the writer of the page has received annoying/harrasing emails; the writer of the page does not want this information available on the www —This unsigned comment was added by Oxford1 (talk • contribs) .
Comment I am the subject of the page. I am not concerned with info being inappropriate/unreliable, I just do not want to be subject to so many harassing emails, etc. It is a little frightening that you all are so concerned and invested into this article!
- Comment I will likely vote delete, in view of the ostensible non-notability of the subject, but surely the reason given in the nomination is categorically insufficient for deletion. While the creator of a page certainly may make a case for deletion when he/she is the only author, this page has been edited (albeit not substantively) by sundry individuals, and it is not for the creator of the page to determine exclusively and individually its proper disposition. The information on the page does not appear to be OR and does appear to be available elsewhere on the Internet, in view of which fact it doesn't seem at all appropriate to consider whether the author (or subject) of the page desires that the information should be on the Internet. Joe 23:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, clearly notable political activist. The rationale for deletion is clearly specious; the subject put personal information online last week in connection with an opinion piece for a Vancouver newspaper, including his picture. Not that this article needs all those pictures of him. Monicasdude 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I am adding {{not verified}} -- cmh 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I am adding the afd tag to that page... it should be on there, right? cmh 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes - not sure how that happened. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I am adding the afd tag to that page... it should be on there, right? cmh 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Is this the same guy as here? If so, being on CNN certainly seems notable no matter how you slice it. The fact that he's now angry at his Wikipedia notoriety just adds entertainment to the mix. Any chance you could post some of those annoying/harrassing e-mails somewhere so we can all enjoy? ;) And hey, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - I welcome Mr. Sabet to come and fix whatever is troubling him here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- If this is going to be "Kept", may I suggest that an experienced editor goes through this to remove the 2 layers of POV, one clearly directed towards supportin gthe subject, the other towards denegrating him. -- 62.25.109.196 08:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The best way to ensure that is done is to do it yourself. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not striving to present no points of view. Instead, it tries to present all points of view without undue weight on either. If you tackle this, it might be better to group contentious points into sections and present both sides of the debate. See WP:NPOV for more of these subtleties. -- cmh 17:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)