written conservatively which keep being reverted even after cleanup. The Canada section,as an example, which is given disproportionate space and POV wording.
174:
77:
264:
agree with the KEEP, if there is anything positive, put it in and source it. Neutral cannot mean to delete everything that sounds bad if the guy doesn't like it when there are proper sources.--
619:
168:
72:
131:
582:
Subject appears to be clearly notable. Agree with
Peridon that we should not delete an article just because the subject is controversial, or because of an editing war. --
500:
more interesting. I agree with DGG that some fixing needs to be done. To those who see libellous material here, find something that proves it is and put it on the table.
285:- if this article is kept it would be nice to have a bunch of extra eyes on the article as it's being edited by editors from both sides, almost all of whom appear to be
543:
OK - substitute George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden and whoever the current
England Football manager is. I just picked names that were controversial subjects.
409:
there are other ways to deal with edit wars, than deletion. the "negative press" provides reliable sources for notability (doubt notable without them)
135:
104:
99:
108:
91:
634:
609:
591:
574:
552:
536:
509:
490:
469:
450:
418:
395:
381:
358:
339:
320:
301:
273:
255:
233:
215:
56:
189:
156:
17:
458:
and fix. In particular the canada section is over-detailed, and does seem to go out of its way to find negative quotes.
150:
146:
95:
370:
650:
251:
36:
649:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
196:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
600:. Notability is established by sources. Problem articles about notable topics should be fixed, not deleted. -
297:) as could be, and this article is turning into a battleground (if a mostly good-natured one), pretty much.
354:
316:
269:
229:
87:
62:
350:
312:
265:
225:
247:
162:
528:
387:
378:
331:
298:
207:
182:
630:
605:
587:
532:
482:
391:
374:
335:
211:
377:
step three. Without adding it there, very few people are going to come across this discussion).
570:
548:
505:
414:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
486:
428:
293:. I try to keep an eye on it, but I don't have as much experience with policy (especially
524:
626:
601:
583:
520:
465:
294:
290:
286:
566:
544:
501:
410:
49:
125:
460:
643:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
327:
365:
Please do not remove comments of other users, as you did
78:
Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Peña Sr. (2nd nomination)
366:
121:
117:
113:
181:
620:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
653:). No further edits should be made to this page.
195:
8:
369:. (Also, you forgot to add this page to the
614:
618:: This debate has been included in the
73:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Peña Sr.
70:
7:
326:unencyclopedic article and violates
69:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
427:into that, and acting on it.
57:00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
635:05:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
610:05:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
592:23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
575:21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
553:15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
537:03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
510:20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
491:17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
470:03:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
451:02:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
419:16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
396:16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
386:Sorry, that was an accident.
382:14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
359:15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
340:13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
321:15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
302:12:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
274:15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
256:05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
234:15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
216:03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
670:
646:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
68:AfDs for this article:
88:Daniel S. Peña Sr.
63:Daniel S. Peña Sr.
44:The result was
637:
623:
661:
648:
624:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
432:
200:
199:
185:
129:
111:
54:
34:
669:
668:
664:
663:
662:
660:
659:
658:
657:
651:deletion review
644:
445:
442:
439:
436:
433:
430:
248:Graeme Bartlett
142:
102:
86:
83:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
667:
665:
656:
655:
639:
638:
612:
595:
577:
562:For the record
558:
557:
556:
555:
540:
539:
513:
512:
494:
473:
472:
453:
421:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
379:Dreaded Walrus
363:
362:
361:
343:
342:
323:
305:
304:
299:Dreaded Walrus
279:
278:
277:
276:
259:
258:
239:
238:
237:
236:
203:
202:
139:
136:AfD statistics
82:
81:
80:
75:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
666:
654:
652:
647:
641:
640:
636:
632:
628:
621:
617:
613:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
572:
568:
563:
560:
559:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
498:
495:
493:
492:
488:
484:
478:
475:
474:
471:
467:
463:
462:
457:
454:
452:
449:
448:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
324:
322:
318:
314:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
257:
253:
249:
244:
241:
240:
235:
231:
227:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
137:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
79:
76:
74:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
645:
642:
615:
597:
579:
561:
496:
481:
476:
459:
455:
429:
423:
406:
349:substance.--
282:
242:
204:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
375:WP:AFDHOWTO
351:Esinclair52
313:Esinclair52
266:Esinclair52
226:Esinclair52
169:free images
407:weak keep
627:Eastmain
602:Eastmain
594:MelanieN
584:MelanieN
529:Cablespy
388:Cablespy
332:Cablespy
208:Cablespy
132:View log
567:Peridon
545:Peridon
525:WP:NPOV
502:Peridon
411:Pohick2
330:policy.
289:with a
283:Comment
175:WP refs
163:scholar
105:protect
100:history
52:JForget
521:WP:BLP
483:Ludlom
477:Delete
373:, per
295:WP:BLP
147:Google
109:delete
466:talk
446:Focus
190:JSTOR
151:books
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
631:talk
616:Note
606:talk
598:Keep
588:talk
580:Keep
571:talk
549:talk
533:talk
523:and
506:talk
497:Keep
487:talk
456:Keep
424:Keep
415:talk
392:talk
367:here
355:talk
336:talk
328:NPOV
317:talk
287:SPAs
270:talk
252:talk
243:keep
230:talk
212:talk
183:FENS
157:news
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
46:keep
461:DGG
371:log
291:COI
197:TWL
134:•
130:– (
633:)
622:.
608:)
590:)
573:)
551:)
535:)
508:)
489:)
468:)
417:)
394:)
357:)
338:)
319:)
272:)
254:)
232:)
214:)
177:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
48:.
629:(
625:—
604:(
586:(
569:(
547:(
531:(
527:.
504:(
485:(
464:(
443:m
440:a
437:e
434:r
431:D
413:(
390:(
353:(
334:(
315:(
268:(
250:(
228:(
210:(
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.