Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meryle Secrest

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 - Only nominator (who is a SPA) and one SPA supports deletion. (NAC)--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meryle Secrest

This page did not originate with Ms Secrest’s approval. It contained not just inaccuracies, but one uncalled for, deliberate slight against her (that was corrected). She does not want a page on Wikipedia. I think she has a right to privacy and her wishes respected in this regard. It’s very largely a generational issue and she is not comfortable or familiar with the robust culture that defines the Web. She is not someone who enjoys any great degree of computer literacy. Ms Secrest is a distinguished biographer and National Humanities Medal winner (2006). Her information is widely available at Random House and in many other places. I am a supporter (small financial and not yet editorial) and an habitual user of Wikipedia. I do feel in this instance that, given Ms Secrest’s personal position and wishes, she is entitled to have this page removed. — Jamesog52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, As someone who has been a public figure for over 35 years, Ms Secrest should expect to find her name in the media on occasion. A page on Wikipedia is no different in that regard than a New York Times review of one of her books, which could mention the same information. See also First Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically the section on Freedom of the Press. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article as previously submitted contained a most egregious error and had the appearance of having been submitted with malice. The error was arguably on the level of libel, and the author's wishes for recompense in the form of deletion should be respected and the article removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msecrest (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) — Msecrest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, One of the best things about Wikipedia is the ability to correct errors, and update articles as available facts evolve. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments I find it strange that someone who "is not comfortable or familiar with the robust culture that defines the Web" is selling her work as an Ebook. Another fact that I find peculiar is that a Biographer, has issue with the existence of a biographical article about herself. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a notable writer and has won awards and a Pulitzer finalist, articles dont need the approval of subjects they just need to meet inclusion criteria. Doesnt mean that the article should not be accurate and reliably sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking through the history of the page, I am failing to see what is (or was) considered libel. The fact that this is up for deletion puzzles me. It meets notability guidelines, is written in a neutral point of view, and is referenced by outside sources. I agree with Wuhwuzdat in reference to it being strange that someone who makes a living detailing the lives of others is so opposed to a very brisk article about themself. JogCon (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- no legitimate argument for deletion has been made. The subject clearly meets the notability guidelines for people and Wikipedia is not censored. The claim that the article previously contained inaccuracies is regrettable, but as per the nom these inaccuracies have been corrected; not surprising considering that articles on living people are subject to exceptional care as per wikipedia policy on articles about living persons. In essence, the fact that the article previously had errors is no reason to call for deletion; nor does the subject of an accurate article have any standing to ask for its removal within Wikipedia policy. Locke9k (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep n 2006 she received the National Humanities Medal.. National level awards like this are is one of our standards for notability. A very good example of why we should pay no special regard to people's views about their own pages. DGG (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A previous error entered with malicious intent is a good reason to apply protection to the article, but since the subject is a public figure and meets inclusion guidelines several times over, there is no valid reason for deletion. The WPBIOGRAPHY template has a field that can be entered if subject wish the removal of the article, presumably so it can be better monitored, but for that we first need evidence through WP:OTRS that User:Msecrest is actually the person in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete On 12 February 2009, a user whose only identity is the IP address 71.86.176.115, revised this article to say: [["Secrest was born in 1930 in Bath, England and educated there, or so we belive. /// She worked as women's editor for the Hamilton News in Ontario, Canada; shortly thereafter she was named "Least Promising Young Writer" by the Canadian Women's Press Club, but that did not discourage her from her dreams."]] The creative spelling of believe notwithstanding, said user's agenda clearly was to discredit Meryle Secrest. This malicious entry stood for months before Ms. Secrest, who has almost no access to the Internet, was alerted to its existence, and these lies are now spread far and wide. Ms. Secrest cannot easily monitor Wikepedia to assure such libel is not endlessly repeated, and wants to be disassociated from this service. I am not Meryle Secrest, I am her son. While this entry may be in conflict with Wiki's user guidelines, I am providing necessary and relevant clarity to this matter. Over .. and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msecrest (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) — Msecrest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Further comment, As Mgm stated above, vandalism, or editing with malicious intent is a reason for applying semi, or full protection to the page (Semi protection prevents anonymous, or new, users from editing articles to which it is applied. Full protection restricts editing by anyone who is not an administrator). As for the deletion of this page, a single bad edit (or series of edits) is not a reason for deletion. As you have obviously found the pages edit history, you will notice that the very next edit reverted the addition of the offending text. I have checked Yahoo, and the only 2 search results for "least promising young writer" are an outdated cache of this article, and a single non Wikipedia mirror of the same content, so any claims of this being "widespread" appear to be a bit overblown. Futhermore, as the only other edit from the IP address in question was clearly blatant vandalism, I think it can be assumed safely that the IP's intents were most probably pure vandalism, and not intentional libel. As for Ms. Secrest being unable to monitor the article personally, I understand, and to assist in this matter, I have added the article in question to my watchlist, and would hope the others involved in this discussion would do the same. Any changes to this article (and the others on my list) will show, and I do tend to check this list several times a day. This should help prevent a recurrence of the issue that started this discussion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Informational - Agents of the article subject contacted the Wikimedia Foundation (OTRS ticket # 2009050410070329) and requested removal. On review, I have semi-protected the page permanently. The article vandalisms and BLP concerns were introduced by IP editors both times this has come up, so preventing anonymous editing is apparently necessary. I believe that the semiprotection is necessary given article subject concerns and ongoing low-rate vandalism. This action does not override the normal article keep/delete discussion here, I am posting this to inform that discussion, but whatever happens with this discussion is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clearly WP:NOTABLE. People do not have a right to supress free speech about themselves, nor to use WP as some kind of reputation-managemnt too. Any vandalism/quality issues should be separately addressed.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (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.