Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Biscardi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Biscardi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biscardi is a Bigfoot researcher who is arguably best known for his association with that Georgia Bigfoot hoax from 2008. There's not a whole lot of material available beyond that, so I would recommend deleting the article on WP:BLP grounds. I should note that a user recently gutted the page for "libelous, unsubstantiated material". I'm not commenting on the merits of that claim, but I do think the page is probably more trouble than it is worth. I first got involved with it a few years ago because I noticed that much of it was closely paraphrased. Many of the edits made to the page since that time have been disruptive, and I don't feel comfortable keeping it around, since it is a potential BLP minefield. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Zagalejo^^^ 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The "user" who gutted the article recently is a hit-and-run by a 4-edit SPA who should be dealt with by means other than making his wish come true. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Last I knew, something "being a 'potetial' BLP minefield" or "feeling uncomfortable having it around" were not valid deletion arguments. The subject is covered in multiple reliable sources over a many-years period and is discussed in multiple books. THE definition of what constitutes notability. We have more suitable ways to deal with "problem" articles than outright deletion because of "potential" problems or "feelings" of unease. We do not care about the truth or not of his message or his field of study... only that he IS covered. And quite importantly, this should be returned to the sourced version which existed before the massive gutting a gutting which resulted in a poor verison of the original being brought to AFD for review. I would suggest this article THEN be semi-protected to prevent improper edits by anon IPs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on "his message or his field of study". I've argued to keep articles on lots of Bigfoot/UFO/paranormal researchers over the years. Biscardi is a somewhat different sort of case, however. The book sources that aren't self-published only mention him briefly, in the context of hoaxes. (A number of those books that pop up in a Google search don't even mention him at all. Charles Fort died before Biscardi was born, and I know Bernard Heuvelmans never wrote about Biscardi.) I'll concede that Biscardi has gotten some newspaper coverage over the years for Bigfoot expeditions (it was me who originally added some of the older articles as references), but I don't think such articles are so abundant that we must keep the Wiki page. Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has done a few things not bigfoot related, but my point was that articles on fringe-related topics often become targets of vandalism, and we have ways with which to deal with such that do not require deletion. I do not own, nor have I researched all 150+ books which mention him... so should you wish it, we can ignore all books. But just as you yourself concede the years of coverage, so do I .. and I am unable to dismiss those years of news coverage simply because we have vandals. Your concerns are surmountable issues, and we have means set in place to address articles if seen as susceptible to problems. Simply being susceptible is not cause for deletion of notable topics... else articles on Paris Hilton, Courtney Love, Lindsey Lohan, et al, would be long gone from Wikipedia. Negative attention is a result of being in the news... like Tom Biscardi. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Biscardi gets nowhere near the amount of coverage of those celebrities you've mentioned (each of whom has over 300 people watching her page). And I do think there's a difference between childish, drive-by vandalism and claims of libel (which are probably coming from the subject, or someone close to the subject). Even if the claims are frivolous, they're still something that could become a big headache moving forward. Let me ask you this: do you feel comfortable reverting Llkjhsjgd's edits? I'll be honest: I don't. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

offered only as more visible examples of how we deal with vandalism. But a popular as their pages are, we also do not use page activity as a sign of notability or lack. And I'd already suggested that if kept, it be reverted to the last good version before the more recent SPA gutted it, and be set on watch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To summarize the last vote, this nom does not really make a valid case for deletion. Notable is notable. I've seen the "libel trap" argument used before on AfDs for other articles, and that is not a valid criterion for deletion. If it were, Wikipedia would be a very different place. Roodog2k (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is borderline notable (I would argue that Biscardi is on the borderline), and their article is deemed problematic, we have deleted such articles in the past. (Daniel Brandt, Allison Stokke, Miriam Sakewitz, etc) I've been participating in AFD for many years, and if I didn't think there was a realistic chance the article could be deleted, I wouldn't have brought it here. If the article is kept, I'd respect that decision, but I'd hope that other people would be willing to take responsibility for the article, and help maintain it over time. Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of deletions in 2007 of the articles on Daniel Brandt and Allison Stokke, and the 2009 deletion of Miriam Sakewitz (all for different reasons), do not exactly equate to a requirement that this be deleted as well. I appreciate your concern that the article is a target which is why I suggested WP:Protection, as a responsibility for caring for articles belongs to us all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, a request for semiprotection would be rejected due to insufficient activity. Zagalejo^^^ 04:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might think the non-WP:DEL#REASONs you offer as arguments to delete, would make a suitable argument for semi-protection. Heck, if kept, I'd be happy enough to set a temporary semi-protection myself if vandalism were actually ongoing rather than rare and sporadic. Of course, even protection would not prevent drive-bys from an editor who create a single purpose account just to wreck hacoc or insert unsourced opinion or POV, or who chooses to remove sourced information. But such things happen in an encyclopdia "anyone" can edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your offer to semiprotect it. (I forgot you were an admin.) And I do respect your views on notability. I am usually pretty inclusionist myself. I just think that this is a rare case where the negatives outweigh the positives. I knew coming in that that's a somewhat flimsy deletion rationale, but there's always WP:IAR. Anyway, I've said as much as I want to say on the matter. I'll let other people chime in. If the article gets kept, so be it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't saying you acted in bad faith, or questioning your motivation, or experience here on WP. I'm sorry if I made you feel that way. I just don't think, however, that your argument for deletion is especially strong for the reasons stated above. Roodog2k (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't interpret your comment that way at all. I just wanted to explain my position. Zagalejo^^^ 23:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG:

Significant coverage – Georgia Bigfoot Hunters Reveal 'Evidence' At Press Conference
Significant coverage – Bigfoot Discovery Declared a Hoax (See also: page two of this article)
Just enough to qualify as significant coverage – Bigfoot claim a fake, ex-enthusiast says (See also: page two of this article)
Slightly more than passing mentions – Bigfoot discovery revealed as rubber gorilla suit hoax
Passing mentions – "Bigfoot" was rubber gorilla costume

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.