321:
sources to back them up. The fact that the refs are not all in
English does not make it fail WP:V, which explicitly allows non-English refs. I didn't think this was a good faith nomination the first time you placed it here, I think it even less this second time. As to your comment that you hope I read the references more clearly than your userpage, I didn't look at your userpage at all. I merely assumed you were having a comprehension problem, since you couldn't read what I have set before you now in black and white.
143:- I took this around over the weekend. I thinks the 'quick' clarification is necessary because of the subject and WP:BLP. I studied the sources and tried to search more myself. The main issue is the scarcity of reliable sources. Of the three in English (including the one on the talks pages), two are self-published and take the 'facts' as starting point. The third one (Le Soir) talks of Servaty only as suspect, as does the French one.
556:: DGG, would you please clarify your comment? My sources are A) A Belgian magazine; B) A Belgian newspaper; C) A Moroccan magazine; D)An Arabic news website; E) A blog from a noted Belgian journalist; and F) A Moroccan newspaper. Why would these not be considered reliable sources? Because only 2 are in English? Or do you have some other objection to them?
266:
where and when the mentioned interview was published. Here my limited understanding of Dutch may indeed have played a role. So I felt it necessary to have this reviewed. However, I won't express an opinion in this relisting (which is completely legit since there originally was only one opinion but ours.)
320:
Every ref either states he is accused of this act, or states explicitly that he did it. One ref even contains the fact that he apologized for doing it. It's clear he did it, so I don't see how you can nominate this for deletion based on WP:BLP. it's not libel to state the facts of a case, if you have
265:
As, of course, you're the creator let me add that I had hoped to have clarified that while there are many citations, and it is clear that there was a scandal with
Servaty as main suspect, not all sources actaully sustained that Servaty was identified as 'Belguel' or explained clear enough how or e.g.
238:
Well, I hope that you examined the sources more thoroughly than my userpage. While it only lists German and Itlian as Non-English languages, that allows me also to comprehend some Dutch and French respectively. As regards your feeeling of lack of good faith, I will merely take this as hint to try to
332:
As probably is clear by now, I did not place the article a second time here. That was done by an administrator. I nominated the artcicle in the first place, because I had doubts about the sources of the sources and in particular about the interview in light of WP:BLP which I seem to have understood
130:
A quick Google reveals the subject is notable enough, but I'd like to see some more
English references. I don't think deletion is warranted so quickly in this case - give it time and see what happens. FYI, the "A8" deletion referenced on the talk page is, IIRC, speedy deletion for blatant copyright
539:
I do not think that most of the article could stand up when examined in the light of BLP, unless one actually thought the sources here reliable by that criterion. As mentioned, this is especially true of the purported interviews. I do not see how one could justify some of the newspaper sources as
175:. I doubt he would libel anyone, as he has his professional reputation as journalist to consider. By the way, of the five refs I currently have, this is the only one that I see as self-published. The others are a Moroccan magazine, a Belgian magazine, a Belgian Newspaper and an Arabic news site.
224:
per above, and I am irritated this was relisted. It is obviously notable, and my personal feeling is that it was not nominated in good faith. It has 22 cites now, and had 22 cites when it was nominated. It's not my problem if the only language the nominator can comprehend is
English.
308:
Servaty photographed the women, saying it was for hi8s own use, and placed the explicit photos on the internet, with sexist and racist comments, on the now closed webiste marocsluts.tk...In an interview with RTBF he apologized and said that he is a sex
317:
In Agadir thirtten women are jailed and dozens on the run after becoming the victims of
Belgische journalist P.S. During his vacations in Morocco he seduced the women, made compromising photos, and set the photos on an
353:. The sources are there, he's notable, it's verifiable, that's it. AFD is not for source review when you simply don't like the sources. If you had questions about the reliability of sources, you should have taken it to
465:
299:
Servaty would have deluded over 80 Moroccan women, in the
Moroccan south-western city of Agadir, into taking pornographic photo-shots and scenes on promises that he would marry them and ensure their legal stay in his
282:
he 11 Moroccan young women imprisoned following this business had designated the man who had photographed them in these defamatory positions as being "Philippe
Sarfati, journalist with the Belgian daily newspaper Le
163:
states that blogs are not largely acceptable, it goes on to say that self-published work may be acceptable if the author is a professional in the field. This ref fulfills that criterion, as
110:
459:
155:- Every sentence is sourced with multiple references. There are 22 citations for a three paragraph article. While I realize English refs are preferable on the English Wiki,
519:
The article as currently written has very little biographical information about
Servaty himself, and is really just a summary of the scandal. So, really, it is the
52:
423:
deletion could be better spent. Press your "random article" age ten times and look at some of the stuff that is begging for deletion yet goes unnoticed.
242:
291:
Le Soir, however, forced
Servaty to resign in early June when it became known that Servaty had added “anti-Islamic remarks” to some of the pictures
83:
78:
49:
87:
17:
70:
480:
447:
254:
589:
36:
441:
333:
more narrow than other editors here and only reentered this second discussion because of the not-good-faith claim.
588:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
437:
380:
Hi guys, please calm down: AFD is exactly the right forum for this, not RFC (that is for behavioral disputes).
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
574:
560:
546:
531:
515:
508:
495:
427:
411:
375:
337:
325:
270:
258:
229:
216:
197:
179:
147:
135:
121:
168:
487:
424:
74:
473:
404:
365:
250:
453:
571:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
400:
66:
58:
540:
sufficient for the purpose. But it is notable, though I would how much of it will survive.
354:
209:
172:
399:- For what's it worth, after the article survives this AfD, it will be immune from being
419:
I understand the frustration expressed above. Time wasted trying to save articles from
528:
239:
make my montivation clearer, as I originally did in contact with the artcle's creator.
159:
states that foreign refs are acceptable. As to the issue of self-published refs, while
524:
160:
156:
358:
334:
267:
246:
144:
118:
104:
557:
505:
492:
408:
322:
226:
188:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
176:
164:
132:
384:
213:
194:
542:
117:
Contested db of scandal-bio; sources have been improved, but not enough
212:
but is chock-full of non-English references establishing notability. —
527:, not Philippe Servaty, and that should be the name of the article.--
407:. However, I agree this should have been an immediate speedy keep.
167:
is also a journalist who has written for major newspapers such as
582:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
100:
96:
92:
472:
193:
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
486:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
592:). No further edits should be made to this page.
357:. This is an abuse of the deletion process. —
8:
504:- sufficient news coverage per above.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
295:The ArabicNews.com (the weakest ref)
24:
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
575:22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
561:08:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
547:03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
532:14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
509:12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
496:12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
428:11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
412:15:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
376:10:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
338:18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
326:10:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
271:09:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
259:09:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
230:08:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
217:07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
208:- Could use some cleanup per
198:05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
53:02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
180:16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
148:10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
136:10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
122:10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
609:
585:Please do not modify it.
516:Philippe Servaty scandal
32:Please do not modify it.
169:The Wall Street Journal
313:De Standaard newspaper
245:comment was added by
287:The Brussels journal
389:
388:2007-02-11 11:21Z
262:
200:
600:
587:
491:
490:
476:
425:House of Scandal
391:
387:
372:
368:
362:
240:
192:
189:
108:
90:
67:Philippe Servaty
59:Philippe Servaty
34:
608:
607:
603:
602:
601:
599:
598:
597:
596:
590:deletion review
583:
433:
381:
370:
366:
360:
278:The TelQuel ref
241:—The preceding
187:
173:The Independent
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
606:
604:
595:
594:
578:
577:
564:
563:
550:
549:
534:
511:
431:
430:
414:
394:
393:
392:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
304:Knack magazine
274:
273:
263:
233:
232:
219:
202:
201:
191:
183:
182:
150:
138:
131:violation. --
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
605:
593:
591:
586:
580:
579:
576:
573:
569:
566:
565:
562:
559:
555:
552:
551:
548:
545:
544:
538:
535:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
517:
512:
510:
507:
503:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
489:
485:
482:
479:
475:
471:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
439:
436:
435:Find sources:
429:
426:
422:
418:
415:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
390:
386:
379:
378:
377:
373:
364:
356:
352:
349:
348:
339:
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
319:
314:
310:
305:
301:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
276:
275:
272:
269:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
228:
223:
220:
218:
215:
211:
207:
204:
203:
199:
196:
190:
185:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
149:
146:
142:
139:
137:
134:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
584:
581:
572:SlideAndSlip
567:
553:
541:
536:
523:which meets
520:
513:
501:
483:
477:
469:
462:
456:
450:
444:
434:
432:
420:
416:
396:
382:
350:
316:
312:
307:
303:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
221:
205:
186:
152:
140:
127:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
460:free images
165:Paul Belien
570:per above
529:Aervanath
514:Move to
421:improper
405:speedied
335:Tikiwont
318:sexsite.
268:Tikiwont
255:contribs
247:Tikiwont
243:unsigned
145:Tikiwont
119:Tikiwont
111:View log
521:scandal
466:WPÂ refs
454:scholar
397:Comment
300:country
141:Comment
84:protect
79:history
558:Jeffpw
506:Addhoc
493:Addhoc
438:Google
409:Addhoc
401:proded
355:WP:RFC
323:Jeffpw
309:addict
227:Jeffpw
210:WP:BLP
177:Jeffpw
153:Oppose
133:Qarnos
128:Oppose
88:delete
554:Reply
481:JSTOR
442:books
385:Quarl
214:Dgies
195:Quarl
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
568:Keep
525:WP:N
502:Keep
474:FENS
448:news
417:Keep
363:acan
351:Keep
283:Soir
251:talk
222:Keep
206:Keep
171:and
161:WP:V
157:WP:V
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
543:DGG
537:BLP
488:TWL
403:or
359:coe
280:: t
109:– (
48:.
468:)
374:—
371:lk
315::
311:.
306::
302:.
297::
293:.
289::
285:.
257:)
253:•
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
484:·
478:·
470:·
463:·
457:·
451:·
445:·
440:(
383:—
369:a
367:t
361:l
261:.
249:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.