Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian D'Ambrosio (4th nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D'Ambrosio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted in 2016. The same basis applies at this time: "The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO." In support of the present nom, the article subject requests deletion. See VRTS ticket # 2025012110000983. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Given that the "article subject" probably also created the article for self-promotional purposes, but now that he is facing a federal prison sentence he wants it removed, it seems he is wanting it both ways. At the time the article was created, he fought off an AfC rejection and then fought and won an AfD at the time. After material on his egregious behavior was added to what was, admittedly, a puff piece for a mostly self-published author, he already tried again as an anon IP (there are several anon IP edits, all geolocating to Sante Fe, New Mexico, where he is apparently living at this time, close enough that they could easily be a dynamic IP from the same location) to AfD the article [1], which resulted in @Cullen328: giving it semi-protection, and that only after it was reverted for a whitewashing attempt. On top of that, one of his anon IP posts put up distractors on articles about other convicted federal felons [2]. All that said, while I think if he was marginally notable before he became notorious, he is definitely notable now. The story was posted on the US DOJ page and was all over the Montana press: posting just a few examples now. [3], [4] On the other hand, If the article is deleted, I also recommend that it be tagged as a WP:SALT so that it doesn't just get recreated as another puff piece when he gets out of the federal pen. Montanabw^(talk) 01:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am pinging Worldbruce, who approved the original AfC, and also some users who were canvassed about deletion such as Arjayay. Also alerting Muboshgu who commented on another article where these anon IPs have engaged in apparent Whataboutism. A few more experienced editors may have a relatively neutral perspective to offer here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person was apparently happy with this article when he was presenting himself as a notable author. Now that he has been convicted of a crime that is especially unseemly for an author specializing in biography amd history - stealing things from a historical society and trying to sell them - he now wants the article deleted. Coverage of his crime by reliable sources adds to his notability. This looks like a case of whitewashing to me, and yes, I did semiprotect the article for that reason. If the article is kept, it will need to be cleaned up because many although not all of its 24 current references are mediocre. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The various contributions to other articles and talk pages by the suspicious IP editor are a perfect example of whataboutism. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Crime, Montana, New Mexico, New York, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I certainly understand the schadenfreude of turning a promotional article which abuses the encyclopedia into an millstone upon its author, but I don't think there's a policy-based argument to keep. He's not a notable author, neither is he a notable thief. pburka (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Pburka:, just curious if the WP:CRIM criteria, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" would alter your view. I've never heard of anyone stealing historic items from a museum archives to sell on eBay. I mean, maybe it's been tried before, but certainly isn't a common crime. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Theft of antiquities and collectibles is not unusual. I think it's a stretch to call this crime unusual in its execution (simple theft) or motivation (money). pburka (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, but what is unusual here is taking research materials -- mostly paper-- from a museum's research archives. Then being stupid enough to try selling such easily identifiable artifacts on eBay. Montanabw^(talk) 19:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:BLPREQUEST. If a non-public figure doesn’t want an entry about them on the encyclopaedia, I think it is only reasonable that was honour it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply. It says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, ..." If one drills down into what we mean by a "non-public figure", one comes to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. "A low-profile individual [and non-public figure] is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable" (emphasis mine). D'Ambrosio sought media attention by giving interviews about his writing, he did book tours and signings to promote his work, and as of the writing of the article was engaged in these high-profile activities, even if he now wishes he were low-profile. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He's been on PBS at least twice from what I see, that's not a "non-public figure". Oaktree b (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would not have accepted the article at AfC if I did not believe at the time that he was a notable author, although perhaps by only a narrow margin. I still believe that, although with a bit less certainty. My apologies to the community for not keeping an eye on the article and pushing back more strongly against any promotional language or tone. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion this may need some more time. Caution that the Streisand effect may be in play here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems to have been a rather prolific author on the history of Montana. Book reviews as well [5], [6] and [7], The crimes help color his story I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The second AfD also has a few other sources listed, about half way down. The guy wrote over 300 books and articles on Montana "Stuff", he's hardly an unknown person. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; a bare case for notability under WP:NAUTHOR appears to have been established in prior discussions. With that threshold met, the coverage related to the crime contributes to WP:GNG since he's not just notable for the crime. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2025 (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.