Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Bornmann

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 no consensus (default to keep). I never close as no consensus, but it really is appropriate here. I suggest that careful attention is paid to going through the article and pruning any unreferenced information as per

Further note - I have removed all unsourced info from the article to ensure

► 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

nn political consultant. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: might be notable, but current page reads like
  WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN, so it would be no great loss. - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Looking at the page history, there are disputed allegations that have (properly) been removed under
  BC Legislature Raids, as it seems to be undisputed that he is involved in this affair as a prosecution witness[1]. Demiurge 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We shouldn't redirect to a page if there is no mention of the redirected title on that page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He probably should be mentioned on that page though, seeing as how he's the prosecution's "star witness". Demiurge 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And looking at the history again, he was indeed mentioned in previous versions e.g. [2] Demiurge 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be happy to delete the article, at least for the time being. All of his notability, such as it is, seems to come from the Legislature incidents. The nature of his involvement is unclear for now and pretty hard to discuss because of BLP. The current version, edited largely by disposable accounts, is problematic as JMabel pointed out. Perhaps there could be an article here when the dust settles on the Legislature raids. If the consensus is for a merge rather than delete, I'm fine with that. --JGGardiner 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having thought about it for a while, I am no longer certain that I am happy with all of my original comments (i.e. "vote"). I'll leave the rest however. Thanks to the editors below, I now see that there may be more to this than I had realized earlier. --JGGardiner 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: Bornmann is certainly notable for his involvement in the Liberal Party in BC, the public relations industry in BC and the Paul Martin Liberal Leadership Campaign. However it is obvious that this page was first created by persons interested posting libelous information about Bornmann with a clear view to discrediting him in advance of the criminal trial where he is expected to testify on behalf of the Crown. The continuous and malicious posts of one or two posters has compelled a number of us to return to this page on a regular basis to make corrections. At this point it is fruitless to debate who started deleting what first, but it is safe to say that the ensuing discourse has very much resembled that seen on many other pages profiling politically active persons. While others may have different ideas I suggest that the neutral Bornmann page, which was locked for editting by a previous Admin in the spring, be reposted and again locked for editting (maybe until after the trial) or that the page be deleted. rascalpatrol 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like egotistical, shameless self promotion to me. GreenJoe 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom and above. Just some articling student in Toronto who's one of many non-notable political activists. Agent 86 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Change to Keep, see below Agent 86 07:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  BC Legislature Raids; add one or two lines about him in there if he isn't already mentioned. Bearcat 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, non-notable vanity. The only notable political intern I can think of is Monica Lewinsky. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now. No point throwing away the work done so far, as a neutral article will likely emerge after the dust settles. Kla'quot 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or redirect per Bearcat. Fishhead64 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There have been some really inappropriate posts on this site. This is really unfortunate, but until a more neutral post is agreed upon, the site should be removed Titus Pollo 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I previously closed this debate as Redirect to

• Delete I see no value in this entry until this person and his testimony shows significant importance and usefulness in relation to the other convicting evidence. User:The Teacher 101 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both "The Teacher 101" and "Titus Pollo" have only contributed to this page and have no other presence in Wikipedia. This is typical of the manipulation of information by SPAs which has plagued the Bornmann page. I have been trying to shorten my vote/statement as it's fairly lengthy but may just post it in its entirety, as it explores the misleading and false claims made by such SPAs in the history of this page, and I do not put it past other supporters of Mr. Bornmann to create Wiki accounts to vote in this process and for no other reason, as The Teacher 101 and Titus Pollo have done. Such votes should be discounted as irrelevant. Deletion would only serve the interests of those who wish to conceal the record of information manipulation and censorship by covering-up their activities in undermining Wikipedia's integrity and content by systemic vandalism and POV opinionating.Skookum1 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment It's worth mentioning that the political party Mr. Bornmann belongs to is well-known for bulk membership drives in order to advance candidacies and otherwise manipulate party democratic processes. That they would seek to do the same on Wikipedia - signing up new members in order to influence a vote (see towards the end of [3]- comes as no surprise to me at all.Skookum1 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Restore, and Protect This article’s uncensored, un-neutralized comments constituted valid encyclopedia content regarding an important current legal case and political scandal which is in the news on a regular basis. I feel the suggestions to delete are redirect are based in the manipulated, "neutralized" content (to use rascalpatrol’s term) of its current status. I also feel rascalpatrol’s post above is manipulative and deceptive, as the materials he and others deleted from the page were not "libelous" but are immune from defamation proceedings by dint of being from public documents (police reports/press releases, court documents, news copy) (see [[4]]).

Issues of core wiki principles – non-censorship and freedom of speech as well as civility and other principals linked/appended below – should be critical in deliberating the value and survival of this article and those connected to it. It is not incidental that the "neutralizing" camp here has counterparts on

WP:BLP

can be observed so long as only materials in police documents, court evidence etc or concerning the public interest are what’s there.

To delete this article on the grounds that it (currently) contains nothing worthwhile would be to unwittingly collaborate with a campaign of active and admitted censorship of material that, although unbeknownst to you outside of BC, concerns the public interest and is not a personal matter as rascalpatrol and others maintain that it is. Redirecting it to

Canadian National Railways, not Mr. Bormann's client OmniTRAX

) was and is a highly controversial sale the debate over which is still on the public agenda. Mr. Bornmann is a public figure whether he wants to be or not!! Backroom politics is still politics. Other lobbyists and party organizers in the US and Canada and other countries have valid Wiki articles that have not (always) been so "massaged" and worked-over.

The entire scandal is also framed by mounting allegations of a cover-up. The mutilation of the Bornmann article which has resulted in the circumstance of this AFD has greater consequences which should be considered in this light: i.e. deletion would be an unwitting cooperation with politically partisan cover-up efforts and "information washing" as much as tolerating the existing "neutralized" version of the page. It is not only Mr. Bornmann’s reputation that’s at stake here, it’s a matter of the public record and of civil democracy. Only POV material on Mr. Bornmann should be deleted (including the flummery that’s there now) - but NPOV citable material should be restored, and protected. Rascalpatrol and his allies also repeatedly and falsely alleged I am a returnee from previous edit wars on the page [5] [6] and have throughout the history of the page deleted talkpage comments by their opponents (including the section linked in the second reference just previous, which was a bulk deletion by Randy3 with the PAIN comment "a mind is an awful thing to loose" (sic), and this deletion was discussed approvingly and further disparaging comments made by Randy3, another Bornmann supporter or "patroller" like rascalpatrol and SaintNickIX and JGGardiner) claiming that I am just a returned former opponent in the page (along with another disparaging comment), which is quite ridiculous and can be proven by an examination of my User Contributions as to the date I first edited the article, and admins could confirm that my IP address has not contributed to that article under any other alias. You'd think from my writing style they'd know that's not the case!

NB: Deletion of this article will result in destruction of the edit history, which documents what constitutes a history of active and deliberate censorship, media muzzling and cover-up of the broader scandal surrounding the subject of this article by accomplices and allies of same – the story of the cover-up is itself becoming part of the

Ledgegate scandal, and the attempts to censor this and related webpages can only be seen as part of that cover-up. Any deletion will, in effect, serve as part of the cover-up effort every bit as much as the euhemerization and bowdlerization of this article’s contents to its current state of flummery and irrelevance. The repeated deletions of any newscopy related to the case and their replacement by Mr. Bornmanns’ personal photo gallery speaks volumes as to the priorities and ethics of those who have been “patrolling” and “neutralizing” this page. Sections from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are quoted and linked below, as it seems the SPAs involved in this case are unfamiliar with how Wiki works, and what’s expected of its contributors, and also what’s not appreciated/wanted.Skookum1 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Self-promotion It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
   .
2. Personal web pages
   . Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet.
3. [Wikipedia is not censored]
4. Wikipedia is not a battleground
   Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.
5. Wikipedia is not a democracy
   Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

• Delete Skookum1 should also be aware that wikipedia is not a soap box or news blog. The problem with many of the posts to this site, including those of Skookum1, is that they are simply incorrect. Many have been libelous. Sourcing to political blogs is NOT verification. As for whether Skookum is a person with an interest in the BC Rail criminal trial, the length and tone of his contribution above speaks for itself. Wikipedia should not be a forum for parties embroiled in a criminal trial. Delete this page with no redirect. --Omar Jack 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Omar Jack's only contribution to Wikipedia has been to this review and could possibly be a sock puppet. Mkdw^talk 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Omar Jack is yet another SPA who has only "worked on" (vandalized)

• Please make the article visible so others can comment. DGG 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would require a fair bit of editing, as there were several rounds of deletions of valid material. I tried to sum them up in my post of December 28, but the re-additions were immediately deleted by Randy3 (the link goes to the comparison of my post with his deletions of it). Read through it for a summary; I think towards the bottom I also made a point of putting in material "they" had deleted from the main article, but I didn't "mine" its edit history it as thoroughly as I had that of the talkpage.Skookum1 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article meets Wikipedia's
  Globe and Mail online site, quoted:

  VICTORIA -- The two men at the centre of one of the most riveting events in British Columbia's political history say they will be acquitted of all charges stemming from a raid on the provincial legislature that took place three years ago next week.

  Which would mean even though he is of a non-notable position per nomination, he is historically notable, thus making the nomination and all the objections that said per nom, void. I do believe that elminates most of them. Mkdw^talk 06:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep (changed from "delete", above). It appears that I may not have been reading the "full" article when I first commented, and there's a lot of smoke at the article's talk page (which, disturbingly, has been deleted). If it had been apparent that this person is connected to the legislature raids, and was included in non-trivial press coverage, I doubt I'd have been so dismissive of the article. POV issues alone aren't reason for deletion - it is possible to stick to the facts. At least one
  WP:BIO. Agent 86 07:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just to note: the news quote you have provided is exactly the kind of material that rascalpatrol, Randy3, SaintNickIX, JGGardiner and others have consistently deleted and branded "slanderous", "libellous", "invalid" and so on; such material has been removed from the main article repeatedly, as well as from the talkpage (also repeatedly). Skookum1 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think that you have me confused with someone else. The only thing that I removed from the article was one POV adjective ("ruthless") and a couple of self-serving and trivial details about Bornmann's life (the specifics of his university degrees, his service with youth groups and the army cadets, etc.) and some very general links. --JGGardiner 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I just looked through the edit history and you are in the right, and appear to have been a (rare) voice of moderation there as well as a boast-reducer on the article; I guess I was misled by your apparent chumminess with your remark on User talk:rascalpatrol and your apparent tolerance of the excessive deletions of material from the talkpage, and so associated you with that "camp" (partly because your edit contributions are generally about notable federal politicians....) even though I see you admonished other posters about their conduct (and were of course ignored). By the way, I have Alexander Mackenzie on my watchlist as well and saw your recent comment about whether he's a Rt. Hon. or an Hon. Didn't know the thing abou the Imperial P.C. being how you got that - I think in latter-day Canadian convention, post-Statutes of Westminster, perhaps post-1982 Constitution, the convention is that the Prime Minister is automatically a Rt. Hon.; or maybe that's just a popular misconception/misusage perpetrated in the press as well as curriculum. Not sure about that, just a guess.Skookum1 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the article is missing content (check here for some that is available on a quick search), these sources make it pretty clear he meets notability guidelines. Clearly with a living person, particularly one whose testimony is pending in court, we have to be careful of what goes in the article, but there is content that can and should be added. KenWalker | Talk 07:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just an FYI that I reported suspected sockpuppetry related to this case, including some of the users above. See here if you want to see details, but just keep in mind that some users may be posing as more than one users here. Bobanny 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment even this discussion is so over the top mean-spirited and abusive. My user name is now listed as a "sock puppet"??? You are right, I have never written an article on wikipedia. I didn't realize that means I am not allowed to have an opinion and/or speak out on an issue that is compelling. If there is some doubt to my authenticity, I would be happy to communicate directly with the administrators as they have my name and contact information from my account. I think it is very clear that some of the collaborators here have an axe to grind and are not capable of writing a legitimate, neutral article. Titus Pollo 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the article is not visible, and there is clearly the possibility that it is notable, I say keep, if only because I do not think a truly not notable person would have been able to have so much comment. DGG 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is impossible for us to put together a neutral page. Rather than picking between the he said and she said this matter should be left to the mainstream press until the end of the trial. It is almost impossible to distinguish fact from opinion and self-promotion. I don't think the redirect is required at this point either.
  few or no other edits
  outside this topic. .

'It's impossible'? I recommend you view other controversal on-going current events on Wikipedia such as Israel and Saddam Hussein. Make it a current event and report the facts. The facts right now are that he and his brother are being charged by the BC Supreme Court for 6 counts of fraud, etc. etc. That's all you have to report and the details that have led to those allegations. What would not be neutral is if you said, 'he is innocent or guilty' but the articles doesn't say that now does it? Langara College 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment We don't need to wait for a trial to establish what facts are already reported by reliable sources. It is a fact that this person is named as a key witness in a notable trial. It is a fact that a search warrant was issued for the office of this person. There is nothing "impossible" about stating the facts without editorializing. Coverage in The Globe and Mail, the CBC, and CTV, among others, certainly meets
    WP:RS. I now see that The Georgia Straight has also covered this person.[12] Agent 86 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The "Bornmann lobby" position on that article is that because it was written by an NDPer, it's inadmissible, which is of course just plain silly. It's one of the newslinks that were repeatedly deleted from the Bornmann page, and also from the Ledgegate page (and, I think, the Mark Marissen page, which has similarly been "neutralized"). Skookum1 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not and read it in its entirety.Skookum1 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Everybody makes a first post sometime. I would suggest that Wikipedia would not be so successful if everyone that posted for the first time was attacked as I have been. If you disagree with me, just say so. I think my post is rather uncontroversial, especially for this article. BTW, the fact that the Georgia Straight has covered the issue is indicative of how much of a partisan issue this is. The Straight has a political bias , which is obivious to anyone who reads the paper or its Wikipedia entry.Rick_H 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I do not think "Skookum1" will be happy until we have a page dedicated to Skookum1's understanding of Erik Bornman and other matters. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy of this user lecturing this discussion on the inappropriateness of using wikipedia as a battleground? I post on this page because it appears the only way to deal with the high volume of FALSE and OPINION information routinely added by a very small number of posters (Skookum1 included). I'm not sure about this sockpuppet thing, but I can assure you that I am my own person and these are certainly my views. --Omar Jack 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As much as I'm tempted to not reply, given the absurdity of your counter-allegations, but speaking of "false" your allegation/insinuation above that I am one of the charged in the trial in question is very offensive and utterly false. It is not even opinion, it is cant and typical of the paranoid behaviour of the Bornmannite faction on the article's talkpage and in its edit history comments. It is also clear from the response of the other Wikipedians above that I am not the only one who wants to see this article dealt with properly, instead of shuffled off into the dustbin as you want it to be. You're not saving face at this point, you're embarrassing yourself. This is really getting tiresome; I'm not the first regular Wikipedian to work on this page, just the first to not give up when it became very evident that a "very small number of posters" (yourself included) have been attacking anyone who dares disagree with your version of what the article's content should be. Please see Wikipedia:Don't be evilSkookum1 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: Any discussion not having to do with the merits of deletion or retention should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Erik Bornmann. Agent 86 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Skookum1, don't you realize that you have been "attacking anyone who dares disagree with your version of what the article's content should be." You don't seem to understand that statements that are pure opinion or false do not belong on this site. Further, you seem to have trouble understanding wikipedia's policy on bias. Political bias in paticular. --Omar Jack 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: My two cents: the fact that "Skookum1" wrote "It's worth mentioning that the political party Mr. Bornmann belongs to is well-known for bulk membership drives in order to advance candidacies and otherwise manipulate party democratic processes." just shows how partisan his intent is. This is the Liberal Party we're talking about, not some obscure anti-democratic entity. Clearly the entry/profile of this one organizer is being used to tar the Liberal party and tie it to scandal rather than provide insight on relevant issues. The fact that after three years there are no entries for anyone else involved in this raid - including the people acutally charged - highlights the fact that this whole entry should be scrapped. People shouldn't use Wikipedia to advance their political interests. - TomPettyFan 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not some anti-Liberal scandal. It's an event in BC Politics worth writing about and the facts are in. He was charged and convicted. One could even say 'it's a liberal plot to hide their negative political history', which its neither, so please, leave your conspiracy theories at home. Langara College 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Langara College, he wasn't charged, and nobody's been convicted yet. But other than that, you're right about the scandal (and its players, including EB) being worth writing about "and the facts are in". Not all of them, but enough for now....Skookum1 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Are you serious? The Globe and Mail as quoted above says, "..at the centre of one of the most riveting events in British Columbia's political history...". Oh PS The Globe and Mail is Canada's most widely read newspaper. Langara College 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Obviously notable. Langara College 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable subject. Significant additional sourcing has been done since the initiation of this debate. Risker 07:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm a regular at this page. The back and forth is silly. Though I'm inclined to vote Keep, because the topic is as relevant as many other wikipedia bios, there is almost no way of verifying most, if not all, of what is written. The continued use of newspaper columns and blogs as sources is unacceptable. Until we have something conrete the page should go. --
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Keep -- Umm.. newspaper reports are reliable sources. CBC, CTV, Canadian Press, Globe and Mail -- all the major new outlets in the country have covered this story, 782 google hits can't be wrong. Bobanny 07:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Umm.. google hits??? an indication of truthfulness??? where/did you go to school? This is an encyclopedia, not a a newspaper. --Randy3 11:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you're new here Randy but please mind the insults. And since you are unaware, a lot of editors use a so-called

notability. --JGGardiner 11:16, 8 January 2007 (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.