Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 20 June 2007

Margita Bangová

Margita Bangová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This biographical article lacks notability, Misplaced Pages is is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Probably the intent of its creation is Romani bashing. There are so many locally known beggars and con-artists of other ethnicities presented in local newspapers, but they are not entitled to an wiki article. The biography itself is not entitled for a wiki article, has no encyclopedic value. There is no necessity to make a wiki article about a shaking beggar holding a sign reading "Please help me. I am poor. I will pray for you", belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing. Also its redirects should be deleted: Shaky Lady, Margita Bangova, Margita Horvathová, Margita Horvathova Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am familar with the aforementioned beggar. I doubt many beggars have reached her notability and notoriorty. She made the front cover of various national newspapers!

I don't think this is Gypsy bashing at all, there is no POV in this article. Check out its talkpage, everyone seems rather happy with it. --125.237.100.214 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying too, that "everyone seems rather happy with it", it is just a minority bashing. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above IP is currently listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650, likely to belong to User:Hayden5650, currently at the third block because of, among other things, Romani bashing. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up Desiphral, I didn't realise that! I hope that checkuser gets sorted soon, how long does it normally take? Seems half of NZs IPs are listed there ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.100.214 (talk • contribs)

• Keep. I wrote the article and can assure you that I am in no way racist. I'm not even sure where you would have gotten that idea; Bangova is notorious not because she's a gypsy or a beggar but because she's a con artist whose deceptive attempts to garner pity went far beyond the norm. She was featured on the cover page of a major newspaper, has been the subject of multiple subsequent articles in other newspapers, and IIRC was even covered on the national television news (CTV). Misplaced Pages is not politically correct and should not be removing articles on well-known criminals just because they happen to be members of an ethnic minority. —Psychonaut 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you imply there are no White Canadians beggars with such deceptive attempts? There are many pictures circulating on Internet with North American White beggars employing all kind of pity-empathy-amusement attractions like "need funding for alcohol research" and many others. "Far beyond the norm" is your POV, what mattered was the ethnicity, anyone may see in the article's History and in the talk page that most of the users who supported the article come or have links with Eastern Europe, expressing the discrimination from this area. She became well-known because she is Romani, the mass-media presents what the people want to read. However, this does not make this person notable in this "field". Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I am stating that few other deceptive beggars have received cover stories from prominent local papers, articles in national papers, and reports on CTV. You can believe if you want that she is being vilified by the news media for being Romani, but that doesn't change the fact that she's notable according to Misplaced Pages's policies. If you have an issue with the way the article is written, then rewrite the article; don't try to have it deleted. —Psychonaut 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability implies also an encyclopedic value of the article. What is the encyclopedic value in the tabloids' presentations of a shaking beggar, belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If we can keep the article on a New Zealand socialites whose only claim to fame is her marriage to a former cricket player, this article certainly establishes notability. The subject was featured on national television and in national periodicals for her periodicals actions. The article is sourced (though not cited as thoroughly as I would like), so there is no good reason to delete. The claims of racism are spurious and violate WP:AGF (and given the ethnicity of the accusers, are probably suspect anyway). I do not see how this article violates WP:NPOV: the fact that the subject was Romani may have contributed to her notoriety, but this article does not cast aspersions upon her for her ethnicity. --Nonstopdrivel 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable in an encyclopaedic sense. Being a nine-day wonder in the local papers is hardly basis for inclusion in wikipedia Trugster 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • She has received occasional coverage in the local and national press for five years, with articles as recent as 16 June 2007. I don't think this qualifies as a "nine-day wonder". —Psychonaut 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This presence in mass media express only the racist POV of some people, they are offered what they want to read. There are enough White beggars, shaky or other way. Do you imagine a mass media coverage about them? What would be the necessity? So, again, here we are not gathering an indiscriminate collection of information, which may have some media coverage because of the racist POV. The biography itself is not entitled for a wiki article. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: per G10 as egregious attack article. "With her shabby clothing, cane, and apparently uncontrollable full-body trembling, she became known as the "Shaky Lady" and was regarded as a wretched object of pity."  RGTraynor  14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Everything in the article came from published sources, though they were not cited at the time the article was written. I've just added four references for the sentence you quote (themselves containing quotes from interviews about people's reactions to Bangova). I don't see how it's such an attack, though, to report what others have published. The article now has only a couple outstanding {{fact}} templates. —Psychonaut 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, notability implies also an encyclopedic value of the article. What is the encyclopedic value in the tabloids' presentations of a shaking beggar holding a sign reading "Please help me. I am poor. I will pray for you", belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The Toronto Sun may be a tabloid, but the Toronto Star is not, and neither is CTV News. If this is a conspiracy by the racist Canadian media to vilify gypsies, then surely that conspiracy itself is notable, this incident being a particularly notable example. —Psychonaut 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Mike Strobel from Toronto Sun is the main journalist who profited from making articles about her, while other publications just wrote what it seems to be socially accepted racist POV in Canada. The texts of these articles are obviously trying to stir anti-Romani feelings both in Canada ("Gypsies, come to Canada!", implying that all the Romani persons are just copycats of Bangova) and in Eastern Europe (naming her as "an ambassador of the Czech Republic"). They never seem to be interested who are the Roma, if she is representative for the Romani people. I repeat, her biography is not notable, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is just the usual media hoax regarding the Romani people, pushing in front a non-notable individual fitting the "Gypsy" image, just for stirring passions. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: Allow me to quote from WP:BLP: "In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems ... When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." An attack page is an attack page.  RGTraynor  16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and address "fact tags" It is well documented, but needs to be even better referenced to address concerns of living people. There never should have been the word "notorious" in any article on a living person. Please make sure every sentence or paragraph is referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The same question: what is encyclopedic in this biography? All the info is focused on stirring passions. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There appears to have been a crusade by one newspaper columnist against one beggar whose performance art was to shake her body all day. This seems as worth of deletion on BLP grounds as other recent deletions of other articles about people who also had newspaper stories about them. She is no more encyclopedic that hundreds of thousands of other beggers, but seems to have become a target. Edison 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It's an article about a person who gained minor notoriety in Canada. It's not an extraordinarily important article, but the main reason for this AfD is because Desiphral doesn't like the reality of the article, for purely racial reasons. And that's not a reason for deleting an article.--Prosfilaes 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mean that this article presents the reality, the truth about the Romani people? This is itself a serious racist allegation. Please explain further what you mean. Because all the notoriety came from the Romani (so-called "Gypsy") background, by exploiting the "Gypsy" image, by stirring hate both in Canada and in Eastern Europe. This is how this person is presented. The biography itself of this person does not deserve a wiki article. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Truth about the Romani people?!? That's precisely my point, it's not about the Romani people. Argue about whether or not she's notable and verifiable, not about how we should delete her article for racial reasons.--Prosfilaes 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Then to what "reality" did you point to? Because all her presentation was in the direction of making her a typical "Gypsy" person, the usual "discrimination management" that picks some non-representative Roma, selects negative things about them, then presents them as the true "Gypsies". In the meantime, the same image creators do not make the same negative selections with people from their own group and do not present really representative Romani people. Do you know anything else about this person, beyond the steretypical characterization from the tabloids? What is the reason for giving her a wiki article? For fitting the "Gypsy" stereotypical image? Do you think this is a encyclopaedical reason? I presented already why this biography of a shaky beggar is not worthy a wiki article, including the fact that the person herself was just a common begger targeted by a tabloid's columnist (also per User:Edison and User:RGTraynor above). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The reason for giving her a wiki article is because she is a person who has been covered in a prominent fashion repeatedly in major media. If she weren't Romani, you wouldn't care. I'm highly opposed to deleting articles just because they cover a non-politically correct topic.--Prosfilaes 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • So, now you insinuate that the racist here is me. What reasons do you have to say that I wouldn't care if this person would not have been Romani? Do you imply the other steretoype that the Roma do not care about the broad society? And this is not a simply "non-politically correct topic", it is a usual media hoax about the Roma. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - easily meets WP:BIO due to coverage in multiple secondary sources and demonstrsble name recognition among substantial populations of Canada and beyond. Also recent addition of sources was addressing {{fact}} tag concerns. Dl2000 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Does anyone opposing here tries to address the fact that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Again, what's encyclopaedic in this biography? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think it's fair to call this article "Romani bashing," but I otherwise agree with the nomination. This is a panhandler, for heaven's sake! Just because a panhandler has been a subject of multiple articles doesn't make her sufficiently notable for Misplaced Pages.--Mantanmoreland 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I placed a clean-up tag on the article so that concerns about tone and attacking the subject can be addressed. The series of articles on her was notable and resulted in immigration measures. Canuckle 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I note one of the cleanup tags you added was {{orphan}}, which surprised me, as I had added links from other relevant articles. I now see that they have been removed by the User:Desiphral. —Psychonaut 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I'm sure the article was written in good faith, the rules have changed with regards to biographies. Even if true and well sourced, the potential damage to this individual is greater than the good it does the world to know that there are crooks in the world. semper fictilis 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- she is very well-known and considered notable in Canada. Her notoriety here, as shown by the mutliple references, is what makes this an indiscriminate collection of information about a pan-handler. The fact-tag and the anti-Romani POV must be addressed, but AfD is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing those concerns. Her behaviour and activities have been well-documented in the third party sources. We must not shy away from having bios on living people because of perceived "potential damage". (What potential damage? That people may stop being conned by her?) Ground Zero | t 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when was she considered notable "in Canada"? Toronto =/= Canada, and I certainly never heard of her. I have heard of numerous other scam artists pretending to be homeless/disabled, so it isn't like she is unique in this regard either. Resolute 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No offense intended, but there is a Kurdish proverb that says: "If a fool drops a coin into the river, a hundred wise men will never be able to get it out." Similarly, if one editor creates a misleading or inappropriate article that supports the "gypsy" stereotype, a hundred more will never be able to undo the damage by creating articles about similar non-Romanies. If non-Romanies who have done similar things do not have articles on Misplaced Pages, there's no reason why a Romani should. Just because Desiphral and I object on this basis doesn't mean it is our responsibility to create articles for non-Romanies who have done such things. Obviously we did not cause the article to be misleading! The burden lies on the careless creator of this article, not on those who point out his carelessness. --Kuaichik 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep seriously, i can't believe this conversation has gone on this long. notable person with several independent sources. nominator doesn't specifically name any wp policy that this article violates. However, this article does need to be cleaned up considerably. The nominator has violated the "assume good faith doctorine." Now, in regards to whether or not this is a 'racist' article or not....plain and simple it doens't matter. subject is notable and therefore gets an article. END OF STORY. it clearly states in wp policy that an article (like this) which has POV problems should be tagged as such and hopefully improved. That has been done. END OF STORY. nothing else needs to happen. someone either improves this or not. The arguments about this perpetuating racism etc. are not lost on me at all, so don't bother trying to explain them. i see your point, but ultimately it does not matter, whether this person is notably for something good or something bad, it should be included. if the nominator can find good sources for the claim that the man at the toronto sun is a racist and what not, that SHOULD be included and MUST be included. until then....sorry, give it up. Barsportsunlimited 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates