The result was delete. Whatever other COI or SPA issues we have here, the consensus is that this is a BLP1E, perhaps a case of too soon but ultimately not suitable for inclusion at this time. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
There is not independent reporting on this subject as required by WP:BIO (the one most-cited source seems to be quoting press releases without editorial judgment being applied) and the editing of the article, which is about a minor, appears to be entirely WP:COI editing by an immediate family member of the article subject. There is no verifiability here, and no basis for notability. The article creator objected to a previous PROD. WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Commentary from article creator.
|
---|
RESPONSE TO DELETION AS PER ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY USER:WEIJIBAIKEBIANJI: EDIT: User WEIJIBAIKEBIANJI has now also uploaded personal discussions on his talk page aimed at parenting, which is of no relevance. This is also another reason why this claim for the deletion of the page should be further investigated on the basis of bias and discrimination. Based on the tone of your comments, in addition to the ways in which you have posed your questions and arguments, you have clearly not read, nor conducted any research on the individual in question. The sources are from across the world. One search on Google would have reaffirmed all information that had been uploaded to the page. In this manner, you have seemingly not even taken the time to take such a minute action. Accordingly, please ensure that you thoroughly read all information herein stated, because this will act as the basis of further investigations. None of the information was libelous, nor was it self-published. Any individual could have easily determined this as true by making one phone-call to any of the many articles that were used to reference the work. The individual in question was also recently named a Top Thirty Thinker Under Thirty by the Pacific Standard magazine, which is an academic magazine. Are you going to dispute this as not have merits or being useful as evidence in favor of the validation of the information in the Wiki article? Nonetheless, if you had read all regulations you would have noticed the following: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Although this page was not created by the individual being discussed, your argument would fail under these standards, since the page was not self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events that are not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity due to the inclusion of multiple articles to further validate all evidence, and the article is primarily based on a wide variety of articles which were further included in the additional sources component of the article. Further, see below: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E)." The individual being discussed has been in the media frequently since she was eleven years old in 2009. Once again conducting research and/or noting the sources that had been uploaded can validate this information. This person is of enough significance to be included on the page that you seek to have deleted. See more: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: • university-level textbooks • books published by respected publishing houses • magazines • journals • mainstream newspapers." The articles used sources from mainstream newspapers. Further, information from magazines can be uploaded, too! This was not included since all the information that was included had already been referenced. Finally, see below: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." Prove how any of the sources are questionable sources as per this regulation from Wikipedia. None of the sources have poor reputations in fact many have significantly profound reputations. None are extremist or promotional, nor do they rely on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinions. ____________________________________________ The article was referenced with many sources from many different individuals who hold high positions in newspapers and media stations across the globe. Are you now insinuating that the individual in question or I myself am related to every individual who has happened to upload an article about Eugenie Carys de Silva? You should check your records and the records that are freely available to all individuals in the public domain. Based on your background on your page, you claim to have worked for the Federal Government; thus, it is astonishing that you are unaware of how to utilize Open-Source information in order to develop a report that would suffice in the validation of your statements. If further proof is necessary, you will receive signed letters from government officials and accredited university systems and internationally renowned educators who will validate all the information. In fact, more information could be included through the utilization of articles that are written in other languages (which is what others seem to do on the Wikipedia pages in order to fulfill the requirements of citing sources that you seem to have carelessly overlooked). Nonetheless, this information had not been included, since the incorporation of such articles should not be acceptable in an English Wikipedia in which individuals should be able to prove the achievements in the English language. Your statements are based on false grounds. Eugenie de Silva is from Manchester, England, and has been in the U.S. for many years. Based on your comments, you have not understood, nor even investigated this information. Thus, rendering any opinions or attacks to “Delete a Page” seems to be plainly a means to fulfill one’s biased desire to have a certain individual removed from a page. You are not only clearly attacking the individual in question, but you are also undermining the notion that this individual is who she says she is (which has been further validated by U.S. magazines and news stations across the world, such as the Pacific Standard). This is defamation of character and smear tactics. Your remarks are not in the interest of upholding the standards of Wikipedia, but rather seem to be aimed at furthering your own biased agenda. I suggest you reconsider your arguments consequent to actually weighing the evidence. You have also failed to address any points that I raised in my previous post, which is a sign that you are evading the very underlying basis of this entire debacle. You have somehow fittingly chosen to select “Eugenie de Silva” as the target, whereas a majority of the claims for other individuals on the “List of Child Prodigies” page have not be verified and are supported by PDF Google Documents that anyone could develop, in addition to outdated sources that can no longer be accessed. I suggest that you delete this information immediately. Otherwise, it will certainly seem that you are being discriminatory. The page has many additional articles to which you should refer; additionally, if you are serious about the attacks that you have made, then you should conduct research and develop a report to explain how you are correct. Your comments are false and are trying to have a page removed from Wikipedia, which has been in place for over a year, since you seem to believe that you have the power to do so without actually considering all information and evidence. Do you have a personal vendetta against the individual in question? If not, please provide evidence. Further, if you continue to falsely develop arguments to have a page removed, then please once again be aware that this will be considered as discriminatory tactics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Europa6 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 May 2014 |
>My first question is, did this individual achieve a bachelor's and a master's at the ages mentioned in the article? If you contact the American Military University, it could be clearly confirmed. Has any of you called them? The second question is, is the individual currently studying at Harvard? Then this also could be confirmed easily. Have you actually called Harvard? Also, if you think Harvard extension school has no application required to enroll as a Master's student, then definitely you have not attended Harvard. Then, if you have an issue with the books published, you can buy them and read or search on the web the same way you attempted to search Harvard university extension school. In my opinion, this decision to delete is an action culminated as a result of some of you trying to promote your own agenda >— Frizvanov ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This discussion was previously closed as "delete" by an administrator. As a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 2, this discussion is relisted. Sandstein 20:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)