Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 17 February 2015

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Carmel Moore

• Carmel Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I trimmed this article down today, removing unreliable sources (including the sourcing of the subject's birth name to IMDb, no less), but my edits have been reverted with the familiar "that's OK, I know I can override BLP and OR because I put effort into this article" argument. I am honestly finding it hard to care about the bio of a retired pornstar at this point (as I do of fringe topics, barely known rappers and reality TV shows), and I'm afraid I'll overreact and use a button I shouldn't. So here it is, if someone feels they can take it on, that would be great. I'm taking it off my watchlist. §FreeRangeFrog 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have given it a shot.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon: Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I also recently took a shot at (maybe less drastically?) editing the article in question here and engaging on the article's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. Some more help might be needed. Guy1890 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I had to remove the entire first section because it was not directly supported by the cited sources. The assertions seem to be analyses of the movies themselves which is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Project for the New American Century

Has a lengthy list of persons with "associations to the Bush administration". Unfortunately I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly, and the seeming aim of listing such people twice in the same article is an implication that membership and being a Bush Republican officeholder were intimately connected (i.e. making a connection in this article that the person is connected to both the Bush administration in some manner, and to PNAC is some manner but not using any source making that actual connection), which I find to be SYNTH by listing, and a violation of the WP:BLP requirements on sourcing, but my judgment has been questioned in the past and I leave it to fully uninvolved editors to comment. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis of course is right out. However there are plenty of quality sources that specifically link Bush administration officials to PNAC (see NY Times, BBC, etc). You should replace any synthesis with references to those sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The folks get listed twice in the article -- the second listing is in a table - artificially making the Bush-PNAC connection clear to readers. The article will not suffer a loss if the chart is removed. Collect (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing artificial about the Bush/PNAC connection. Whether it is in a table or not showing our readers the magnitude of the connection is important when looking at the role of PNAC in the history of the US. The table is effective but maybe a bit UNDUE simply because of its size. An explicit discussion of the connection naming some of the major players would be better. I would support removing the table iff there is a section discussing the connection. Until then the table should stay. JBH (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The table might even be the best format for quick reference, but one would have to see an actual proposal to replace it before evaluating that.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The list is SYNTH, was SYNTH and shall remain SYNTH. Claims made in tables are often a problem, and this one is no exception. Cheers -- the Bush-NPAC connection is already made in the body of the article (Jbhunley's position) , and this SYNTH does not improve a BLP Collect (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, your assertion that

I doubt the relevance of such a list where other organizations are not treated similarly

does not appear to have a basis in policy.

Second, is your objection to the fact that refcites for the respective associations laid out are not provided on the table? Or that the table format itself violates SYNTH? Others have indicated that sourcing does not seem to be an issue. Here's a list on Sourcewatch, for example.

The fact that there are eighteen names on the table clearly indicates that this is information that would be of interest to the reader, and that its sheer volume calls for a simplified presentation mode, such as the graphical layout of a table.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The individual statements that a person is an appointee are sourced to one source for each person, that they are a member of NPAC is a different source - catenating the two sources to make a claim is defined by WP to be "SYNTH". I suggest you find sources making the specific connection within the single source and not try using multiple sources to make sure the "truth" is shown to readers. Cheers,Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have described SYNTH. No, you have not described how the table is SYNTH. The source says a person is a member of PNAC, the same source says they were a member of the Bush Administration --> the table entry reflects this. A+B=C all in one source. As I said before bringing it all out in a table might be UNDUE but does not seem to be SYNTH.

You mention you are concerned with listing the names twice. This can be addresses by coming up with a way to present the initial member list and note the individual's position within the Administration. This might require some reformatting but it would do a couple of things to reduce the UNDUE:

1. It would avoid listing people twice.
2. It would 'spread out' the Administration members within the PNAC membership list thereby preventing the artificial 'weight' of a big table. It would also allow the reader have a better perspective on association/position in PNAC and position in Administration.
3. Gets rid of the extra table.

JBH (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems: "Sourcewatch" is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. "History Commons" (presented as a source on the talk page) is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources. The last source on the talk page presented is a book issued by Lulu.com. Lulu.com is a SPS press, and is not recognized as a publisher of reliable sources. With no reliable sources being presented, how do you propose we allow the SYNTH table? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that none of these: Elliot Abrams, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad,Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were PNAC signatories or they were not members of the Bush administration? Or are you saying that no source says they were both in the same source? Or are you no source says that it was important that a lot of PNAC Signatories were members of the Administration. That they were both is almost WP:BLUE and no one is seriously contesting either their PNAC relationship or their membership in the Administration. Their status (except Cheney) with PNAC is in their respective WP articles so I assume sources exist. So are you saying no RS has commented on the PNAC/Administration overlap? So what would you want a source to say in order to include this information? I am not saying that I am unwilling to be convinced of your position but just saying SYNTH over and over will not get us there. Thanks for helping me understand your position better. JBH (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It would seem hard to dispute that one goal should be to "allow the reader have a better perspective on association/position in PNAC and position in Administration", which was probably one motivation behind adding the table.

Incidenatlly, I don't have enough knowledge about presenting sourced info from different sources in tabular form regarding the SYNTH claim.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:31, 10 February; 21:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

These are the only notes I could find that seem to be on point.

• SYNTH is not ubiquitous
• Compiling facts and information is not OR

@Ubikwit: You had spaces mixed in with your :'s. I fixed it I hope you do not mind.

JBH (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I think that the following two quotes from the essayspolicies you linked to should suffice to refute the claim of SYNTH. In fact, the tapoic of the table itself is probably notable enough for an independent article.

Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established.
If your understanding of SYNTH includes all instances of reading a table, because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- essays are not policies. Cheers - but quoting an essay and claiming it is policy makes no sense at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, essays. At they have consensus.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I did not say these were policy. Ubikwit did not say they were policy. I said that I had found notes that were on point. As the pages say, right at the top, they are "intended to supplement the Misplaced Pages:No original research page, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." That they have been edited by many editors over several years indicate to me at least a weak consensus for what they say. Do you think they are inconsistent with policy? If so, how?

Earlier I asked you - "Are you saying that none of these:... were PNAC signatories or they were not members of the Bush administration? Or are you saying that no source says they were both in the same source? Or are you no source says that it was important that a lot of PNAC Signatories were members of the Administration.". You did not respond. Please give me a concrete example of what it is you consider SYNTH here. I really want to understand your position. What are A, B and C in this dispute?

If the only issue you have is no source that mentions these people by name, their association with PNAC and their influence on policy, here is one:

Mistaking hegemony for empire:Neoconservatives, the Bush doctrine, and the Democratic empire., David Grodin - International Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1 Turkey: Myths and Realties (Winter, 2005/2006) pp. 227-241 JSTOR stable link.

If either of can not access it you can email me and I will send it to you. Cheers. JBH (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See above where an editor stated "I think that the following two quotes from the policies you linked to should suffice " which indeed calls the two essays "policies." And no matter one slices it, the SourceWatch Wiki is ... a Wiki. Collect (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, OK, I've struck the offensive term

Now, are you going to answer the questions JBHG posed, or continue to divert the conversation and evade his questions?

@Collect: I stand corrected, my error. That is the only reply you have though? So what if they are not polices they represent some form of consensus on the issue we are discussing. Do you dispute this? If so, why? </p

I asked you for what you specifically think is SYNTH. Fine Sourcewatch is a wiki. So we do not use it. What, precisely, do you consider to be SYNTH in this situation? What information do you want the sources to include so it will not, in your opinion be SYNTH? This is the locus of the dispute if it is not addressed then we are merely spinning our wheels. JBH (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Unverified supercentenarians

This is a follow-up to the prior unresolved discussion but there's still more discussions about the listing of "unverified" supercentenarians. See also the 2014 deaths page (which with the 2015 page moves into problematic BLP issues as these people may in fact be alive). These are people in which no reliable source has actually verified their listing. The reliable source that is offered (GRG) has explicitly not verified their listing, only listing them as "pending" verification. The only purpose I can see to including them is so that people can copy the entire GRG table in case someone later becomes verified. This is pure WP:CRYSTAL speculation, there is no end time when these people would be removed. I find List of supercentenarians who died before 1980 to be the worst example of this: this includes people who may have died at 110 years old over 35 years ago. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that we have no business including these here. It's one thing for certain well-known disputed cases (the Shigechiyo Izumis of the world exist), but the people in this topic area don't seem to understand that Misplaced Pages is not the GRG, nor are we it's official output. Unverified by its nature means that no one is completely sure, and that level of surety is necessary; we have had cases (Margaret Fish being a spectacular flameout) where the GRG prematurely stated the person was dead, and users then perpetuated this mistake by putting it on Misplaced Pages. We should only be going on what sources are clear on, and that's completely incompatible with including giant swathes of "unverified cases" in longevity articles.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• The GRG is a group of well-meaning amateurs. Not sure they are a reliable source to start with. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't as defined at the project nor in other sources (a table isn't the same as actual source material and using the fact that individual editors here claim to have seen the documentation isn't better). They are supposed to be a backup source. So if consensus is moving towards the removal of all pending listings, then they should be removed. It's the same reason I have Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Incomplete longevity claims at AFD right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A group of amateurs whose publications have featured in peer-reviewed scientific journals (like Rejuvenation Research) and who are recognised as a leading authority on the subject of supercentenarian verification by Guinness World Records. Now remind me, what are YOUR credentials? Oh yes of course, a self-appointed arbiter of Misplaced Pages longevity articles. Your statement that you are "not sure they are a reliable source to start with" is baseless, ignorant, and offensive, rather like your comments on Stephen Coles's talk page when you called him a "quack". Why don't you try to put forward proper arguments? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning behind this. We have a reliable source stating that there are cases accepted as verified, and pending cases which have documentation and are being investigated. Then there are unverified claims. The cases that you refer to that are over 35 years old have not been pending for 35 years - documentation has been submitted to the GRG within the last few years. Designating pending cases as unverified and/or removing information selectively is clearly in violation of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:BLP to go in contradiction of the information stated in the reliable source. We should not be altering the information that is given by the sources (especially when it concerns living people), but reporting it as is given by the source. Please remember that it is Misplaced Pages policy to have a neutral point of view and report the information given in sources. Our source clearly sets out that there is a difference between verified, pending, and unverified cases. I don't see you stating any real reason for the suggested change other than your opinion that pending is the same as unverified. While that may be your opinion, it's not what the reliable source suggests and I don't think there is any reason to doubt a reliable source that publishes its research in peer-reviewed journals. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What does it mean for a case to be "pending"? It's not verified so what is it? It's not certain, it's not clear, it hasn't been approved of. How long does pending go on? Is Methuselah pending? Why not? We don't wait for an express disapproval from the GRG, that's basically saying we're just here to parrot the GRG and nothing else matters. Once GRG has verified it, fine, include it because then a source has asserted that it's true. If Guinness said that someone alleges that they are the biggest person but no source confirms it, would it be appropriate to list that person? No, that's in line with policy. Why do you insist on listing people that even the GRG hasn't confirmed? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's stated in the source that a pending case is where an application has been made with early life documentation . So yes, it is clear. No Methuselah is not a pending case - no authority has received documentation. The GRG has confirmed that these cases are under review. I insist on following Misplaced Pages policy on having a neutral point of view. If you can direct me to the policy that states that you can use your opinion to change information about living people that was taken from a reliable source, then I will gladly concede. But my understanding is that you cannot change information about living people based simply on your opinion (see WP:BLP). And even more so when we have information from a reliable source that gives contradicting information to your opinion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points about pending cases:

1. An orange light is not the same as a red light just because neither are green. When an athlete sets a "world record, pending ratification," it's still a considered a world record in the news media, and these are included in Misplaced Pages with a footnote. The GRG concept of "pending validated" is along this line... the case looks valid, pending final review and approval.

2. If the GRG - a reliable source - designates cases as "pending", why can they not be listed as pending, if the source lists them as pending? Who are you to say that the GRG's pending list is not a reliable source? YOUR opinion is not important; what matters is the facts stated in the source. To do otherwise is to violate WP:OR. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't include the orange cases until they are verified. The problem is that the articles to me look like they over-emphasize the GRG if the tables are specifically about the GRG's pending listings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin

Myself and @GoldenBoy25: have added a direct in-line citation to this NBA player's career stats table, which have been removed by @Bagumba: and @Bossanoven:. For me the fact he is an NBA player is irrelevant; first and foremost he is a WP:BLP and so the info should be directly cited wherever possible per WP:V. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 10:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject NBA does not like to put citations in the statistics box except in the extenuating circumstance of a player leading the league in a major statistic in a given season. I am not sure whether there was a formal discussion there on this sort of thing, but I don't think you will find NBA player articles with references in their respective statistics boxes. I believe the general feeling amongst the majority of editors dedicated to NBA articles is that the statistics are too trivial to concern with this sort of thing. In fact, we even considered removing the boxes from the articles altogether. There are myriad external links for the statistics, including in the player's infobox. - Bossanoven (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Him being an NBA player, and the personal preferences of a WikiProject, are both wholly irrelevant. Either the stats boxes should be directly referenced, or they should be removed completely. Having masses of unreferenced info about BLPs is completely unacceptable. GiantSnowman 10:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If «WikiProject NBA does not like to put citations in the statistics box», then WikiProject NBA should stand back when other editors remove uncited claims about living people. Spumuq (talq) 11:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: "masses of unreferenced info": You are probably referring to WP in general, as this article already has 315 citations.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Background: My single edit regarding this topic of stats cites was this revert two days ago with edit summary: "thanks, but the stats external links "should" be enough in this case; too cluttery, and i'm usually big on WP:V" Someone was bold, and I reverted. I'm not here to edit war on this.

My open question to those preferring the citation is whether the stats are being challenged by yourself, or as a courtesy to someone else that honestly might 1) think they are incorrect and 2) would not know where to find the information. If this is being added as a matter of style as opposed to an actual challenge of fact, this is a gray area of citing the the sky being blue. Food for thought, most articles do not cite a person's full name spelling, or their actual birthdate, as they have not been challenged or people are content that it is verifiable, though not cited.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So , if I'm reading right, Giant Snowman claims BLP and Bagumba claims a preference from Wikiproject:NBA? I'd say BLP is high priority and therefore the citation needs to go back in. I didn't see any consensus on cites being in statistic boxes, but even if it existed, it would be considered local consensus anyway. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the project, but I make no claims for the project itself, nor do I think there is a consensus there anyways. It's just generally not been challenged before. Truth be told, if original insertion was more strategically placed without unduly expanding a specific column 3x, I would not have reverted. I just thought at the time it looked clumsy to to cite one column out of a whole table.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP is policy (inline citations blah blah), wikiprojects preferences are at best, vague guidelines. However sticking an inline citation in a stats table does look odd, is there any reason the table itself cant have a citation/ref/note elsewhere in the article? I doubt the material is contentious enough to require inline citations. Otherwise following that route we should cite every single stat on sports article tables. And that would make us all look stupid. If the material itself is not a BLP violation, arguing over how its displayed is really not a matter for this board. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

Fiona Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like to request that user DAJF be banned from editing the Fiona Graham page as I noticed he has a personal agenda. In August 2011 it was decided that Fiona's age would be removed and he was part of the discussion on the archived talk page therefore it should never have been brought up again in 2015 unless the 400 year old Geisha association decides it's acceptable to display a Geisha's age.

Upon further review I noticed he has made 102 edits in the past 5 years and almost all of his edits have been negative while reverting any positive content posted on the page. These 102 edits make him by far the top contributor accounting for 34.7% of the total text on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris514 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You'd need to post a topic-ban request at ANI. But: what a Geisha association thinks is acceptable has no bearing here. Also, the only recent edit on that article is this -- not sure why that would be a problem, and I don't think it should have been reverted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's already been discussed on the talk page in 2011 and removed in 2011, on what basis should it be added again now, in 2015? Nothing has changed since then and the user was part of the discussion in 2011 therefore he cannot claim he didn't know. Boris514 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should this category be removed? I see no prior discussion of removing this category, only discussion about removing an unsourced birthdate. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change... and, for that matter, people may not have memorized everything that was discussed four years ago and is now no longer on the talk page or even the most recent archive. The addition of a category would seem to be something that can be addressed with a WP:BRD cycle; it hardly seems like the key basis for a banning, particularly since the category seems to be accurate. The concept that we can never again address topics from years-old discussion is not in accordance with common Misplaced Pages practice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus changes that's fine, but when it's the same user that brings the same issue back up without providing any new evidence or citations or without even bringing up the discussion in the talk page it shouldn't just be added to the page based on just his opinion. While I agree most people don't memorize things going back that far, keep in mind this user has been contributing on this page for years. When you're obsessed about a specific topic, you don't suddenly forget about it. I will bring this up with the admins as far as banning him from that page and it will be up to them to investigate if there's reason to ban him. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how much I hate someone, I won't go editing their Misplaced Pages page for years just to try and make them look bad. Boris514 (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate to be the spoilsport here but given the history of the article in question any visit it makes to BLP/N requires extra scrutiny. And indeed I see that User:Boris514 has a very strange contribution history: a bunch of ext links to the same website nine months back, and then an article created out of nowhere, and then finally a dive headlong into the Graham article, with an edit remark which seems to indicate that he has a longstanding interest in the matter. Whatever problem there is with User:DAJF's edits in this case, it's hard not to draw the conclusion that B514 is an account created and held in reserve for such an eventuality as this. Mangoe (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and the claims that he is making do not seem to be based in reality. He claims that the editor in question was involved in the 2011 conversation that reached a decision - but check it out, no he wasn't. He was involved in other conversations about the article, including this one and this one where the issue of the birth year was brought up, but not the one that came to any sort of decision. And he claims that there was some sort of decision not to include her birthdate, but most of the active discussers were saying, with good guideline arguments to support them, that the birth year should be included; the only problem was that they were not sure they had a reliable source. Putting a category on to mark that it is missing birth information is not inserting an unsourced date. The recent editor added the wrong category (the "missing date" category is only for articles that have the birth year), but the reaction here is not grounded in any facts that I can find. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have received notification by the editor that he/she was requesting that I be banned from editing a particular article. I was aware of the discussion a few years back that recommended avoiding adding the subject's date of birth, even though it is publicly available on the net, and while I don't agree with that decision, I was - and still am - happy to abide by it. All I did was add Category:Date of birth missing (living people) to the article in good faith, as I thought this was a valid category for such articles where the date of birth is missing. I did not add and have no intention of adding the subject's date of birth, and so was a little bemused by the curt edit summary from a new editor to the article with just 11 edits who appeared well-versed in discussions that happened long ago. As others have already noted, the reaction does seem a bit over-the-top, and I'm not sure why it was necessary to even start a discussion here, since I haven't restored the category. --DAJF (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So "Category:Year of birth missing (living people)" is the correct one. What source has an approximation of her age? Is this a standing "Category:Age controversies". The year of her birth should be in the article, and if reliable sources disagree we have wording for that. There is a rule about not publishing a "date of birth" for non notable people because it used for identity theft. If she isn't notable, she doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. Actresses don't like their year of birth published either, but this is a reference work, not their press agent propaganda. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

These National Library of Australia Catalogue records ( and ) are presumably reliable sources for the birth year of Fiona Graham. --DAJF (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, they aren't - if you click on the year link in their entries, you'll find that their source of info on her is Misplaced Pages, and thus that is WP:CIRCULAR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And now Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is trying to edit-war a birth year into place, using as source "The Telegraph has her as age 47 in 2011 yielding 1961 as her year of birth". That faces several problems; citing "the Telegraph" (which can refer to any number of papers, much less an individual article) makes it unverifiable; that calculating a birth year based on an age in an article is inherently problematic unless the article ran on Dec. 31 (i.e., people born between Jan 2, 1999 and Jan 1, 2000 will be 15 years old at at least some point this year), and people born in 1961 turned 47 in 2008, not 2011. As this is a BLP matter with some apparent contention, it should not be in the article without a valid source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• You are using the strawman fallacy by concentrating on the Telegraph article and ignoring all the other data. The authority control sources use 1961. The Telegraph article confirms that year. If you have an alternative year, please provide it. Saying that the authority control sources are using Misplaced Pages as their source is original research. One library piping in the Misplaced Pages article into one of their data fields, does not mean all their info comes from Misplaced Pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• What straw man? The Telegraph claim is the reference that you have repeatedly reinserted. Your most recent edit summary was "The Telegraph has her as age 47 in 2011 yielding 1961 as her year of birth which coincides with the year used by the German National Library in their index." Simple math tells us that a person born in 1961 would not have been 47 in 2011, but would have been ages 49-50 within that year, so far from coinciding with any unlinked claim to what the German National Library says in their index, if the supposed article really does say she was 47 in 2011, it's at odds with the supposed German National Library statement, which would give us reason to be particularly cautious about using the date. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reworded the note with the corrected math. Let me know what you think. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear that this is another Fiona Graham account. Same MO of parachuting in as a "new editor" with the laser-like focus on how this article sucks and Fiona is being harmed and everyone who edited it the way she doesn't like should be banned. I have to admire her restraint this time -- entire months went by between creation of the account and the immediate tomahawking of the article! Kudos. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems with sourcing Playboy Playmate articles

There's a couple BLP issues here I'd like to raise with Playmate articles like this one.

1) For statistical information about Playboy Playmates, Misplaced Pages articles largely rely on a website called wekinglypigs.com (NSFW). That site appears to be a private individual's copy-and-paste mirror of Playmate data originally published by Playboy (NSFW). I raised an issue with wekinglypigs.com at WP:RSN, and received a response that wekinglypigs.com fails WP:BLPSPS and should not be used in BLPs. I agree, but would like others to verify this before any changes are made.

2) Playmate data reported by Playboy -- in fact any statements about these models from Playboy itself -- has its own host of problems. As a primary issue, all human bodies change over time, so Misplaced Pages's reporting living Playmates' measurements as current seems problematic. Looking "bigger picture," Playmates are essentially models / entertainers hired by Playboy to play a certain role, and to have a certain appearance. Playboy is well known for airbrushing photos, and Playmates sometimes use fictional names in the magazine. In the magazine and in their public appearances related to being Playmates, they're basically on the job. Yet for most of these models, their Playboy personas -- and the data Playboy has chosen to report about them -- form the primary basis for their Misplaced Pages biographies. This practice is a bit like basing Jerry Seinfeld's biography on the alternate version of himself that he played on his television show -- something we thankfully don't normally do.

I have ideas on how to address these issues in mind, but before I suggest those, I want to make sure these are actually issues. If these actually aren't problems, obviously there is no need to suggest solutions. What say you? Townlake (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the intent is to report measurements as current, merely as as of the appearance. Maybe that should be specified in the infobox. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but you still have to source the measurement data to something reliable, and I don't think Playboy is a reliable source of biographical data about Playmates. There's too much incentive for Playboy to fudge biographical details to fit 1) its brand and 2) the models' varying comfort levels with using real info. Townlake (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

concetta Antico

• Concetta Antico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are incorrect, potentially damaging and libelous, entries in the Concetta Antico Wiki regarding the scientists and scientific details and findings quoted. Content of the Wiki has been modified to reflect the corrections (also shown in the script pasted below).

If these changes are not approved and retained the university will likely request the page be purged from Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.70.129 (talk • contribs)

Articles are not deleted by request or because of content disputes over sourced material. If you are willing to use the talk page to justify the cause of your edits, I'm sure something will be worked out. §FreeRangeFrog 00:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dengyan San

Dengyan San was created today and has already had scurrilous material added. I'm not sure of the subject's notability or whether any policies on young people apply (according to the article, she is aged 16 or 17, and so has reached the UK age of majority). Can someone familiar with BLP policy take a look? NebY (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim

Anwar Ibrahim is a prominent Malaysian politician currently linked from the Main Page. His biography contains a lengthy section Anwar Ibrahim#Hidden sex tape allegation. I consider it inappropriate. Another editor has twice reverted my removal on it. Other opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Anwar Ibrahim. Thank you. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Victor Krylov

Victor Krylov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a hard time with IPs failing to assume good faith and now turning to nasty comments over contentious edits at Victor Krylov. This article (which was previously featured here) does not see much activity. Could additional editors please keep an eye on what happens there and weigh in occasionally? Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the list. It's normal to include a section of this sort for articles on academics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I’m cool with keeping the list, but the lack of discussion and being called a nazi, not so much. Ariadacapo (talk)

Roland Williams

The picture that was used for him is not actually him. When you go onto the actual page there is no longer a picture of him. It needs to be updated and added to this page.

Roland Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.190.170 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where there's ever been a pic in that article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the IP means the Google knowledge graph pic. Misplaced Pages:You can't fix Google through Misplaced Pages. --GRuban (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author)

A significant number of edits seem intent on connecting Harris to Jewish "tribalism" (noting that he has not self-identified as Jewish or of belonging to a "tribe") and including lengthy quotes thereon. Once we establish that he rather does not like religions, we have said what there is to say. When we add quotes from strongly opinionated people, we turn the BLP into a debating society match and not into a biography worthy of an encyclopedia, and where the opinions verge on unacceptable levels about a person, I rather suggest WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLP are being abused. I ask others to examine the nature of the quotes and tenor of the BLP please. Collect (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I second this. One editor in particular seems intent on keeping lengthy quotes from said opinionated people and has resisted pretty much any change. The more eyes we have on the situation, the better.LM2000 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I third this. Good work, Collect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't know whether he's "self-identified" as Jewish or not, but you are right that there's no source presented.

The "lengthy quote" is a single sentence, so you're already misrepresenting one aspect

Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

and it followed a quote by Harris

It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism.

The Mondoweiss article is from 2012, while Harris' "tribalism" remark dates to 2006. Sayeed's tribalism remark was likely made partially in response to Harris' tribalism remark. There is no rule on Misplaced Pages against referring to Jews as tribal, incidentally, as Collect asserted in his edit summary. The only assertion that this thread has to make is related to whether Misplaced Pages can categorize Harris as a Jew. Harris had been categorized as a Jew four times over before Collect removed those with this edit earlier today. This thread seems to be based upon a rationale that since Harris is not categorized as a Jew, nobody else quoted in the article can refer to him as a Jew. That seems like pretty flimsy logic to me, but it may work on Misplaced Pages. I think that the quote by Sayeed is not tantamount to Misplaced Pages categorizing Harris, and it is mentioned in the article that Harris' mother is Jewish, etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Where an editor has edit warred to describe a person as "Jewish" who has not so self-identified, and edit warred to include an accusation that he is Jewish with "tribal" sympathies, then it seems that WP:BLPCAT is being deliberately violated.

Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."'

Seems pretty clear. And, by the way, it is up to those who wish to label folks to find a source - not up to others to prove that there is no source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the defects of the proposed quote, WP:BLPCAT isn't one of them, as it involves neither a category nor an infobox. Let's stick to sensible arguments, please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is fairly clear -- any claim which is "contentious" requires strong sourcing. Where no such sourcing is provided, the claim must be removed. In fact, the discussions in the past are far broader than "categories only" as the other editors are surely aware, and the disingenuousness exemplified on the topic regarding sourcing ill-suits Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make a point about BLPCAT, then it should relate to categories and infoboxes. Perhaps your fingers typed an extra 3 letters by accident? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that Harris is still categorized under "Americans of Jewish decent".

Collect is pretending to be ignorant of the categories, but Collect directly edited the categories in his second of only two minor edits to the article before 2/16, and Harris was categorized a a Jew under four categories when Collect made the edit.

I see that he has accused me of "deliberately violating" BLPCAT...--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the several editors above that the "Jewish" designations for Sam Harris are insufficiently sourced, and the Mondoweiss is not a reliable source for a factual designation. The "of Jewish decent" designation speaks to his lineage (a parent appears to have been Jewish), not to Sam Harris himself, so isn't problematic. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Designating Harris as Jewish is against BLP as numerous discussions here have set a properly high bar for designating a person's religion in Misplaced Pages's voice. However, the quote "display... tribal affections..." is not in Misplaced Pages's voice and is properly attributed to it's author as opinion should be. It does not seem strictly problematic from a BLP perspective.

  I do, however, agree with Collect that this quote should not be in the article. Theodore Sayeed's opinion is UNDUE. Harris is known for his criticism of religion whether he has some 'hidden Jewishness' or something as Sayeed implies seems irrelevant to the discussion of Harris's work and views. JBH (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dennis L. Montgomery

Repeated blanking and deletion of content by multiple users which appear to be same editor User:Wikidirt and User:PageOneEditor. Have previously posted to talk page about blanking and deletions by this and apparently same anon IP editors (all appear to be the same person. CinagroErunam (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Arngrim

Regarding the final sentence of this article referring to Stefan's sisters allegations: It seems irrelevant to the actor's actual career points include this speculative information, regardless of validity, and carries the implication that the article's writer may have a vendetta of sorts against him. As such, the printed view is inappropriate, damages Misplaced Pages's credibility and reminds of me why I choose not to support the site monetarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.109.18 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well... if the molestation allegations gained a lot of coverage then it'd warrant a mention on both of their pages. I don't think that the mention on Stefan's page was done out of spite or a vendetta. You must assume WP:GOODFAITH in these situations. In any case, I am finding some coverage of this on the Internet (Daily Mail, CNN, Fox, Globe and Mail, CBS, Christian Post), and so far it's enough to where a brief mention does seem to be warranted. We do try to avoid speculation, but if it's something that has gained coverage then occasionally allegations can warrant inclusion. If Stefan has publicly denied the claims then we can always add that to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nat Shapiro

Dear Misplaced Pages editors,

I made some additions to the biography entry on Nat Shapiro about a week ago. I checked the entry today and all of my additions were removed.

My wish was to expand on the information currently provided to aid researchers into the history of American popular music in the 20th century. Everything I wrote was documented in papers I donated to the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts about a year and a half ago, or in one case only was based on meetings at which I was present.

If there is some problem with the edits I made that I can correct so that this information can once again be available to Misplaced Pages readers, please let me know.

Thank you,

Amy Louise Pommier (formerly Amy Louise Shapiro) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.218.206 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is Nat Shapiro. The information was removed due to copyright concerns. Also, the original poster has a conflict of interest, being the subject's daughter. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, this should not be discussed at this noticeboard because the subject of the biography is not a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman

The Peter Ruckman article is about a living person. User:John Foxe has repeatedly added libelous and fringe material (after being warned it was in violation of BLP on his page and the article 2X) from a web blog whose intention is to flame Peter Ruckman. It is in clear violation of reliable sourcing yet it seems John Foxe has demonstrated ownership WP:OWN of the article with the purpose of flaming the living person with ridiculous claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peter_Ruckman&diff=647449198&oldid=647448247 John Foxe has been arguing with other editors for since 2006 on the articles talk page in his attempt to add sordid unreliable claims about this BLP and has been warned about edit warring and adding unreliable information since then. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Peter_Ruckman#Please_follow_Wikipedia_rules 208.54.39.193 editor John Foxe clearly has an axe to grind with Peter Ruckman and should be banned from further editing concerning this article and possibly a few others from a review of his contributions. (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the citations are to Ruckman's own writings, which is why, I assume, his supporters have regularly tried to delete them.--John Foxe (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Then why are you sourcing from a web blog that's purpose is to flame Ruckman. Clearly a violation of BLP? Is it your blog you keep linking to the article to add libelous material? 208.54.39.193 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If something in that article is cited to a blog (not mine—I have none), it should be removed.--John Foxe (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:John Foxe above is the one who keeps adding it back and refused to revert his unreliable sourced BLP edits that sourced the blog and stated: I refuse. Either report me or express your complaints on the article talk page so that they can be discussed by the community.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC) User:John Foxe's nearly 9 years of edit warring on this BLP would indicate he knows better but he has clearly have repeatedly added poorly sourced, defaming, and libelous material about a BLP. It would seem he is are gaming WP:Gaming the system to promote his personal crusade against Ruckman. Ruckman is a controversial person and that is well established but John Foxe keeps adding crap about aliens and other absurd claims from unreliable sources that seek to flame the BLP. It makes the article read like an tabloid written by an idiot.208.54.39.193 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If there's anything in that article cited to a blog, it should be removed.--John Foxe (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Foxe you added it back in 2X today so you should then take your advice and delete it but you refused to do that and said to report you which has been done. What is your game trying to achieve here? You have a long history of demonstrating ownership of the article and adding unreliably sourced material from 2006 onwards that defames a BLP with libelous material. 208.54.39.193 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I missed a citation to a blog, feel free to remove it.--John Foxe (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For context I add that Foxe is a patient and consistent editor. For example, in 2012 he agreed to a WP:1RR (link to his agreement) in order to end a 1 month block. Then 1 year and 2 weeks later he requested a of the ban. He has a consistent history of being reported on the 3RR noticeboard, and even recently reverted a benign edit demonstrating that he still has trouble with WP:OWNership of articles. By patient and consistent, I mean that he has been here a long time, has consistently advocated for specific positions, and is patient, willing to wait out other editors and occasional blocks in order to promote his POV into the articles he's edited. Vertrag (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (PS account used for legitimate sock purposes (privacy))

Unusually knowledgeable for someone who's made only 7 edits since 2006.--John Foxe (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I disclosed that it was a sock - its not unreasonable for me to fear that you would retaliate for my comments here which you demonstrate by immediately reviewing my edit history and challenge me for that rather than address the issues I raise. Vertrag (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept the "patient and consistent" part as a compliment and let you retire the sock for a long winter's nap.--John Foxe (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another interpretation of patient and consistent would be gaming the system, at least that is how I read it. 172.56.20.124 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman is a highly controversial person, and we should summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say about him. That neutral presentation allows reasonable people to draw their own conclusions. Any editor who compulsively uses poor quality sources in a coordinated, long term effort to make Ruckman look as bad as possible should cease and desist. If that pattern of editing continues, then sanctions should be imposed to prevent that behavior. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Agree The problem is some want to use Misplaced Pages to burn Ruckman on the stake for his positions he has taken against Bob Jones University due to their academic employment there. This article is a smear campaign about a BLP from ideologically opposed editor above who has spent several years under various socks feigning neutrality. The User:John Foxe has been sanctioned many times concerning his editing style and use of socks and is clearly gaming the system in order to pursue a personal vendetta against Ruckman. John Foxe has patiently edit warred for nearly nine years against a outspoken critic of Bob Jones University. There is a real COI as a simple review of the sock account of John Foxe would demonstrate. It would be wise to permanently topic ban User:John Foxe from this article and BJU articles as well as he has clearly demonstrated he cannot maintain a neutral position and has repeatedly failed to follow Wiki guidelines concerning COI editing. Basically John Foxe revealed himself in User:Hi540. A google search will demonstrate this but I leave it for others to discover the COI issue on their own. 172.56.31.16 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You can add http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trinity_Baptist_Church_(Concord,_New_Hampshire)&action=history to an area John Foxe should be topic banned from editing as well due to a very serious conflict of interest and his real life involvement in the Tina Anderson rape incident. He is an ardent supporter/friend of Chuck Phelps (the pastor at the time of the rape) and all things BJU which has ties with Chuck Phelps and the church where the rape occurred that hid it for years from local police and blamed the girl for being raped by a deacon. Foxe (not his real world name) severely criticized the woman (a young girl at the time) for being raped on two different occasions by a church deacon. The more I learn about Foxes COI and strong agenda pushing style of editing the more I believe an indefinite block would be most appropriate for the editor known as John Foxe. 172.56.9.207 (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sex Scandal Sizemore edit

Need help/ advice how to edit page Sex Scandal Sizemore.

The correct page title should read "The Tom Sizemore Sex Scandal" which is the title of the sex tape/video. Don't know how to change. Also...listed references need to be brought under correct heading. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Dos (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd probably recommend moving it to Tom Sizemore sex scandal, but then I'd also probably recommend merging it into the overall article for Sizemore at Tom_Sizemore#Personal_life. The article kind of comes across like it's a news article at times and a lot of it seems like it could be summarized and condensed into a few paragraphs. I'm going to work on cleaning the article up and unless more sources are available, I'll just merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• I've moved and redirected it to Sizemore's article since there isn't enough coverage to warrant an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Luke Thompson AFL footballer

Two different dates of birth on the article. Main text says August 2, 1991 and right-hand fact box says February 8, 1991. Am led to believe the February date is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.59.1 (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like it was just a typo. Typically non-US countries place the date before the month, so they likely placed this in the infobox birthdate template in the same fashion not realizing that the template has the month first. I'd imagine that this happens quite often on here, given the amount of articles that list dates in that way. I know I've taken to writing a lot of dates in that format since it's so standard in most of the world. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Jade Fairbrother

Good day,

Been trying to get to speak to a human at Misplaced Pages. The reason why I removed the content of that wiki page is because (all my attempts) of deleting the page (even editing), have proven impossible. This page was created by me and it is my wife (Jade Earp-Jones). Her prior modelling past upon searching in Google for her new name links to this Misplaced Pages page (Jade Fairbrother)? How can we remove the 'jade earp-jones' reference to this page? I can't see how or where its referenced for google to point it to 'jade fairbrother' article. There is no text of Jade Earp-Jones included in the article, yet if you search Google for 'Jade Earp-Jones' in google, first search hit is the[REDACTED] page. At one stage in previous reiterations of the page, she included her new full name, but the page no longer does. So this has impacted her professional finance career (as she's retired from modelling and has changed her maiden surname).

Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benigma55416 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Benigma55416, are you asking for us to delete the page entirely? If so, then you'll need to have Jade contact WP:ORTS and file a ticket to verify her identity (ie, that she's your wife, that she's a former model, and that she wants the page removed). I don't mean anything by this but we have so many people claiming to be someone or be married to someone that we can't really accept on your say so that she's your wife and that she wants the page removed. After that we can nominate the article for deletion via AfD and say that she wants the page deleted for personal reasons. However I do have to warn you that even if this page is deleted then it's still possible that Google results will point towards things that discuss her modeling career. I don't see where there's any reference to her married name in the article, so odds are that the article rose in Google hits because it was frequently clicked on. We can't really control what shows up in Google hits, so that's something you'd have to take up with them. I also have to warn you that even if she proves her identity and we nominate the article for AfD, that's still not a guarantee that it will be deleted. Someone wanting an article gone does give the deletion discussion some weight, but if her accomplishments as a model are notable enough then it could end up that the consensus would be to keep the article. I'm saying this mostly because she achieved the status of Playmate of the Year, which is not a small thing as far as notability goes so it could end up that the article would remain. But first things first- Jade needs to verify her identity and ORTS can help with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Tokyogirl79 has given a good reply, but I think some hard reality should be mentioned—it is extremely unlikely that the article will ever be deleted. I am no authority on Playboy models but my guess is that notability is easily established, and a really exceptional situation (far more than has been mentioned here) would be needed for a deletion discussion to conclude that the page should be deleted. An alternative would be to update the article to reflect the current situation with a more recent (and less exciting) picture. That is probably not what is wanted, but I don't think we should leave Benigma55416 with an expectation that may not be met. Re the Google search problem: I suggest talking with someone who understands how Google indexing works—the problem is that every time a discussion like this includes both the search text and the name of the Misplaced Pages article, Google will increase the article's search rank. For that, an SEO expert would be needed for private consultation (hello Jehochman). Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Just a quick note that 1) including both her maiden and her real name here has the potential for a minor Streisand effect (for example I was unaware of this person but the BLP notice piqued my curiosity so I google searched her married name and found that the same picture as in the article is used for her facebook page and google links it to her married not her maiden name); 2) she doesn't seem to have retired from modeling since she has an active facebook page with recent images (Feb 8) that are at least as racy as the one in the article. The reality is that like JehochmanJohnuniq states above, it is very unlikely that even with a request through OTRS that her page would be deleted. Vertrag (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  PS - be patient re the link to her page in Google as the removal of text about her maiden name was made recently (January 30 in readable text and Feb 11 for the metadata on the page). It takes a while for a change like that to be seen in google results. Vertrag (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• The change mentioned by Vertrag may help. However, if there are links on the net pointing to the page using the old name as anchor text, they might still cause the page to rank. Another problem is that Google has become rather intelligent about handing synonyms. Google's "brain" may have figured out that the two names refer to the same person. I suggest waiting a short while to see if things improve. Meanwhile, is there any objectionable content on the page that we could possibly remove? Jehochman 15:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Dmitrievich Bruno

• Alexander Dmitrievich Bruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a few more eyes on this one, only has four watchers. Systemic vandalism and BLP vios dating from last year by an SPA, reported to OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog 18:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution