Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Hategan

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 keep‎. Multiple arguments were made to keep. The single !delete vote mentioned edit-warring and coverage of legal issues; those are valid reasons to protect the page (which has since been done) but not to delete it (WP:LIKELYVIOLATION). (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Hategan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a self-promoting vanity page for a marginal figure, who is obviously continually editing it. There is a very long history of edit wars on the article, including their attempts to prevent coverage of their legal issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)

This nomination for deletion is part of ongoing vandalism of this page, which resulted it being locked down for a year. The nomination comes from one particular editor whose history shows he has targeted this particular page to delete large swaths of sourced content. His edit history also shows that he has targeted this page multiple times, contributing nothing but deleting large sections due to personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladonna2024 (talk • contribs)

The account that has been repeatedly undoing revisions to this page is now deleting the nomination for deletion without adequate discussion among editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The account that keeps sabotaging this page (TrashPandaMan) and deleting huge segments without adding anything to it, is now aggressively vandalizing the page and repeatedly nominating it for deletion. His history of edits shows he has targeted two specific pages, this one and another page, and repeatedly vandalizing and nominating them for deletion, citing only his personal opinion that it should be deleted. Belladonna2024 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sabotage. This is a highly problematic article with irrelevant information of questionable notability. The edit history shows a clear record of other users attempting to clean up the writing and eliminate unnecessary and self-promoting information, followed by constant attempts to revert the explained edits. Th subject of this article is clearly watching it very closely, and has been for some time, as can be seen in the controversy over the inclusion of their failed lawsuit. Individuals should not be curating their own Wikipedia pages. TrashPandaMan (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, it appears clear that TrashPandaMan's account was created with the specific purpose of deleting sourced content of two specific pages, and nominating them for deletion. This user has repeatedly deleted large amounts of information without providing any sources to substantiate his opinion that this is a vanity page. It also appears evident, by the hostility of his comments, combined with deletion of large segments and frequent vandalism of the page, that user TrashPandaMan might be associated with the other parties involved in Hategan's lawsuit.

I am not responsible for creating this page, but I do not believe it is a "vanity" page considering that Hategan has made significant contributions to Canada's anti-racist history and has been directly credited to contributing to the shutting down of the Heritage Front. However, I agree that in light of recurring sabotage and vandalism by people seemingly intent on removing sourced content, that perhaps it would be for the best if the page was deleted altogether. Belladonna2024 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Romania, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context. This discussion and this discussion are relevant here, and the page's history also tells a good story. These users have been fighting for over a week, and since they can't agree on anything, they keep edit warring and trying to bar one another from editing the page, as seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2024/09#Elisa_Hategan and this deletion discussion. Badbluebus (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:BIO per [1] [2] [3] [4]. I'm even tempted to say speedy keep since the nomination doesn't provide any policy-based reasons for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons. The arguments for deletion seem to be that she isn't notable, which she clearly is (admittedly not for everything that's currently in the article) and that the article is a "vanity page" (per WP:AFDFORMAT "Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided and is not in itself a reason for deletion"). 199.212.64.213 (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block TrashPandaMan for as long as it takes to deter vandalism. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2024 (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.