. Further discussions about the content of the article can be discussed at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 12:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Author seems to no longer be associated with the website when you attempt to look up him in the author tab. And notability seems to only be supported by like two sources, nothing else. 2601:586:5300:E340:A94A:EF4E:4328:ED81 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep This IP is an obvious WP:Sock. Karlin is a well known far-right extremist and anti-Semite blogger. There are 187 pages dedicated to [https://www.unz.com/akarlin/topic/open-thread/ Anatoly Karlin] live at the UNZ Review. On the UNZ Review Wikipedia article there is a peer-reviewed paper that mentions Karlin [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1089268020953622] which says he is a "promoter of antisemitic conspiracy theories and associates with alt-right political activist Richard Spencer". So this is well sourced content. Veg Historian (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- :Last post was 2023. You are not addressing whether he is still active on the website. 76.153.136.50 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- ::Both IPs co-geolocate. Seems to me that significant past activity on the website justifies keeping the redirect, unless the person has repudiated that past activity, and this repudiation is reliably sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- :::"Both IPs co-geolocate" I don't use a static ip thank you. 76.153.136.50 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- ::::The IP that filed this has been blocked. I am not convinced this was filed in good-faith; the same people behind these drive-by IPs have been at this for a while. Off-site myself and several other users are currently been harassed/targeted by the Human Diversity Foundation and their far-right associates. The WMF know the details about this and it is not something I can talk about here but it looks like this was another WP:Hound attempt to stir drama. Veg Historian (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- :::::Just to note, the blocked IP that filed this and 76.153 have both been editing this same draft [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Rugby_league_in_Poland&action=history]. There is no doubt this is the same person/group behind these IPS, so WP:MEATPUPPETRY is confirmed. It's probably worth closing this. Veg Historian (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- :First, I left The Unz Review [https://www.unz.com/akarlin/last-reaction/ in 2021], not 2023. Second, the anti-Semitism/Richard Spencer claims about me are fictitious and come from an obscure paper by an obscure academic, and are themselves originally sourced from the RationalWiki page on me. That RationalWiki page happens to have been primarily written by this very individual who I am replying to, and who has also engaged in a years-long online harassment campaign against me (I can prove this with links to the relevant investigations on request). This individual is not a disinterested party on this topic. SublimeWik (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep until/unless there is consensus to remove Karlin from the target page: notability isn't a requirement for redirects and neither is being currently associated with the target. Rusalkii (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Since Karlin isn't independently notable, but is a possible search term for readers, having a redirect to the notable publication most connected to him makes perfect sense, particularly since it's to the specific section in the article that would be relevant. I see no reason why such a redirect should be deleted. SilverserenC 00:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment How do we account for the opinions of User:SublimeWik who claims that they are this individual? Many comments here are casting aspersions to a fellow editor. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- : The one comment above that you'd be referring to is just quoting from reliable sources. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1089268020953622 This published academic article] states: {{tq|The Unz Review is a White nationalist website which regularly publishes antisemitic writers who deny the Holocaust (e.g., Striker, 2020), extreme anti-immigration screeds based on racist stereotypes (e.g., Boehm, 2020), and other forms of hate speech (“California Entrepreneur . . .,” 2018; Duehren & Thompson, 2016; Shekhovtsov, 2018; Sixsmith, 2018). Sailer is a political writer who uses the language of IQ and genetics to further a White nationalist political agenda (MacDougald & Willick, 2017; Saini, 2019, pp. 87–91). Karlin is a similar figure who promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories and associates with alt-right political activist Richard Spencer (Murphy, 2019).}}
::The [https://universitytimes.ie/2019/02/the-burkeans-mission-has-changed-conservatives-are-right-to-worry/ Murphy article] it links to further states {{tq|The article in question, which purports to examine the reasons for the comparative economic disadvantage suffered by African nations, frequently slips into implicit endorsements of eugenics. Arguing against an “egalitarian understanding of humanity”, O’Dwyer Connolly attributes the inability of third-world nations to escape the cycle of poverty to “genetic inheritance”.}}
::{{tq|More troublingly still, the article credits Anatoly Karlin, a well known member of the Russian far right who has appeared at events alongside American white nationalist Richard Spencer, as the source of many of the ideas expressed in the piece. Its argument is unabashedly racist, and the attribution of the ideas espoused in the piece to Karlin betrays the troubling ideology that now influences the paper’s content and outlook.}}
::It isn't an aspersion to quote from reliable sources as an argument for why it's relevant to keep the redirect, due to the subject's relevance to the article itself. SilverserenC 06:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::The University Times (Murphy) is a student newspaper of dubious credibility that incidentally mentioned me as part of an ideologized hit piece on another person. The source Murphy used was evidently RationalWiki, since it was the only "publication" to refer to my participation at "events" with Richard Spencer at the time it was written. (In reality, I only met Spencer once and never participated in any joint projects). Its subsequent citation by Jackson Jr., and then the citation of both on RationalWiki and Jackson Jr. on Wikipedia, is a classic example of citogenesis.
:::Ultimately I do not mind my name redirecting to The Unz Review for the time being but only so long as the article on The Unz Review is rewritten for fairness and balance as I explained here. SublimeWik (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I've made this edit at The Unz Review: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Unz_Review&diff=1274880524&oldid=1274745414]. That, I think, satisfies the WP:BLP issues raised by SublimeWik, and I think that removes the last barrier raised so far in this discussion, to keeping the redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't believe it does. As I noted, the article has severe overall issues with balance.
:::::And even your edit included a detail whose notability and relevance I fail to understand ("while noting his "respect and appreciation" for Ron Unz"). SublimeWik (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue here is whether to keep or delete the redirect. And there seems to be an emerging consensus to keep it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
:* Delete I think the following observations are germane to this discussion: (1) This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anatoly_Karlin&action=history redirect] was implemented by @Veg Historian on April 22, 2024 a month after I submitted a request to rewrite The Unz Review article for balance and accuracy; (2) It happened a day after @IntoThinAir - the creator of the article - initiated a sockpuppetry investigation, presumably with the aim of getting my one and only account here banned (Veg Historian, then posting as Psychologist_Guy, subsequently joined that discussion thread with personal attacks); (3) The Veg Historian/Psychologist_Guy account has a verified record of editing the RationalWiki article about me, which another Wikipedia editor has acknowledged "is an egregious attack page (as many of their biographies are) that would be swiftly deleted if it were ever created here." Consequently, I submit that the redirect was not something done to improve Wikipedia, but to pursue a well-documented personal vendetta. Otherwise, as noted above, I am open to leaving the redirect, but only on condition that The Unz Review article is rewritten for balance and noteworthiness to substantively address the criticisms I raised on its Talk pages by a credibly neutral third-party editor.
:SublimeWik (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:*Note: SublimeWik has been indef blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, they were indefinitely blocked in an Oversight block. But they are not wrong about there being an ongoing feud/dispute, which we have seen going on on in this discussion and on ANI, between the redirect creator and the redirect subject. I think there is a clear COI here but I'm not sure how that is valued at RFD. I've run into this at AFDs but not RFDs. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::If the argument is that someone else should have created the redirect, I'll happily assume responsibility for it myself. But I fail to see any logic behind claiming that we should have content about Karlin at the Unz page, but if readers put Karlin's name into the search box, that won't help them find it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete "Not discussed with enough substance to warrant a redirect" is probably what I would say in normal times here. And definitely not discussed with enough substance to override WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- :What the BLP subject actually requested, before being blocked for violating the harassment policy, was that the content at The Unz Review reflect the fact that he had broken with the Review, and he says explicitly above that he had no objection to the redirect, if the content at the target were fixed to his liking. After he was blocked, I made changes that, in what I think is an NPOV way, include what he had requested (that he subsequently published comments disagreeing with the positions taken at Unz), and actually goes a step further (by noting his endorsement of Harris over Trump). So, based on what he has told us, there is no longer any BLP issue with the content at the target page, and I think BLPREQUEST no longer applies. He is included in the content at the target page, where there are independent secondary sources cited as indicating his significance to the page subject, and it's the only place readers will find out about him at Wikipedia, so I don't see any BLP value in making it harder for readers to find him. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep per Tryptofish's comment. It would appear that the BLP issues that might justify deletion were resolved. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
