Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:13, 18 March 2009

Rod Dreher

As the subject of this article I kindly request it be deleted. I do not want an article about me here if it is used for my enemies to add slanderous insertions. Whether or not this is a notable subject is not really important here. Rod Dreher (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2009(UTC) copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Dreher by Onorem

I put my reasons somewhere else, but someone appears to keep removing them, likely do to a personal vendetta. Rod Dreher (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. Your comments weren't removed because of any vendetta. They were removed because you put them in the wrong place. I've copied it over and fixed the format for you. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic is notable and verifiable and worthy of an article. However, as in all WP:BLP cases we need to be very careful to prevent the kinds of problems that Mr. Drehler is concerned about. There is a good contact at Wikipedia:Autobiography which describes what you can do to keep an article about yourself neutral, but I also suspect that Wikipedians don't have a systematic bias against you. I suspect that "slander" and vandalism are unlikely. (I'm not familiar with the subject other than what is written here, so if there are details I'm not aware of that makes vandalism more likely we should take that into account.) JRP (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The libel and vandalism were recent, and probably seemed more prominent than they really were (It was 1 person, making 1 edit.) because several very misguided editors with automated tools decided to repeatedly revert the removal of the libel, treating the editor who was repeatedly removing it as if xe were a vandal. I have excised the offending edits and repeated reversions from the accessible edit history, to prevent any more such reversions. Uncle G (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be notable, no reason to delete. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 02:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis that his one book does have some major reviews, incl. NYT Book review. I take these as reviews of his ideas more generally, and think the article should be on him, not the book. He might write another. Weak delete, because I te3nd to be very skeptical about articles with phrases like "he is working on his second book " DGG (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet have an opinion about the article itself, but I don't think it should be deleted based on a single incidence of vandalism. We have protection and potentially flagged revisions at our disposal to handle such things. If this is really the subject of the article requesting the deletion, he should email the foundation with this request anyway. Anyone can claim to be the subject. We'd need proof before trusting the claim. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have potentially flagged what? Not last I heard. Would not oppose recreation once we have a marginally sane system of maintaining the article. Until then, we clearly don't have the resources to give it adequate care. Cool Hand Luke 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable author and conservative commentator, adequately sourced, offending edits have been deleted. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To echo the comment by Mgm, I find it suspicious that the subject of a Wikipedia article would create an account using his real name for the sole purpose of nominating it for deletion (Log, Contribs), over 2 years after its creation. If user Rod Dreher truly is the Rod Dreher that is the subject of the article, please see WP:BLP/H or contact the Wikimedia foundation ([1]) for help. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This chap was the victim of libellous vandalism that wikipedia failed to prevent, and then in classic WP:DOLT style replaced when properly removed. We owe this chap a profuse apology. He now asks for deletion, not it appears because he objects to an article about him (to which we might ethically say "tough, it is a free world", but because he does not want an open wikipage which can at any time be the subject of further "slanderous insertions". Someone above has already pointed him to a page which gives him information on how he might try to keep his biography slander free - but why on earth should he have to do that? Why should he have to learn wikipedia to avoid being slandered? Why on earth should he have to watch his bio on a daily basis for slander, when we've allowed him to be slandered already? Now, if we had adequate quality controls in place where we could say "we are sorry you were slandered, we won't let it happen again", I might vote to keep - but, since we've rejected (semi-)protection for BLPs and flagged revisions, we are left saying "sorry this happened - and unless you watch out it will probably happen again". That's ethically unacceptable. Remove the article, until and unless we can develop proper quality control and promise victims that there's a realistic chance that they won't be raped twice.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Request for deletion by subject is not a reason to delete if all other policies and guidelines are complied with. This guy appears to be notable, article is sourced and problematic material has been deleted. ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per Scott Mac. If this was an encyclopedia, I may argue differently, but as it is little more than the world's largest online defamation machine, edited and controlled by the "ooh, ooh, everyone MUST be allowed to edit" brigade who don't realise how much harm they are doing while they hide behind screen names and collect their trophies, the subject should be allowed to opt-out of inclusion GTD 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no reason to keep this. rootology (C)(T) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We could delete all BLPs otherwise, because they're all vandalized sometime or another. If the edits are unsourced and controversial they're reverted, that's how it was always done. -- Menti fisto 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except they were not reverted, they were replaced by glorious wikipedians.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one instance, though. -- Menti fisto 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, no.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To claim this is just one instance is crazy and reinforces the view that those playing encyclopaedia have no idea about real-world harm GTD 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us who urge a less capacious construction of BLP understand the problem but (a) recognize that it is appropriate for us to balance the evident harm that befalls a living subject whose biography tends to include libel with the unquantifiable but more than theoretical harm suffered by the reader when Wikipedia fails to cover an otherwise encyclopedic topic for information about which he/she looks (the proposition that there is absolutely no such harm is not untenable, but it does implicate the most fundamental interests and goals of our enterprise, such that it cannot be advanced by anyone who values the project) and (b) have difficulty getting exercised about the well-being of those in whose being well we have no particularized interest. It is, I know, fashionable to suggest, both here and on WR, that those who are not BLP absolutists are immaturely blinded to the real-world consequences of what it is supposed they treat as an MMORPG, but most of us are not factually unenlightened; we simply think differently about some significant ethical and practical issues. Joe 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just think differently about ethics? Yes, and stamping on faces with boots is just a "different" expression of humanitarianism. I've don't think I've read such moronic tripe in quite a while. Quite disgraceful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Respect the real-life impact a poorly policed article can have on a not-particularly-famous person such as this. Do the responsible thing. And Doc, please keep those rape analogies rolling.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, should we delete most BLPs then, since most aren't particularly famous and retain only, say, Barack Obama? -- Menti fisto 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we can get a better quality control system (flagged), yes.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Either that or some other way to ensure this project actually acts like an encyclopaedia, with all the relevant checks and precautions, rather than a social network GTD 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are degrees of famousness. In general, I see no reason why we should have bio articles on people for whom there is little public bio information; it makes more sense to have articles for their work, except when they have a substantial body of work which can't easily be unified in a subject article. BLP policy is based on a "presumption of privacy", so the onus should be on those who want to keep BLPs of marginal notability to demonstrate that this is necessary for the encyclopedia. Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, seems to be a mildly notable individual. Someone claiming to be the subject is not proof enough for me to accept that the subject himself is requesting deletion. If Mr. Dreher sends an email to wikimedia, as suggested above, I might be inclined to reconsider my opinion. Reso lute 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep, but stub it down and indefinitely semi-protect it as a courtesy. Majorly talk 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The burden of proof is on those who claim this article comforms to WP:NOTABILITY. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it cannot keep articles until it is proved that they are not encyclopedical. On the contrary, it should not have any articles about individuals unless their encyclopedical value is beyond any doubt.Donadio (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. –xeno (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in BLP cases of marginal notability, we should respect the subject's wishes. There is precedent for this (Daniel Brandt), and good arguments (eg, in cases of marginal notability, the relative internet prominence of the WP article and any errors it may contain, plus the default position of encouraging (effectively requiring) subjects to police their own articles 24/7 is egoistic at best. If one day Dreher's notability is much higher, the position might be different, but for now, delete.Rd232 ^talk 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe we need to respect the nominator's wishes. This shouldnt even be a matter of discussion. I'm suprised there already hasnt been office action. §hawn hath 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above who noted that in cases of marginal notability, we should respect the wishes of the subject and delete. ₳dam Zel 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ukexpat and NawlinWiki. The legitimate sources now contained in the article show that Mr. Dreher is an active commentator whose book was reviewed in leading publications, and who publishes in prominent journals. He is certainly not shying from the public eye.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...nor is he consenting to an "anyone can libel" article on Wikipedia. Marginally notable + wish for no article + proven failure to remove libel = Delete. Cool Hand Luke 19:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where is the libel now? I don't see any - it has been dealt with by the community (after a few hiccups admittedly). – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to Crunchy Conservatism (or some such title) and focus that article on that rather than on the person. The reviews quoted in the article pretty unquestionably establish the notability of the book and the concept of crunchy conservatism. However I am not persuaded that the person himself is notable enough that given the circumstances we should have an article on the person. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those who are not aware, I brought up the issue of the nom's unconfirmed identity as the article subject at WP:AN. I read WP:SK again and interpret guideline 2 to mean that even if the nom is an impersonator, the fact that many unrelated editors agree with deletion means that this AfD should not be SK as a bad faith nomination. In other words, I was trying to make sure that this AfD was not another attempt at slandering this guy. However, since it has not been satisfactorily proven that the nom is the article subject, my !vote is neutral but subject to change to delete if such proof is given. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per DGG and others; the concept seems to have legs, and we currently have no evidence that the nominator is who he/she claims to be. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I note that BLP policy on respecting the subject's wishes used to be clearer a couple of years ago ([2]), when eg Seth Finkelstein's article was delete. Maybe it needs tweaking again for clarification. Rd232 ^talk 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long-standing inability to deal with political abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground + anonymous editing of BLPs = delete on request. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then recreate as a protected redirect to Traditionalist conservatism and stick a mention of "Crunchy conservatism" in there. Marginal notability + BLP issues = delete. Black Kite 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to be mildly notable, and someone not wanting an article on them to exist has ZERO effect on whether they have an article. Even if this really is Mr. Dreher wanting the article deleted, that doesn't matter. Vandalism can be reverted (and it has in this case) and articles can be semi-protected/protected when needed. TJ Spyke 20:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Can be", and "will be" are two different things. In this case the libellous vandalism remained for days and was replaced by wikipedians. Now, unless you are personally going to daily check this article for libels, you cannot suggest that the libel will not reoccur. It is not that this chap doesn't want an article, he just doesn't want to be a target on the encyclopedia where "anyone can libel". Your refusal to consider that request from a person who has already been the victim of wikipedia's poor quality control is deplorable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - EVERY article on Wikipedia is a potential vandalism target. That is why I voted in support of flagged revisions (and why I think editing should be restricted to registered editors). Still doesn't support deleting the article. TJ Spyke 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - EVERY article on wikipedia is not a guy who's face we've just punched, asking that we don't do it again.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither of the conditions the fulfillment of which the community are inclined to require before resolving to delete a biography at the subject's request is present here; Dreher is not someone of only marginal or transient notability, and his publicity is not avolitional. It is true, it should be said, that the community have rejected blanket pre-emptive semi-protection of BLPs, but there is no firm consensus against the extended use of protection, even full protection, as an alternative to deletion, particularly where a subject requests deletion solely because he wishes that an article about him not contain libel, not because he is categorically opposed to our maintaining an article about him, and I would note that I, for one, would accede to indefinite protection here, which I imagine would allay certain of the concerns those supporting deletion hold. Joe 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Proposing an alternative to deletion not permitted by current policy (WP:PPINDEF) doesn't seem terribly helpful. Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect to full protection, I meant only to suggest that there may be a consensus, albeit one not yet documented in policy, and even as other variants have already been rejected by the community, that indefinite protection is an appropriate alternative to deletion in the very narrow scenario in which a biographical subject seeks deletion not because he/she objects to the existence of an article generally but because he/she fears the repeated insertion of libel (remember that policy follows practice; it may be that our policy has evolved—or is ready to evolve—beyond the language of WP:PPINDEF). My accession, though, was confined to indefinite semi-protection, which we do practice in cases like this; I recognize that indefinite semi-protection would not have been a cure-all here, but it was my sense that combining it with what will surely be increased vigilence of the community might satisfy the subject and those whose concerns mirror his. Joe 22:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I guess misread your allusion to full protection. So I guess you're suggesting trying semi-protection before deletion (plus more people watching the article after this AFD), to see if that works. If the subject more notable I'd suggest that too. (See Wikipedia talk:Notability discussion about degrees of notability.) Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the record with this article here, we should respect the subject's wishes -- especially if the subject is only marginally notable. I can't believe we're really having a fight over this; this kind of pervasive libel risk is going to be the death of Wikipedia. Xihr 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- EVEN article on a living person can have libel put in and other general vandalism. Articles aren't deleted just because the subject of it wants it deleted. TJ Spyke 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you've inadvertently punched an innocent man in the face, "I won't let it happen again" is a good sentiment. Currently we have no way of realistically guaranteeing that short of deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete since the subject, with all due respect, is of marginal notability. The cited sources, and others that I could locate through a quick websearch, are writings by Dreher, rather than reliable secondary sources on Dreher (as required by WP:N/WP:GNG) (add: [3] is one exception). This would perhaps haveled me to !vote weak keep in general, but given the subject's wishes and the article history, I think deletion is warranted. I will be willing to change my vote, if someone can point me to some other reliable independent biographical sources on the subject that I may have missed Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC) revised to weak delete after reading the Washington Post article. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of clarification--have you already looked at the other reviews listed in the article under "External Links" (NYT, National Review, Reason, etc.)? --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed them originally, but did see them before revising my vote from delete to weak delete'.

To expand on my reasoning: The reviews certainly establish the notability of Cruncy cons as per WP:NBOOK (criterion 1); some of the reviews, also provide us some related biographical information about the author. This suggests that we should have an article on the book and include brief biographical information of the author there. However I still feel that a biographical article on the author is unjustified/only-weakly-justified, and given the circumstances surrounding this debate, it would be better to delete it (of course, a redirect to Crunchy cons if and when that article is written, would be perfectly fine.) Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article barely establishes the required standards of notability, and given that it's such a target of slander and libel, this would be a good case to remove. Please don't let the subject's personal wishes affect your opinion away from the fact that it's probably a deleteable article in any case. Bastique ^demandez 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - insufficient verified notability for an internet/journalist. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it's someone undoubtedly notable ("would a CD-ROM Most important parts of Wikipedia include an article on this person" is generally a good exercise) we should respect the subject's wishes when it comes to deleting BLPs. – iridescent 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur in that we should respect the subjects wishes, and have the article deleted. Until It Sleeps 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If flagged revisions were already enabled, I probably would be voting to keep. Although it's unfortunate that this person had to experience this dark side of Wikipedia, at least it provides another example as to why we need flagged revisions now. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or merge to book I have no problems removing questionably notable people at their request. But this person is pretty plainly notable. Protect the article if we really find an on-going problem. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plainly on what basis? The article has one WP:RS which is about him; the rest are about the book. And is WP:AUTHOR really met? Rd232 ^talk 04:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. But the book is significant and he is discussed in the context of the book. I've no objection to making this a redirect to the book with a short section on the author given the author's request. !vote changed. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete becuase nobody really cares. Aisteach (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
extremely weak keep I looked back to a Dreher blog post that one of the creepy edits was using to libel Dreher. In that blog post [4] Dreher wrote about how someone passed out flyers at a homeless shelter that told the homeless to go to the Dreher house where they could get money. One of the homeless people who showed up was interviewed by police and turned out to have a criminal record as a sex offender. Not only did that blog post not get the sympathy of someone, but that someone twisted and exaggerated another statement into what was obviously libel, then stuck it in the article. On the other hand, political commentators should have articles on Wikipedia whenever possible because influential people deserve some monitoring (I've created several). I've read and enjoyed Dreher's writing in the past, and I appreciate the fact that there's an article about him. Looking to policy, the WP:CREATIVE section of the "Notability (people)" guideline applies, and the subject passes easily: he got multiple reviews of his book [5] (not a high hurdle). I feel ashamed that we let the libel remain on that page, but an article about a notable political commentator is important, and if we're going to have articles on BLPs at all, we should have them on notable commentators whose books get national attention. Dreher's book, Crunchy Cons, was actually pretty distinctive, and he's bound to write more distinctive books over time, so I see a real loss here if this article is deleted. It's going on my watch list, and I hope other editors will put it on theirs. -- Noroton (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: his current notability independent of the book isn't really demonstrated, so an article on the book would serve WP purposes fine for now. Considering what he might do seems a WP:CRYSTALBALLish sort of thing. If he does write future or notable books or otherwise increase his notability, the article can be created again in those changed circumstances. Rd232 ^talk 04:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, he meets the WP:CREATIVE notability standard already, so we don't need to speculate about future books. My comment about what I expect in the future was only to point out how much more of a loss it would be to not have this article. Actually, the more that I look at WP:CREATIVE, he seems to qualify as someone known "for originating a significant new concept" ("crunchy conservative"), and it's been cited by his peers (but I don't know how widely). -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mmm, maybe. But if the concept is notable, why a bio instead of an article on the concept? Rd232 ^talk 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I consider myself a critic of Wikipedia, and will not continue to edit here after this deletion debate is over. It disgusts me that this "encyclopedia" would let a libellous version of an article stay up for three days, and then revert back to that version. I will avoid major drama in the future by not ranting about the things I have against this site, but will not really take it seriously - as a good information source. If this article stays up despite my requests, I will not view this community as courteous either. Rod Dreher (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One third party source? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Joe - i think this is a great creative way to meet the needs of most of the involved parties. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Joe wasn't entirely crystal clear, perhaps you could clarify what you mean. Semi-protection? Rd232 ^talk 04:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scott Mac (Doc)'s arguments. And this page may become a classic study in Wikipedia dysfunction dynamics. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user does not sound like someone who just happened on their bio and tried to fix it. With their recent comments here and on Jimbo's talk page, this sounds like a person who is very knowledgable in, and are pushing all the buttons of, the current 'hot topic' in wikidrama land, FR, and how BLP will be the death of the project TM. I will redact if anyone manages to get proof this user is the article subject, but I for one doubt they will per my woman's intuition. MickMacNee (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of your implication from the user's contributions [6]. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seriously? MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Tell me what I'm missing. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - His last 4 edits. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I already looked at those. Guess we have to agree to disagree. The fact that he made a related comment on something else 2 mins prior to his main posting on Jimbo's talk page? Never mind, I don't have an opinion on the issue either way, I just don't see evidence to the negative from the contribs. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I doubt the real Rod Dreher would misspell "due."[7] 160.39.212.83 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't "woman's intuition" tell you that slapping the victim, and demanding dragging up their character be considered relevant to their credibility and right to respect, is rather, well, eh, offensive. Or once people are abused here, then we are entitled to ignore AGF and abuse them some more?--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're still assuming this user is who you think he is. Have you actually looked at their contributions? MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dead tree standard. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query - has anybody got any evidence that User:Rod Dreher is in fact Rod Dreher? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of circumstantial evidence for and against the claim that the user is the article subject, but I haven't seen any definitive evidence either way. As I mentioned above and in the discussion at WP:AN, I think that in light of how this discussion has gone that's now irrelevant. Another admin noted that it will become an issue if the user decides to continue as a member of the Wikipedia community after this AfD is closed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question I have is, assuming this guy is the real Rod Dreher, and he does email the Foundation as he has been requested to do, where is the check that that information gets passed down to this AfD discussion? KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have correspondence from the real Mr. Dreher, which I can forward to a trusted admin. User:Rod Dreher is not the subject of this article. The columnist didn't know about all the fuss on Wikipedia until this morning, when several Wikipedia users emailed him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 **There's a lot of circumstantial evidence for and against the claim that the user is the article subject, but I haven't seen any definitive evidence either way. As I mentioned above and in the discussion at [[WP:AN]], I think that in light of how this discussion has gone that's now irrelevant. Another admin noted that it ''will'' become an issue if the user decides to continue as a member of the Wikipedia community after this AfD is closed. <span style="color:#808080">[[User:Kuyabribri|KuyaBriBri]]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">[[User_Talk:Kuyabribri|Talk]]</span></sup> 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 **The question I have is, assuming this guy is the real Rod Dreher, and he does email the Foundation as he has been requested to do, where is the check that that information gets passed down to this AfD discussion? <span style="color:#808080">[[User:Kuyabribri|KuyaBriBri]]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">[[User_Talk:Kuyabribri|Talk]]</span></sup> 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
+***I have correspondence from the real Mr. Dreher, which I can forward to a trusted admin.  ''User:Rod Dreher'' is not the subject of this article.  The columnist didn't know about all the fuss on Wikipedia until this morning, when several Wikipedia users emailed him.--[[User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back|The Fat Man Who Never Came Back]] ([[User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back|talk]]) 15:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)