Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian)

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 Procedural close. The article in question has been moved to Detention of Mark Bernstein per talk page consensus, rendering the deletion discussion for Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) centered around WP:BLP1E moot. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

Created 2022-03-12 when he was detained, pretty clear WP:BLP1E LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also oppose moving per the discussion at Talk:Mark_Bernstein_(Wikimedian) there have been many detentions of journalists in the region this doesn't need it's own article especially for 15 days. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BLP1E clearly applies. Lots of people are being detained and most don't warrant their own article. Beyond which, this smacks of WP:RGW and navel gazing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BLP1E applies, as well as failing WP:GNG. Close. Article has been moved, thus no longer violating WP:BLP1E. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 14:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. There has been an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) is focused on moving this article to one where there is no longer a BLP1E issue (I.E. one that covers the event) since March 12. It does not look like there is any outcome that will result from that which happens to keep this as a biography, owing to BLP1E. The nom, full well knowing that there was a discussion going on and what the probable outcome would be, has put forward an argument that simply doesn’t apply to the most likely outcome of that discussion—that the page is moved to Detention of Mark Bernstein as an alternative to deleting all the content. It is standard that the RM closes in about 7 days, so this hasty AfD makes little sense—this is in many ways a discussion fork that completely ignores the well-reasoned arguments for the move on that very talk with a mere hand-wave on a separate page that makes no argument about the extent of reliable sourcing available for the event. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no realistic likelihood of this passing WP:EVENT. If an article were created listing prominent people known to have been detained I might see an argument for a redirect. But since such a list would likely be limited to people with an independent claim to notability, we are back to square one. - Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the page has been moved to Detention of Mark Bernstein, please note that I substantially support keeping the article, owing to widespread coverage of the event from diverse reliable sources that I and others have noted below. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete - Given the article was already on its way to being renamed/rescoped to be about the event rather than the person, the BLP1E argument in the nomination (and all of the delete !votes thus far) holds no water. The new question is whether it meets WP:EVENT (or WP:GNG). Well, it's one of those cases where we cannot know whether there will be lasting significance because the article was immediately created, so we have to guess at which is most likely (i.e. figure out WP:DELAY vs. WP:RAPID). With the sourcing as it is now, I'd be most inclined to support a merge/redirect somewhere like Censorship of Wikipedia, Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia, or Censorship in the Russian Federation. If coverage continues, we could have a stand-alone article. Either way, there's no need to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to one of those articles is the only viable alternative I see to deletion. As it stands, I don't see any credible claim to passing EVENT. - Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While both are part of the Union State, Russia is not Belarus. It would not be appropriate to merge the article into an article on censorship within the Russian Federation when the person was not in the Russian Federation at the time of his arrest and (as far as I can tell from reporting) has not been in the Russian Federation since his arrest. His being involved in Russian-language Wikipedia does not make Russia the relevant sovereign state; there are sizeable Russian-speaking populations in Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine, but none of them are a mere part of Russia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close (i.e. keep under the likely new name), per arguments given by Mhawk10; the result of the RM is almost certainly going to be a consensus to move as proposed (even if a dramatic change occurred in the next 1-2 days, it would most likely be related to the current arrest, leaving the arguments for/against the move unchanged). Multiple Russian, Belarusian and US reliable sources satisfy WP:GNG. Boud (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand --ssr (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any policy or guidelines you'd like to cite in support of that 'keep?' -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are all having gudelines that tell us to promote and protect Wikimedia Movement, which we are ALL (including you) are part of. Articles about outstanding Wikimedians help to promote Wikimedia Movement and Wikimedia Foundation is always in favor of such proceedings, like this one. And you here look like the one who goes against Wikimedia Movement. Wikipedia:Gaming the system is the policy you seem to be contrary to. There are also a number of RS like Slate and Haaretz that make the subject undoubtfully notable. And you are against it—so you are against Wikipedia practices and against supporting Wikimedia Movement. You should be stopped right now (and you will be as the notability is proven). --ssr (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is now one of the world's most famous wikipedia-users. Who is he? The guy who was arrested in that accessory-country during the invasion of Ukraine - for having written on the Wikipedia website.--The name of the incident is less well-known: "The arrest of a wikipedia-user in Byelo-Russia during the country's time of giving material support to Russia's invasion of Ukraine". 89.8.144.217 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. When did BLP1E get revoked or Wikipedians made exempt from it? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. When did Wikipedia stop having articles - no exceptions - about "BLP1E persons"? 89.8.144.217 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not understand how Wikipedia works. It is an encyclopedia with clear guidelines and policy regarding what is included. It is not a indiscriminate collection of information. We also do not use the project to right great or wrongs or for navel gazing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not understand that articles can get "voted" into this encyclopedia, on the merits of the article. Clearly you do not understand that part of Wikipedia de facto policy. 89.8.144.217 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Articles are deleted through discussions, not votes. And no article gets "voted in". SN54129 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close per Mhawk10. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Russian government and Wikipedia already have many stones for the invasion of Ukraine, and even more so that the arrest takes place in Belarus, which in theory is a sovereign country, shows that Moscow's law expands to that country, with Belarus operating in fact. as a satellite state. LLs (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you've lost me. What does any of this have to do with our notability requirements for articles? How does this article meet our WP:PAG? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ – Merge into "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". STSC (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another page. Probably shouldn't put it on the main page about the invasion. Maybe another page like Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or a similar page. Redoct87 (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  This wouldn't merge well directly with the main article. Although Mark Bernstein's detention is partially a consequence of the Russian invasion, his detention does not effect the Russian invasion. Featuring Bernstein's detention on the main article would be somewhat biased, as his detention is only of major note to the Wikipedia Community, but not to the wider world. Cyber 94 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While merge or redirect is one of the options, I think the better course of action is delete because I don't see any encyclopedic value in the ~~BLP1E~~ article. STSC (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per Mhawk10. There is aleady an ongoing discussion on the issue, a deletion nomination clearly isn't appropriate at this time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy; fails WP:BASIC. Could support a merge if a suitable target is found, but the BLP aspects make me wary even of that.
To the closer: note that those voting to keep, as Ad Orientem points out in one case, do so without citing policy but with arguments to avoid aplenty, such as "it's just notable" and "I like it".
There are also no grounds for a procedural close, as AfD policy is explicit that If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. SN54129 12:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- With due respect, those supporting a procedural close are arguing that basically all of the WP:BLP1E/WP:NBASIC arguments are going to be moot once the page move is closed, which makes the arguments for deletion incoherent. Considering there was already a conversation well underway (and relatively close to finishing) on the article talk page, opening an AfD is a discussion fork that doesn't have an actionable end. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And to be absolutely clear, the detention passes WP:GNG and as attracted international attention. This includes coverage in The Verge, Indo-Asian News Service, Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata, Colorado Springs Gazette. You can also find substantial coverage in Haaretz, i24News, and Israel Hayom. The event, therefore, was very widely covered in diverse sources, and an article on the event is more than likely notable. The point of the move request on the page is to gain consensus to move the content to bring us in line with WP:BIO1E, which states that When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Rather than deleting the content that has been written, as you suggest, a page move and a restructure would be a suitable WP:ATD. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. But your disregard of policy and determination to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion is duly noted. SN54129 17:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from my !vote, I have responded to two editors. Each of those responses were on different topics from each other: my response to Rhododendrites was a narrow objection to a merge into an article on Russian censorship; my response to you is a direct response to the parts of your comment that denied that there was a notable topic to be covered here. I don't believe that any of this can reasonably be described as forcing my point of view into this by flooding the page with an enormous quantity of comments. I'd kindly ask that you please strike your baseless accusation that I have determination to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no personal notability beyond being very mildly punished. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very mildly punished? He got arrested for editing Wikipedia. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose procedural close – The outcome of this AfD discussion would apply to the same article under any new article title. STSC (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the point is not time served or severity of the sentence but the governmental physical censorship of a prominent Wikipedian (not navel-gazing if the navel is gaze-worthy). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Further comment withheld. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. The detention has been covered widely in reliable sources, both in English (RSP-greenlit The Verge, RSP-greenlit Haaretz, etc.) and in other languages. This makes it appropriate to cover somewhere on Wikipedia. I think a reasonable outcome could be merging to a section in a larger article on censorship during the war, as there's not that much to say here, but I also think keeping would be alright. There is only very minimal coverage of him from before the detention ([1]), but with the article now moved to cover the event, the WP:BLP1E concerns from other !voters do not apply and I presume will be discounted in the close. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recent move appears to have been cynically calculated solely to protect what is still a BLP in all but name from deletion. Further, the WP:EVENT it now claims to cover, does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. In particular the long-term significance is likely to be somewhere around zero. I therefor reaffirm my support for DELETION. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the move discussion start before the deletion nomination? --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Mr. Bernstein has received notable news coverage, as others have already detailed. Please see WP:COVERAGE and WP:NOTBLP1E. That being said, I'm not entirely sure if this should be kept in the article format, I might consider merging it into Wikipedia coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is also being afd' at the moment. Please note I've proposed moving that page to Wikipedia and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as well. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. A compliance with WP:COVERAGE can be seen. Most recently an article came up in the largest Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta. Also according to WP:NOTBLP1E he is both activist against Lukashenko regime as well as known Wikipedian who has received grants for his work from Yad Vashem (can be seen here on page 31). Plus how many people get arrested for editing Wikipedia? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk). 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Procedural close). The article has meanwhile been renamed to the better suitable title "Detention of Mark Bernstein", which is a notable topic about an event covered by reputable, independent, diverse (WP:DIVERSE), and reliable sources (WP:RS) internationally (WP:GEOSCOPE), in some cases to quite some depth (WP:DEPTH), and therefore easily meets WP:GNG. It meets WP:EVENT per being "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". In addition to keeping the article "Detention of Mark Bernstein" we should also keep the redirect from "Mark Bernstein" to this article per the very purposes of redirects (WP:REDIR). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matthiaspaul. --Victor Trevor (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is the first person to be arrested for his wiki-activity, and there is ample coverage of it. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time a person has been arrested for wiki activity. See Censorship of Wikipedia#France. Cyber 94 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was threatened with arrest and prosecution, but not detained since he complied. Just a little clarification. Spafky (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recall some people having previously been arrested for viewing Wikipedia in China. Thai state-affiliated media also report that someone was arrested in 2021 for "malicious editing" on an article regarding Dr. Yong Poovorawan under a fake news law, so I really don't think Bernstein was the first one arrested for activity on Wikipedia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the better title "Detention of Mark Bernstein". The event is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and also if as mentioned he was an activist against Lukashenko's Regime then perhaps it is better to create an article about him on the subject rather to create an article like this. And on the case of this article. it is better to delete it, as mentioned by several users above, he was arrested for editing wikipedia. Well i dont think so, infact he was arrested because he published several criticism about the current event. and i'm very sure that there are many detained wikipedians out there following the situation. and he coincidentally was one of them -Hunobukokaitobukainokukinkinokukango 11:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users above as it has significant coverage and should not be deleted. Sahaib (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has a significant coverage, and there are many articles of people who were famous for a single event. I don't think there is a previous instance of someone getting detained specifically because of their Wikipedia contributions; think of the awareness this will bring around the war censorship in Russia and Belarus. You need to put aside your sacred Wikipedian dogmas and think of the bigger picture. To top it all off, there are articles about him in plenty of other languages. Click "random article" and you will find articles about tons of people whose biographies were less important/particular than that of this man – which seems to be the first of its kind, unfortunately. --Spafky (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the event itself is notable enough, as it's covered well in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Even as an event (not as BLP1E), it fails the WP:EVENTCRIT completely. Deletion. STSC (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant international coverage, the event of being arrested (in Belarus based on a Russian law?) for working with Wikipedia in is also significant, and he is one of the most active Wikipedians in Russian language. --Rießler (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply: criteria 2 and 3 aren't satisfied. Alaexis_¿question? 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that the move has taken place, I want to stress my support for the keep option. As a follow up on the WP:GNG issue, I would like to further provide several sources of non-English coverage: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wide international coverage seems well-established. Boud (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Per NoonIcarus, this event has had diverse coverage (not just from Russian sources, but also from Mexico, Italy ([13][14]), Poland, China, Peru, and Turkey). If this turns out to not have much of a lasting effect, I have no prejudice for a possible merge, maybe into Russian fake news laws. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:41, 23 March 2022 (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.