Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Schindler

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a clear consensus to delete. Nakon 04:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Schindler[edit]

John R. Schindler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know John Schindler from twitter. Never met the man, but we have some similar interests/involvements. At any rate, I saw a few days ago that people who don't like his politics have been organizing there and elsewhere to maintain a hit piece on him at Wikipedia. He had a long career at the NSA/US counterintelligence, but so have thousands. He also shares his views now that he's out of government, mostly on his blog but occasionally on other websites as a columnist. He is like tens of thousands of people in this regard. In 2014 he ended up losing his job teaching at the US Naval War College after apparently sharing a racy picture with a woman he met online, who in turn shared it publicly. Bonehead. However, this is not a reason to lash a man to the Wikipedia pillory post. There are no biographies about him, in depth profiles in the high quality press about his life and times, anything that could allow for a fair biography of him to be constructed while adhering to Wikipedia's rules. The article stands as a way to get the first google hit for his name to be about him at his lowest. The sources are weak. (There are currently 16). In order:

1. A Telegraph article about the brief "racy photos" kerfuffle.

2. A brief bio (non-independendent) at a small website he writes at called The Interpreter.

3. The Daily Mail chuckling over his "penis picture."

4. A brief bio (non-independent) at a website he writes at called Business Insider.

5 and 6 - articles he wrote. Not articles about him.

7. An opinion piece taking issue with Schindler's opinions about Edward Snowden at a site called techdirt by a guy named Tim Cushing who uses the screen name "capitalist lion tamer."

8. An opionion piece at The Atlantic by Conor Friedsdorf, a staunch ideological opponent of Schindlers, that "storifies" a bunch of tweets between Schindler and Friedsdorf, with unflattering commentary from the later.

9. A "storifying" of Schindler tweets at an unsigned libertarian blog with almost no traffic (Alexa doesn't rank them) called Economic Policy Journal.

10. A storifying of a twitter argument between Glenn Greenwald and Schindler.

11. Another storifying of tweets by Schindler by Cushing ("capitalist lion tamer.")

12. Schindler's brief apology at his blog to his wife and friends for the pictures of his, well, junk.

13. A Gawker piece from the time gawking at the dick pic story.

14. A Huffpo piece from the time gawking at the dick pic story.

15. Another Gawker piece from the time gawking at the dick pic story.

16. A Daily Mail story storifying tweets from the woman sent the dick pics in which she says she regretted taking their flirtation public.

None of this is the stuff that a fair, neutral and accurate biography of a person can be made from. I am barely involved in Wikipedia anymore, and certainly my interest in this case stems from my acquaintance with Schindler. However, I've long argued that no one should be subjected to this kind of drive-by disparagement at Wikipedia. This page was created with the purpose of highlighting his embarrassment and immortalizing it. Whether one agrees with his politics is completely irrelevant (off topic, but I disagree with him on more than I agree). Dan Murphy (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


—

This is a newsworthy public figure, this article should absolutely not be deleted. Sixlocal (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Sixlocal, did you intend to begin your comment with "Keep"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Unbolded "keep", this is not your vote, it's further down. User:Sixlocal voted "should not be deleted", albeit in the wrong WP:AFDFORMAT. Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

This nomination for deletion was made in response to a request for "assistance" by the article subject himself, to his twitter followers, among whom is the nominating user, Dan Murphy, who has a conflict of interest as an associate and ally of the article subject.

The subject, and the unflattering information about him, are clearly newsworthy. The scandal was covered in dozens of mainstream media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic; the references cited in the article are only a small sampling.

Furthermore, Murphy's above characterizations of the cited sources are highly misleading - most egregiously #13, which in fact isn't actually (primarily) about the sexting scandal, but instead documents the results of an FOIA request to NWC, which reveal that the complaints which triggered the investigation included a wide variety of allegations, of which the sexting pics were just one of many. Several of the other allegations were much more serious, with potential national security policy implications. This reference calls into question the conventional narrative that Schindler's resignation was actually about the dick pics, and complicates Murphy's narrative that the article should be deleted because it is solely about a lurid sexting scandal.

Additionally, Murphy's characterization of references 7 and 11 is very misleading. The source site, Techdirt, is not a self-published blog, but rather a widely respected and highly influential (though niche) professional journalism site. And #11 is not, as Murphy claims, simply storifying Schindler's tweets, but is in fact a detailed assessment of the lack of legal merit to Schindler's defamation claim, including quotation from a prominent 1st Amendment attorney. Murphy's only objection to these references seems to be that he finds the author's choice of "handle" offensive to his political sensibilities.

All Murphy's other sourcing objections seem to boil down to either "This was written by someone whose politics I disagree with" or "this is just about the dick pics scandal" which he apparently finds to be not newsworthy, contra the opinions of dozens of mainstream media outlets who covered it. In closing, I will reiterate that this nomination for deletion was made in response to a direct request by the article subject himself, and should be disregarded for that reason alone. Matterhorn79 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Matterhorn79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Comment. In contrast to your closing statement, we have a strong and frequent precedent here for following the subjects' wishes for deletion in borderline cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough independent reliable sources to show notability. Darx9url (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I almost always !vote to disregard deletion request by the subject, except for some exceptional cases where the continued existence of the article does harm,and there is no good way of fixing it. This is one of them. The notability except for the negative material is clearly insufficient for an article. The negative material would justify an article about any politician--which is a special case because of the relevance of public trust--, or an important public figure. Material abotu a blogger of borderline importance in a sexting controversy, or accusations of rude behavior, is blog material, not enecylopedia material. There's no way of fixing this, because there's no other notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In response to DGG, I would point out the US Naval Warfare College, where Schindler taught, is not just some kind of boot camp for new recruits, it's a college for high-ranking Naval officers, on a career track to become "brass". It was Schindler's job to train the next generation of the guys who will have their fingers on the proverbial red button, in control of the nation's nuclear arsenal. The "relevance to public trust" is extreme. Also, if you read the source FOIA docs provided in reference #13, you'll see that it wasn't actually just about sexting, or rude behaviour - there were other, much more serious allegations as well, including potentially unlawful activity. Matterhorn79 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)— Matterhorn79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Naval War college is an important institution to be sure, but he does not seem to meet WP:PROF. The accusation remain minor to the extent we would not normally include them in a bio in most professions. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I don't think WP:PROF is the appropriate standard to evaluate Schindler by. He's not JUST an academic, he's a former high-ranking NSA officer. NSA surveillance policy is a hot topic at the moment, and considering that a lot of pro-NSA rhetoric basically boils down to "Just trust us: we're not going to spy on you unless you're a terrorist", the character and judgement of NSA personnel is of great public interest.
Also, in addition to being a former professor and former spook, he's also a CURRENT public commentator and pundit: he appears regularly on cable news talking-head shows, and in print in mainstream publications, offering his opinions. If I were someone who had never heard of him before, I saw him on TV and googled his name to find out more about him, this is EXACTLY the kind of information I'd want to see in order to help assess his credibility.
Re: "The accusation remain minor to the extent...", that may be true if by "the accusation" you're referring to the "sexting" issue only. But you still didn't respond to my last point: that the FOIA reference seems to suggest that there was more to his investigation and resignation than just the sexting. I'd think that for a person in pretty much any profession, allegations that they harass, threaten (both with litigation and with "life ruination" via trying to get people fired), hack, and dox their competitors, would be considered notable. Matterhorn79 (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (the dick pic stories), WP:PROF (no evidence of academic impact; certainly teaching at the US NWC or any other institution of higher learning is not enough by itself for notability), WP:PERP (not a major national figure so his alleged minor wrongdoing is not enough for notability) and WP:BLP (the sexual scandal aspect of the story fails both the balance and attack clauses of WP:BLPSTYLE and many of the sources are far from reliable). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, regarding WP:PROF and WP:NOTNEWS, see my response to DGG above. Regarding the WP:BLPSTYLE "attack clause": personally, I would be perfectly happy to remove all mention of the sexting aspect of the scandal and focus solely on the more serious allegations. But considering that the mainstream media coverage of the incident focused almost entirely on the sexting, it would be really difficult to edit it that way while sticking to acceptable sources. Suggestions would be welcome. Matterhorn79 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have reliable sources, WP:BLP requires that you avoid insinuating anything about "more serious allegations", both on the article and here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, the relevant reliable source IS cited: it's reference #13 on the current version of the article. It's from Gawker, sure, but jokes aside, that IS an acceptable source per policy... and besides, it's just the FOIA returns they're reporting on that are relevant. Actually, now that I think about it, the cite probably should have gone to MuckRock, who actually did the FOIA, rather than Gawker. Matterhorn79 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That source looks far from reliable as a source about Schindler himself to me. All it does is reproduce heavily-redacted letters from an apparent cyberstalker. So unless you want to use it to source the existence of someone who doesn't wish Schindler well, I don't think it's usable and I don't think it should be in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with media discussion of his work and ideas. Often cited as a "leading expert" or "expert" by media.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's right to be forgotten applies to people wanting privacy, not to those who're active self-promoters in the media but don't like what Wikipedia says about them. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am frankly puzzled by the support from experienced editors for deleting this. Yes, it is something of a "hit piece", but Shindler is a highly political figure (there is an whole essay [5] in The Atlantic calling him out for being highly political, and for his pugilistic online style. But it is far from extraordinary for WP bios to be started or hijacked by people who hate a man, and his opinions. Undoubtedly, people who hate him were delighted when he lost his job over a sexting scandal; some seem to have expressed their delight by editing this page. The remedy is to expand the article with his accomplishments and keep the sexting incident in proportion. His book Isonzo: the forgotten sacrifice of the Great War is widely cited and apparently regarded as authoritative. He has a new book on WWI military history coming out in December. An awful lot of other authors drop footnotes to his book Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, some engage the book, as here [6], [7]. In short, he seems to be too notable as a security expert, military historian, and subject of a couple of widely covered controversies (sexting, and Snowden/Greenwald) to be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat scandalized by the suggestion that because someone is a political figure, a hit piece is justified. Possibly the best approach will be to wait until his new book comes out and is reviewed, and then write a new article from scratch just mentioning the other material. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like use of the term "hit piece." The incident, although it clearly makes the subject uncomfortable, was widely reported. This is something that actually happened, not a rumor or gossip.
Also, even though the more salacious bits (the infamous sexting) have gotten more attention, there were other incidents of unethical behavior reported at the same time that are just as relevant. A public figure who is known as a strong advocate of surveillance invading the privacy of perceived personal enemies is probably just as notable as, say, an athlete who is revealed to use performance enhancers or an anti-gay zealot who is caught in a bathhouse. Kremlintroll (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC) — Kremlintroll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't see anyone suggesting a hit piece is justified in any circumstances. certainly the person you are replying to doesn't seem to be making that point Little Professor (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article clearly needs work, but deleting it is overkill. The guy is clearly notable with a large media profile as has been pointed out. Edit it to reduce the focus on the dick pics by all means, but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Little Professor (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems to be a borderline case, so additional discussion is warranted.  Sandstein  20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, John very much wants this article deleted. He was delighted when I mentioned this was a possibility - something he was unaware of. I don't think I mentioned that in my nomination, however.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you invoking WP:TNT, Dan Murphy? Bearian (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "tnt" means. If it is up to John, he wants no Wikipedia article. He doesn't want to be attacked by anonymous strangers.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I performed my NAC, I foolishly missed the fact that the discussion had been relisted. Nevertheless, despite serious issues with neutrality and bias in this article, Schindler has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. North of Eden (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC) I was wrong; I've been swayed by the deletion arguments below. North of Eden (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is a good example why we have a BLP policy. →StaniStani 22:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. Dan Murphy's comments are well-taken, in particular the point that this article will inevitably serve to ensure that the highest Google hit for this individual's name will focus on an unfortunate but hardly noteworthy incident in his life. No one really deserves that—certainly not in this case, where there is no issue of public trust or other rationale for publicizing the embarrassing details. The subject's wishes (as conveyed by Dan Murphy above) also weigh heavily in my view that this article should be deleted; we're causing avoidable distress to someone for essentially no reason. It's not like deleting this article would compromise this site's goal of providing the sum of human knowledge; we'll be just as close to (or far from) that goal without this article. MastCell Talk 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per MastCell, Dan and others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but purge the article of gossipmongering and other content not substantively related to the subject's genuine notability. The fact that we have a significant cohort of editors who revel in posting all sorts of unflattering content about article subjects' personal lives even though its objective encyclopedic value is somewhere between roadkill and ratshit. The proper way to deal with that behavior is to ruthlessly suppress the content and, as necessary, remove the editing privileges from editors who refuse to comply with BLP requirements for high-quality sourcing and aversion to content about subjects' personal lives not properly related to notability. Giving in to such editors is just another signal that Wikipedia isn't a legitimate encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 00:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ordinary civil servant with a dick pick brouhaha — BLP-1E, or thereabouts. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. Also, notability is not established by a raw count of sources, but also must take into consideration the quality of those sources and the quality of the articles about the subject. OP establishes that the totality of sources are weak. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment' The 2 previous editors appear not to have taken into account the fact that reviews of Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, and the seriousness with which scholars take both it and Isonzo: The Forgotten Sacrifice of the Great War carries him past WP:AUTHOR. BLP-1E simply does not apply.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That he's written positively received books in his field does not, unfortunately, generate the biographical sources about him that would be needed to undo the use of this as a hitjob. While John is a well-regarded scholar, he himself has not been the subject of in-depth biography. And an embarrassing and brief indiscretion of no relevance to his professional life is now being used to define him (it's currently in the god damn lede) by anonymous, unaccountable and malicious people.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if a scholar or author passes WP:AUTHOR he gets a page, even with scanty biographical info. It's a separate question from whether he wants one. I agree here with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that the proper course is to keep the page up and reduce teh sexting stuff to a sentence with sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"That he's written positively received books in his field" is pretty much a definition of academic notability. His bio should focus on his work and its significance; in most cases, the "personal" section foe an academic need be little more than the bland "about the author" paragraph accompanying most of their works. Kardashian-class treatment should be reserved for those with great notoriety bereft of genuine achievement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if a scholar or author passes WP:AUTHOR he gets a page, even with scanty biographical info. That's a horrific and callous position. Fortunately, it isn't true, even by Wikipedia's own "rules." It's what Wikipedia calls a "guideline." Meaning it's non-binding and never universilizable. (Stepping out of Wikipedia-world, the poor writing and thinking on display at the "AUTHOR" guideline is extraordinary). As it stands, this article was created because John had an embarrassing and irrelevant incident, and the editors of the top google hit about him are solely interested in preserving it to cause him pain. Further, there are no sources available, under Wikipedia's rules, to write a full and complete biography of this man. If you want to argue that he must be cursed with a humiliation shrine curated by "Matterhorn" and "Kremlintroll" and whatever internet weirdos and sockpuppets of internet weirdos happen along when we all lose interest in this (I'm well beyond any interest in sticking a finger in any of Wikipedia's dikes for long) then be straight up about it.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG and MastCell. Wikipedia should not host hit-pieces on living subjects that barely qualify for inclusion in general. Leaving this article up without substantially expanding the content (apart from the sole negative event) is no different in effect than keeping an attack page "because the rules say that we can." The real-world implications of this piece should not be ignored. Evangeliman (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is basically a tabloid gossip column entry, not an encyclopedic article. People are pilloried every day on the internet for stupid nonsense, are we to have articles about every Tom, Chris and Sally who has written a book who then showed someone a nude selfie? Pathetic. And Gawker isn't a reliable source, so those ought to go. How many other of these sources would fail WP:RS? And while we're at it, let's discuss WP:UNDUE. People claim this guy is notable enough to have an article here based on the WP:AUTHOR guideline. So, is he notable for his writing or for his penis pics? If he's notable for his writing, then the penis pic garbage is flagrantly in violation of UNDUE and needs to go (and after that, what content do we have?). If you're claiming he's notable for the penis pics, then the article needs to be deleted per BLP1E. Please pick one. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find the arguments of DGG and The Master convincing enough. Given there clearly isn't enough coverage of him to write a complete biography I can't see how he pass WP:GNG at any rate either. Anotherclown (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per additional discussion above; this is a change from a keep. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't believe that this person is notable in an encyclopedic sense. I'm concerned about BLP issues, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly no indepth coverage in sources. Per DGG. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find the sudden influx of "delete" recommendations on an afd that had been open for weeks and was previously leaning heavily towards "keep", highly suspicious from a brigading standpoint. The fact that Dan Murphy has continued editing the article body despite his documented conflict of interest seems suggestive re: attribution of said brigading. It's perhaps worth pointing out that the article subject himself has a long history of brigading on twitter: summoning his followers to file false abuse reports against his critics in a (frequently successful) attempt to get their accounts suspended. This behaviour should not be rewarded.
In response to some of the recent pro-deletion arguments:
  • Notability: although already discussed above, it would appear that some of the new commenters didn't read before recommending deletion, so lets reiterate: his notability is not due (solely) to his work as an author/academic, and certainly not due to the fact that he took some dick pics. He is notable due to his being a former high-ranking NSA officer and current public commentator, both in print and TV media, often put forward as an expert on SIGINT and surveillance policy. His frequent indiscretions (of which the dick pics were only one - references to others having been removed due to vandalism by Dan Murphy, the WP:CONFLICT conflicted user who also created this afd) are highly relevant to public trust issues, both to his credibility as a public commentator, and NSA's credibility in their claims that they hire personnel of sufficient responsibility, maturity and discretion that they can be trusted with near-unlimited power.
  • "this article will inevitably serve to ensure that the highest Google hit for this individual's name will focus on an unfortunate but hardly noteworthy incident in his life" - If you do a google search on his name, you'll see that articles covering the dick-pics scandal are already the top hits, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, unless he does something else even more newsworthy and clickbaity, which seems unlikely. Having the top hit instead be an encyclopedic article which documents both the positive and negative aspects of his career would seem to be a step up from that status quo. --Matterhorn79 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing Dan Murphy of being a vandal violates WP:NPA. Stating that the subject of this article is unlikely to surpass the coverage of his indiscretion as a life achievement is a violation (at least in spirit) of WP:BLP. All of your contributions to Wikipedia so far are about John R. Schindler. I'm beginning to think you might want to study Wikipedia's behavioral and content policies, which are conveniently linked at the top of your user page.→StaniStani 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. My response:
  • Re: "Stating that the subject of this article is unlikely to surpass...", you've misunderstood my remark. I simply meant that it is unlikely he will be involved in anything as clickbait-y as a sex scandal again, and it is therefore unlikely those news articles will ever get pushed out of the top results of a search engine whose results are based on clicks.
  • Re:"Accusing Dan Murphy of being a vandal violates WP:NPA", after consulting WP:VANDALSIM, I concede that that was perhaps imprecise terminology, given that "Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Aside from that, however, I assert that my statement was entirely in keeping with WP:NPA's "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Removing unflattering, well-sourced (meaning the FOIA docs, not Gawker) content which is relevant both to the public interest and to the notability question, by a contributor who is on a first-name basis with the article subject, is clearly not kosher for a variety of reasons. Pointing this out is commenting on the content, not the contributor.
  • Re:"All of your contributions to Wikipedia so far...", as stated in my bio page, I have been contributing to WP for years, on a wide variety of topics, but have simply never had reason to create an account before, as I have never before had an issue with my edits being reverted.
I notice that you declined to comment on the suggestion that this afd is being brigaded. Can I ask how you came to be involved in this matter? Did you come upon it organically via the afd listings? Was your participation solicited by any third party? --Matterhorn79 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer the last one. I follow defense issues blogs, and am not a fan of Schindler's politics. I Googled him a few days before this AfD began and discovered the Wikipedia article. I didn't like the emphasis on the scandal over his relatively obscure writing career. Dan Murphy created this AfD and I watchlisted it. I mentioned this mess to a friend, and a discussion began on a forum I frequent. Then I gave my !vote. If you look at my history on AfDs, I generally am protective of the BLPs of non-public figures. No one has solicited my participation.→StaniStani 02:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your candid response. Do you by any chance have a link to the forum thread you mentioned? I'd be curious to see it. As far as you are aware, have any of the incoming contributors to this afd originated from that forum thread? I ask because it seems possible that it may have been responsible for the apparent "brigading" effect I noted above, even if that wasn't your intention. --Matterhorn79 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that Matterhorn79 just created their account a month ago and their first edit was to the article in question. All their edits have been to the Schindler article or to this AfD. I'm wondering if Matterhorn79 has any prior accounts and what his/her connection may be to the subject of the article? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether it's possible for admins to see IPs of logged in accounts, but if so, they should be able to confirm that no other accounts share this IP, and that it resolves to a residential broadband IP block. --Matterhorn79 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Matterhorn79 states they were an IP editor for some period before their edits were reverted, so then created an account.→StaniStani 05:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, notability outside "dick pic" event is not established by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. meets WP:BASIC, ie. "have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", earlier reason given in this afd for deleting the article as subject has requested is not appropriate, as they are a relatively well known public figure, see WP:BIODEL. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google Scholar suggests Schindler is notable as an academic. Isonzo: The Forgotten Sacrifice of the Great War shows 23 citations. Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad shows nearly 50 citations. His "Defeating the sixth column" article shows 23 cites. His academic career is more extensive than the article reports; a 2005 Naval Institue Press book to which he contributed describes him as the "Naval Security Group's command historian" and notes he's taught at three universities. Given the flimsy credentials we accept as demonstrating notability in other areas, it's hard to see a reasonable basis for denying it here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BLP1E and per DGG's arguments. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_R._Schindler&oldid=1068991382"