RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Ben Steigmann

Ben Steigmann: | Result:Delete

Ben Steigmann (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. I have just been going over this article. The sourcing is not very good, i.e. screenshots to amazon book reviews that have been deleted, email conversations on PDF documents and Facebook posts. Ben says he no longer supports holocaust denial or is involved with racism. He appears to be non-notable. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. I am Ben Steigmann and I no longer wish to be associated with this stuff.69.181.4.251 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

   Bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Steigmann only got added because of Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax; you could just mention the former in a small section on the latter's article. ODS (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

   it would be better for the article to stay then rather than that because it provides better context.69.181.4.251 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

4. FWIW, this article was created as a piece of revenge against Abd, about someone mostly withdrawn and not at all well-known for his views. The most significant action involving him was being impersonated on Wikipedia, confirmed by WMF checkusers, leading to a massive avalanche of socking against Abd's documenting the mess, purely to protect the wikis, leading to yatta yatta yatta. Of course it should be deleted as off-mission. By the way, the IP posting here as Steigmann is plausible from his known location. These things can cause harm, and among those asking for deletion are one or more likely the continuation of the users who created it. Nice of them. Many users creating articles involving certain special interests edit for a relatively short time and then disappear and then others appear to obsessively edit the same article. It's one of the clues about WIGO. --159.89.200.184 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

   I am not going to bother removing the above IP as he keeps using loads of proxies, but the above is Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax. He has been blocked on Rationalwiki so I am not sure if his vote counts or not, via block evasion rules etc. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   I have just been going over this article again. If we strip off the unreliable Facebook content that has been deleted, the postimg "screenshots" taken from amazon reviews and other dubious sources, the only reliable sources left is Steigmann's bans on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. I don't believe it constitutes enough for an RW entry. Many people have been banned on Wikipedia, doesn't mean they all need RW articles. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

5. Most of the sources on the article have been deleted. His anti-feminist rant has been removed. 178.73.210.200 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
6. -DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Goat

Meh, the article as a whole needs to be cleaned up, but non-notability is not by itself criteria for deletion. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)