Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Belsey (educator)

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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Belsey (educator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whilst the subject matter is morally honorable, this article is an advert for this individual and his commercial anti-cyberbullying organisation which sells presentations and courses. The sited heavily linked to is not RS and could be viewed as link spam. There are no references to indicate notability. It's not clear if this article passes WP:GNG. isfutile:P (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much respect for the man himself, but lack of reliable sources - in fact, the presence extremely unreliable or inappropriate sources for a WP article - and blatant advertising disqualify. dci | TALK 07:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that while it would appear that I created the original article, what I created wasn't about this person — rather, there's a massive procedural error lurking in the edit history. What I created, in fact, was the article that's now sitting at Bill Belsey (politician) — but sometime in 2011, Bill Belsey the educator seems to have violated WP:COI by rewriting the article to be about himself, with the politician left at the bottom as an afterthought even though he's the more notable of the two per our current inclusion rules. And then sometime this year, another Wikipedia user spun the politician off into a new article and left the educator in the original one, then moved the original to this title and converted the plain title to a dab page — thus breaking the edit history, because my original edits about the politician are now attached to this title instead of the one which contains the content that I actually posted.

The educator's article, for the record, is clearly not consistent with our current standards around the use of reliable sources, and thus cannot be kept in its current form — while it's certainly possible that he might qualify for a properly written article that makes proper use of reliable sources, he is clearly not entitled to keep this spammy, COI-violating version. Accordingly, it's a clear delete — however, because of the process error, it will need to be handled as follows so that the edits that pertain to the original version are properly attached to the correct topic:

Move the educator back to the plain title Bill Belsey.
Delete the article there, and then move Bill Belsey (politician) back over it.
Restore only the deleted edits that pertain to the original version (i.e. the five edits from 2010 or before.) - Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's all that can be done at this point; the previous occurrences are rather ridiculous, if you ask me. dci | TALK 17:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've followed this page for some time, because I follow the Cyberbullying page, and I agree that it's simply too much of an exercise in self-promotion by the subject of the page. That editor shows up from time to time and restores self-promoting edits that had previously been reverted, which might, perhaps, be an argument against moving the politician page back to where the DAB is now; perhaps it might be better to leave the politician page as is, and also delete and salt the DAB page, but I'm not sure about that. (I might as well point out that I performed some, not all, of the edits to which Bearcat refers, mainly because I felt that it violated BLP for the politician to also have the material about the educator on the page about the politician. My apologies to Bearcat about the edit history stuff.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title that the politician's article should ultimately be placed at can be separately discussed at another time, but it's outside the purview of this discussion since nobody's proposing that we delete him. However, given the need to repair the edit history by reattaching the original edits to his article instead of the educator's, the process I outlined above does still have to take place regardless of which title we ultimately decide to give him in the end. I also, for the record, don't see any evidence at User talk:Belsey that the user has ever been properly advised of why the content of this article is problematic — nobody, in fact, has posted anything to his talk page at all about anything since the inclusion of his website as a straight external link in cyberbullying in 2009, two years before he created this. As a result, we simply don't know whether he's restoring self-promotional edits because he's choosing to ignore Wikipedia's content policies (in which case we also have the option of blocking him), or because he's editing in good faith and just doesn't realize there's a problem (in which case all we really have to do is explain to him about proper sourcing and conflict of interest.) So his behaviour doesn't yet constitute proof that we need to keep the politician disambiguated regardless of whether the educator has an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly wasn't advocating blocking him! Just trying to point out some things about the pluses and minuses of how to deal with the redirect page. Not a big deal to me. You should feel free to leave him a talk page message if you want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the objection is merely that: “an advert for this individual and his commercial anti-cyberbullying organization” then fix it. If the objection is that the subject is trying to make a living by selling stuff then wkipedia should have an article about him so those who are considering purchasing the stuff from him have an unbiased source to check him out. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. See also WP:GNG (not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is not a consumer product evaluation website). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the article isn't properly referenced to reliable sources, no. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current article is WP:SPAM and a community service medal is not enough to establish notability in my opinion. 1292simon (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2012 (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.