Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was speedy keep. Hall Monitor 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden

  • Delete. The "Speedy Keep" decision was a blatant attempt to prevent discussion. This article is libelous and leaves Wikipedia open to a lawsuit. It is am attempt to smear the subject. It is filled with POV, slected facts. Please read "talk" page before voting to see the objections raised. Several Canadian Wikipedia editors refuse to do anything to restrain the stalking of the subject of this article by the authors Isotelus 12:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My name is Rachel Marsden--the person this article is about. It is so incredibly wrong, biased and libelous that I have attempted to contact Wikipedia founder Jim Wales personally, by phone, to no avail. I don't threaten people with legal action, but would suggest that an article like this does Wikipedia a real disservice and has certainly destroyed its credibility in my view, as a working journalist. Even the slightest attempt at fairness--if not accuracy--would have been appreciated. Regards, Rachel Marsden, 7 March 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.152.39 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete192.197.82.153 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This second nomination comes just 3 days after the first and is part of ongoing content dispute, not a valid AfD nomination. Wiederaufbau 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. A second nomination in 3 days? I thought we just speedy keeped this... Pasboudin 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. If libelous information exists, please remove said content (obviously), but the subject is notable and should be included on Wikipedia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Like Green Arrow's sidekick in a castle. A quick Googling suggests that much of this lady's notability derives from past controversies anyway, so where's the beef. Article might discuss more re the evolution of her beliefs and her writing rather than just being restricted to scandals (and has a few minor typos), but that's for the talk page, not here. At any rate, as it stands is amongst the best referenced Wikiarticles I have yet seen- if it's libellous, then so are a lot of other publications. Seems like a bit of an unwarranted nom given that it was SK'ed only a few days ago. Obviously, no delete. Badgerpatrol 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the case in Canada. The onus is completely on the author (anonymous people) and the publisher (wikipedia) to prove all facts, plus, if facts are selectively strung together to attempt to create a negative conclusion, the article is libelous and the plaintiff can sue for actual and punitive damages. Absence of malice is not a defence, though, in this case, malice would likely be seen as proven by the courts because there have been complaints by the victim of the libel. I am a Canadian lawyer. 192.197.82.153 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...if it's libellous, then so are a lot of other publications." A staggering statement. Truly. Isotelus 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In what way? The article as it reads to me avoids original research almost completely- almost every statement of significance is properly referenced by appropriate outside sources. If they (the other newspapers, journals etc.) have been sued for libel, and the Wikiarticle reproduces the defamatory claims without appropriate expository comment, then that IS a problem, and any claims of that nature should be extirpated. Can you demonstrate that the article includes material that has been found to be libellous in a court of law? (Please note that my experience is limited to the UK legal systems and I am assuming that those in Canada and the US operate along similar principles- forgive me if that is not the case). Badgerpatrol 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment above: Yes- but has Ms Marsden or agents acting on her behalf sued any publication for libel for making these claims? From what you tell me, the law in Canada does not seem to be substantively different from the law in E+W and Scotland. Some of these articles are from several years ago, e.g. 1999. I do appreciate that under defamation laws the totality of a sequence of claims can be treated as a Gestalt construct- but is there any reason (ie a previous lawsuit) to assume that any of the individual claims made in the articles used as reference sources for the Wikiarticle are libellous? If there have been previous successful libel suits against these claims I may be inclined to change my opinion. Badgerpatrol 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Badgerpatrol questions (BTW, please do NOT blank these retractions):

A story published in the Ottawa Citizen on November 28th headlined "Tories Woo Convicted Stalker to Run Against Jack Layton" contained incorrect information. The subject of the article, Rachel Marsden, was not convicted. Ms. Marsden received a conditional discharge for criminal harassment, fulfilled the conditions of the discharge and is deemed not to have been convicted. The story also stated that Marsden was "found to have been stalking" Liam Donnelly. No such findings were ever made. Further, the article stated that Marsden was "terminated" by the Conservative party from a job on Parliament Hill. Marsden has never worked on Parliament Hill. The Citizen regrets the errors.

An Oct. 13 article regarding the guilty verdict against Rachel Marsden for harassment referred incorrectly to Marsden as having been fired from her job in the office of MP Gurmant Grewal. Grewal said at the time she was not fired, but he simply ran out of work for her. Her departure from Grewal's office occurred shortly after news media learned she was working for the MP under a different name. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Oct 14, 2004. pg. A.2

Copyright Vancouver Sun 2004) A story published Oct. 13 referred to allegations by a Simon Fraser University swim coach that he was stalked by former SFU swim team member Rachel Marsden. In fact, the allegations were not proven and SFU declared its investigation into both parties' claims of harassment null and void because of flaws in the process The Province. Vancouver, B.C.: Sep 9, 2004. pg. A.3

Copyright The Province 2004) On Sept. 5, The Province incorrectly reported that a Simon Fraser University swim coach accused of sexual harassment by Rachel Marsden in 1995 was fired after Marsden took her allegations to the media and that the coach was then reinstated after an investigation cleared him. The case was actually heard by a university tribunal. The coach was reinstated after flaws were found in the investigation process that led to his dismissal.

I have added one minor clarification in Rachel Marsden, explicitly stating that neither Marsden nor Donnelly were found guilty of harassment in the SFU case, per the Ottawa Citizen correction. Apart from that, none of the examples you give above jar with what is written in Rachel Marsden, as far as I can see. I don't doubt that these were genuine mistakes made by the newspapers concerned and the corrections may or may not have been made in response to legal threats, but can you point out where these erroneous claims occur in the Wikiarticle, as it currently stands? Otherwise, I don't understand the relevance. Badgerpatrol 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If you have a content dispute, deleting the entire article is hardly the way to go about it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pasboudin 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. Besides doing a user check on User:Isotelus and User:Mark_Bourrie I would also suggest comparing IP addresses to 70.25.91.205. One entry dated February 25th is even signed "MB". Wiederaufbau 16:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there is no baby, only bathwater.Isotelus 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Bourrie no longer posts on Wikipedia. He has not posted on this page. Get your facts straight, for once. I might be Mark Bourrie, I might not, but I can see why he would want to be anonymous when all of you demand anonymity.Isotelus 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See e.g. this edit, recently reverted it seems. Badgerpatrol 16:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Bourrie regrets registering under his own name and is trying to assume an anonymous identity. I think this discussion should stick to the topic at hand, this completely POV article192.197.82.153 16:48, 7 March 2006 (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/Rachel_Marsden_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1080360280"