Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Lidz

:{{la|Franz Lidz}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Franz_Lidz Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Franz Lidz}})

Article subject requests deletion, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Lidz&diff=801621764&oldid=801620263], and see talk page for more details. Based on the criteria at WP:LOWPROFILE and past unrelated discussions I'm inclined to endorse the request. Note that this article has been the recent target of an undisclosed paid editing ring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Filer note - WP:NPF is also relevant to this request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Person does meet GNG. Has had multiple articles (10) with his byline in The New York Times. Multiple articles in Sports Illustrated. Multiple books which have been reviewed in appropriate media, including the NYT. Multiple articles (over 80) in NYT mentioning him by name. Meets criteria as novelist and as columnist. And the "bad editors" are best handled separately, not by removing what appears, at this point, to be a reasonable BLP. If it were in any way disparaging, I would !vote "delete" in a flash, but that is not the article status as we discuss this. Collect (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable/important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

*Delete, per the wishes of Mr. Lidz in accordance with WP:LOWPROFILE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, per BMK & DGG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

:*Sorry, but LOWPROFILE cannot possible apply to a person who's been a professional journalist for decades, has published books and memoirs (which put his personal life out for inspection), one of which has even been made into a film. Lidz' wishes in this situation are irrelevant, he's a public figure, and he's made himself a public figure by his own actions. He's more than welcome to comment on the talk page about things he wishes would be added or removed from the article or need to be changed in his view, but we cannot put ourselves into the position of being dictated to by clearly public figures about whether we should have an article about them or not. It makes a mockery of our editorial integrity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

::*Stricken, BMK and DGG are right. I shouldn't have made a knee-jerk comment out of frustration with the talk page situation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep By a look at the sources provided and the literature the person has written, including a book which was made into a Hollywood film, this person seems more than notable enough to have an article.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• As a heads up, INDIAN REVERTER is a brand new account created about an hour ago with 19 edits, all of which are keep comments at AfDs. It's certainly unusual behavior for a new account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - A notable journalist and author who request for deletion is based on incorrect presumptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR #4 with multiple reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. For the reasons given above. He has a very public career.Based on the talk page discussion, I am inclined to think that the request for deletion (if it indeed comes from the subject) is a reaction to our writing the article in a way he does not like, in particular our not accepting the earlier versions' hyperbola and pr-orinted material about him. This is the sort of request we should never accommodate. If there is specific objections to the material included, we can of course deal with them, but I cannot imagine what they would be. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Particularly given there's been no OTRS confirmation, I fail to understand why we're even at AfD. If there's some actual argument as to why this individual might be non-notable, I would reconsider my !vote. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep- The definition of LowProfile is rather specific, usually applying to individuals who are famous for one event (not applicable here), the victims of ambush journalism or those who did not seek attention (not applicable here), or those who have avoided all media attention (not applicable, he has presumably done book signings and been part of a film, and is a member of the media). I think he meets the criteria of high-profile, but notable may be another issue. I'd side with keep . Barsportsunlimited (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep- sorry Ivan, I don't support subject requests deletion without otrs verification. In regards to your comment - Note that this article has been the recent target of an undisclosed paid editing ring - this means nothing in regards to wp:notability to support deletion. In regards to Ivan's WP:NPF concern, he is not according to the links and article detail imo relatively unknown- Govindaharihari (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Collect, Beyond My Ken and DGG. There is no way that we should delete this article, because Lidz is clearly a public figure. Instead, we should expand and improve the article, and archive the talk page foolishness. The lack of OTRS verification is also an issue, but I would oppose deletion even if we were sure that Lidz really wants it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I requested this deletion in order to blank the scurrilous accusations and unsupported aspersions made by a couple of WP editors. I'm happy to report that those comments have since been expunged. But there's something deeply troubling about a deletion process that allows those very editors to vote on the outcome. One of them at least had the decency to apologize. The other has made a mockery of your editorial integrity. When a college professor sympathetic to me punches gaping holes in the editor's wild and reckless conclusions, the editor lashes out, belittles the professor and disparages my work. This isn't my idea of "neutrality" and, for the sake of the general public, I hope it's not WP's.FranzLidz (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

::I agree with you - and, as best I can, have tried to prevent some of the worst abuses on biographical articles. It is, indeed, an uphill struggle at times. You would be aghast at reading User:Collect/BLP where I quote the attitudes of some such "editors". Collect (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

::::Thanks so much for your support. As for the other self-righteous fulminations you cite -- ugh!FranzLidz (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Just to note, as far as I am aware, the account "Franz Lidz" has yet to verify their identity as the writer Franz Lidz with OTRS. Nor has the "journalism professor" confirmed their identity as such.{{parabr}}As for the claims made by the account Franz Lidz above -- which are much more accusatory and derogatory than anything said on the article talk page by Wikipedia editors -- they are, to put it mildly, gross misrepresentations of the discussion on the talk page and of the content of the article. No one on the talk page has accused Franz Lidz of doing anything improper, and the material removed from the article was done -- by a number of different editors -- for standard reasons of reducing promotionalism. It would have been better, if "Franz Lidz" is indeed Franz Lidz, for them to come to the talk page and make specific objections to specific material that has been removed, rather than barrelling into Wikipedia full of self-righteousness and loaded for bear, armed with erroneous information from the "journalism professor", and firing randomly at whatever targets present themselves.{{parabr}}In my view, this is not a genuine BLP issue, and the way to protect Wikipedia's editorial integrity is not to bend to the wishes of an article subject (if "Franz Lidz" is indeed Franz Lidz) who seems to prefer a hagiographic version of our article to one more encyclopedic in content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

::::I've said all along I'd be happy to confirm my identity. Unfortunately, no one has tried to contact me or sent me instructions. I'd even talk to somebody like you! (See previous post.FranzLidz (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|FranzLidz}} We were told that your identity was being handled "off-line", but have heard nothing about that since. In any case, no one is going to come to you, since the onus is on you to show that you are who you claim to be. Go to WP:OTRS and follow the directions there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm looking into the OTRS issue - but I don't anticipate saying more until morning (Many people are unaware that we are not permitted to even acknowledge the existence of an OTRS email without permission from the contacting person) --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Additional Comment I see no reason to await a response re OTRS. Is my opinion, and one I think is shared by many editors, that the wishes of the subject are relevant and close calls and I don't think this is a close call. In other words I agree with Cullens comment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Identify confirmation I can confirm that OTRS is in receipt of an email from Franz Lidz and I have confirmed his identity.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

:*Thank you, Sphilbrick, that's very good to know. However, it does not change my !vote in any way, since there's no question of Lidz' notability and that he is a public figure. As I have said, Lidz (now that we know it's actually him), is welcome to make productive suggestions on the talk page as to changes they believe should be made to the article, and editors will evaluate those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - has attained significant coverage. Article was previously in poor shape but has been improved in recent days. As for the talk page foolishness, it should be archived/deleted as appropriate. Neutrality^talk 01:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Filer note - I'm about to close this, Mr. Lidz has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIvanvector&type=revision&diff=801817479&oldid=801780402 withdrawn the request]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.