Hm, as ever deletion review goes about its aburd business of putting process ahead of content - wikipedians scrutinising the wonders of whether the arcane and inscrutable wikirules having been followed - without asking basic questions like "isn't this article actually a load of bollocks?".

The case in point?

A biography of a banker called Howard Paul. The article claims the guy was important because he was president of the "American Banking League". I speedy deleted the article in December, because, guess what? The "American Banking League"doesn't exist. The article is a certain hoax.

Enter DRV last week. Deletion review overturns the deletion because my deletion didn't meet the precise letter of the sacred "Criteria". See here. All the wonkers check the criteria (if they don't know them by heart) and agree. No one bothers to check the links on the article and discover it's codswallop.

Amazingly, my old inclusionist friend "DGG" votes to restore it, noting he already declined a prod on the article. So, twice now he's moved to retain this crap. And he asserts that his prior failure to delete bullshit makes my speedy deletion of bullshit invalid?

The bottom line is that wikiprocess have lost all touch with their supposed objective to keeping crap out, and good content in. Yet another reason for me avoiding the asylum.



And immediately after I post here, it goes on "Articles for deletion".

OK, I dare everyone to vote:

"Delete per wikipedia review thread"!!!

Not saying the article isn't a hoax, but there is this guy, also mentioned here. Also, Presidential candidate Ron Paul's father was named Howard Paul, though he was not (apparently) a banker. Whether he was a "merchant banker", as the East End wags would have it, is another question.

Which is why we specifically don't speedy hoaxes unless they're absolutely blatant – Google just isn't reliable enough to judge whether something's accurate. Some of those arcane policies are there for a reason.

True, I think a lot of articles which are obvious deletion candidates don't meet the completely random rules for what can be speedily deleted. For instance, some things are covered by criteria A7- not asserting the subject's significance- and some can't be deleted that way. I wonder if I could put 'delete per common sense' or per 'Ignore all rules' and it would work.

But my point is that the article was reviewed for 5 days at DRV, and absolutely no-one bothered to examine the content, or check the sources. That's insane.

However, since there's a consensus here on WR to delete it, that should be good enough.

Yes, but the guy above, though born in the same year, dies in 1967, not 1960, and doesn't serve in WW I and isn't married to the same woman, etc. Bios are totally different.

So, two different Howard Pauls in banking. Happens.

BTW, I also can't find an American Banking League or even a Banking League that happens to be in America. Which doesn't mean there isn't one, as absense of evidence on Google isn't evidence of absense in the world (particularly the world just after WW II). But it needs a ref and a time limit.

And as for the 1940's NY Times mention in the bio, it's also not referenced. So, doesn't count.

There is a concensus on WR to delete, but did any of the WR's who voted to delete (other than you) bother to check whether or not this article is bogus?

That's clearly NOT the guy in the WP bio. You folks have to actually READ this stuff.

Yes, it is, but that's the system that was set up mainly by deletionists, who pushed DRV as a discussion about process and not substance. Nine times out of ten it's a deletion which is upheld because the AfD or Speedy technically met the criteria, even though it was an obviously incorrect result.

It's also part of the idiocy of deletion criterion A7, which, instead of allowing deletion based on the actual notability, bases deletion on whether or not importance is indicated within the article. CSD A7 shouldn't even exist - if you use it you have to deal with the fact that it's a stupid criterion. An article on a notable subject should be allowed regardless of whether or not it "indicates importance", and an article on a non-notable subject should be disallowed regardless of whether or not it "indicates importance".

User:LeaveSleaves is now edit warring to keep the hoax information in. Now that's insane.

And now someone needlessly removes ALL the content from the article, which precludes any sane discussion of the (dis)merits. Either speedy delete it as a hoax, or debate its content properly - why does wikipedia always prefer the dramatic and the process over the sensible?




Tee heee. As I recall, it was me that came up with the formula for A7. Originaly it was meant to cover articles that said "John Smith is a schoolteacher from Michigan", which even if verifiable would not even require debating as not "notability".....

Our sins will find us out.

I restored your removal for now... I think there are clues there that this was a fouled up mistaken article, but not an outright hoax. I don't have time to dig deeper, but I posted on the AFD and article talk a possible lead. If that doesn't pan out, Google is dry for anything else I could see. This might be a Howard Paul Becker, not "Howard Paul".

It's well to remember that we're not talking about BLP here, since this guy's been dead nearly half a century. If there's some referenced stuff about stuff he did in public life that made the papers, why not a bio?

And when we're not talking about BLP, but merely BIOs of long dead people, I personally tend to flip and become an inclusionist, since WP is not paper, and then I find myself embarrassingly sounding like Jimbo. I'd love to see obits of ordinary folk turn up on WP, instead of where they are (on Fische in some dusty library basement). History isn't just made by notable people, but also "ordinary" people

(The lesson here being that a large fraction of ordinary people will be found to have done at least one extraordinary thing during a "normal" life, which would be enough to make them WP notable if any newpaper reporter had been there to document it. I'm sure you all know of incidents in your own family).

There are also a lot of WP policies put into WP:NOT by deletionists, which are sort of dumb, but exist on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. Like WP is NOT a memorial site, a policy which would be used pronto against obit-like articles on the "non-notable." But really, who cares? WP could be a map site, a phonebook site, a collection of interesting lists, a nearly anything linked-information site, so long as the collection of info isn't intrustive, nasty, or in violation of The Golden Rule. Which isn't in the 5 pillars, but should rule them all, like the ring of power.

And would be doing so, if WP hadn't been founded by such a Randroid ass.

WTF? How is it a preference of process over the sensible to remove dubious unsourced claims from Wikipedia? If people want to see the claims, they can look at the history - or you can copy them to the AfD page.

Insisting that unsourced dubious claims cannot be removed from an article during the AfD process is precisely the act of putting process over the sensible you are arguing against.

Sure, but I would think a minimum criterion for an article on a person would be a reason to think the person might have actually existed. A claim from an SPA with numerous unrelated external links doesn't cut it, IMO.

Is the argument that as soon as someone dies, BLP vanishes and you can say whatever you like? You have their families to consider. I remember a boy at school whose great-grandfather, who died before this boy was born, had gone to prison. The boy was ragged horrid about it.

That brings up the interesting question of when should a BLP restriction on some negative coverage expire? 5 years after death? 15? 50? 100? If [[Bob Jones]] allegedly lynched blacks in 1895 (multiple sources, notable, but unproven in court of law), should we per BLP not mention that to not offend and humiliate his 13 year old ancestor born in 1985?

{{done}}

Admin actions "per IAR" are the absolute shottiest. It is, in my opinion, worse than an admin action "per IRC". IAR should never apply seriously to admin actions. With the possible exception of deleting a stupid effing discussion about whether someone is lying about their sibling being dead or not. "Per common sense" > "per IAR", if you've got no leg to stand on.

I'd very much like to see someone axe this article per IAR right about now.

That poor confused ancestor; he doesn't even know what year it is!

Math: you fail it. (also, "ancestor" would be the wrong word)

23 year-old descendant.

That's not an easy problem, because it has no bright lines, like death. For this reason, many religions and customs specify certain mourning periods, so it will be clarified. One year? 3 years?

Perhaps 24 hours? While the body is still above ground or the funeral hasn't yet been held?

I dunno-- what do you all think? (Assuming you agree about BLP).

I'd be happy to get 99% of what I want with BLP alone. Have at their reps while they're still cooling off.

Yep. I haven't seen a decent cite that clearly mentions this actual guy. So put a tag on it, and leave a note on the talk page of the article creator to come up with at least one readable ref that this was a real person (there is one to a banking journal but unreadable without subscription, and I think it's unlikely-but-possible there's any info in it which identifies this guy over his (at least one other) banker-of-the-same name).

Wikipedia should do no harm. Simple.

Yah, we keep getting back to the Golden Rule.

One problem with golden rule application is that WP operates explicitly without ID, and some of golden rule fixing involves making ID, so you can tell who has "standing" (in somewhat the legal sense) to have their feelings hurt ("Hey, that's my BIO, or that's my MOTHER you're bio'ing there!"). Without ID, you can't tell the genuinely aggrieved from the nutcases. Messing with WP bios of dead people involves somewhat the same problems as deciding whether or not to exhume a body. Or re-bury one which might be in a museum, and of archeological interest.

As we've said before, people are the ultimate experts on their own personal histories and their own personal feelings. But Wikipedia doesn't believe in expertise.

It's worse than that. Identification of yourself as: (1) the page being about yourself, or (2) as a person who is related to the person - both being people who may be negatively impacted by the page is: (1) grounds for COI blocking, (2) ignoring everything you say, and usually (3) making WORSE edits about the person-in-question, "just because you can" in the name of sadism free speech.

Here's your answer from the horse's Jimbo's mouth:

I had asked him if he lay awake worrying that he had created a monster, and he laughed a bit wildly. If so it is quite a benign one, he suggested - a big friendly giant.

Jimbo Wales thinks it is funny when people suffer. That's part of why Wikipedia is so screwed-up.

That reporter had recently experienced, as a newbie, having his BLP removed for COI, and had been blocked.

That's not so funny. There are times when I feel as though it "ought" to be 1998 myself. While 2008 is the frigging FUTURE. As in "Dude, where's my flying car?" Screw the iPhone; it's not enough.

Closed and deleted. What is the point of restoring a hoax just to ensure it is deleted through the "correct" channels?

What a waste of everyone's time.