Talk:Marco Palmieri

Moved from Vfd
Marco Palmieri has emailed me and Dan to request the page about him be removed. In Mr. Palmieri's words:
 * "Please don't misunderstand, there's no animosity behind this request. It's simply my personal preference that I not have an page about me on the site."

I haven't been actively involved with Memory Alpha in some while, so I thought I'd put this up for vote to the current active admins. I personally see no reason not to adhere to Mr. Palmieri's privacy concerns. At the very least, we could delete the picture of him and keep the article a short stub. Harry t 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have received his response to asking if he would be OK with just a simple article without a picture:
 * "I'd just prefer to have no page there at all, and to deal with any re-creations of it as they come up."

-- Harry  t 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It makes sense to keep the article, but to remove the picture. The problem with removing the article is that it will get recreated by someone, somewhere along the way, unless there's something small there already.  That's the nature of the wiki style.  I might suggest emailing him and inquiring whether or not he would be happy with the picture being removed, as the article is essentially a stub as it stands. So, this could come down to a removal of his image, and a note on the article about it. -- Sulfur 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied to him asking just this. I'm awaiting his reply. -- Harry  t 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I too find the addition of the picture to be a little unnecessary --after all, his likeness has nothing to do with his work on Star Trek -- namely, serving as an editor. Probably we should create a short stub, simply linking to whatever work he is actually credited on, and mentioning his tenure as an editor. nothing more is really required. would this be all right with him? -- Captain M.K.B. 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm a little torn on that issue. On the one hand, I can understand that someone might not want to see information about himself somewhere on the web. I'd also hate to affront one of the major "sources" of new Trek. On the other hand (the "wiki side"), there's only one really workable solution to this request - which would be to restrict the article to as little content as possible and protect it, while adding a small note about the reasons for that. If we do this, we should at least keep in mind that others might request the same for their articles - which, simply put, runs contrary to our goal of becoming a definitive and accurate Trek encyclopedia. -- Cid Highwind 19:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Would it be possible to request more information on what he wants taken down? I can understand the image, but it seems odd to me to want his writing credits taken down too. It is not like his name is a secret, it is on those books, after all. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Legally, must we adhere to his request? --Defiant 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hey, if that's what the author wants, as a matter of respect then fine delete the article. -- Krevaner 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying a belief that the article be kept, nor was I implying that it should be deleted. I'm merely curious about the legalities of keeping pages if other Trek "celebrities" request deletion of articles, as Cid Highwind suggested they might do. --Defiant 19:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Devils advocate here, but logically we should keep the article. George Bush can go to Wikipedia and ask his page be removed and they have no obligation-- for that matter, they would be being negligent to remove it. He's a part of Trek, therefore he has a page. And as for the picture, he does not in fact have the rights to it-- (I had this argument with a person at Kinkos) The picture is the property of Paramount pictures, even though its a picture of him. And just curious, what does he want removed? His writing credits? Even Amazon lists those. I don't want to sound negative, since he is a great editor, and contributes on TBBS now and then but is there any specific thing he wants removed? There's no actual information on the page... how is this any different than a fan page? Or those blurbs on the back covers of novels? - AJ Halliwell 21:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yeah, throwing that in. I would like more information on what precisely the problem is, but currently I don't see a problem with keeping any of this stuff. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I sympathize with Palmieri, we cannot remove pages simply because the subject asks for it. As Cid and AJ pointed out, that would go against our purposes here to be as complete as possible. However, I do believe his image should be removed if he wishes it, as everyone has a right to decide whether or not their picture should be placed on the internet. But asking for the removal of information that can be found at many other sites (including the aforementioned Amazon and other online book-sellers) would discredit Memory Alpha and impede its goals. I therefore vote to keep the article, and protect it if necessary, but delete the image if he asks for it. --From Andoria with Love 06:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I'm a bit mystified. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but he says, according to Harry's quote of his e-mail "It's simply my personal preference that I not have an page about me on the site." Now, he doesn't say "It's my preference that I not have any information about me on the internet" (or "on any web site", or whatever), he specifies on this site. Yet he says there's no animosity. Most... curious. -- Renegade54 18:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he just doesn't want info on him to be available on fan-run sites (for some reason), but doesn't mind if their officially run sites that fall under the responsibility of Paramount. --Defiant 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think removing the image would be a valid request but otherwise I don't see why a MA page would be a problem, especially since the content will likely be (and currently is) restricted to information freely available elsewhere on the internet.  I don't know what could possibly be added to the page that might compromise his privacy, if that's what's at issue here.  If he's worried about factual inaccuracies, being slandered, or the page getting vandalized, we can certainly keep an eye on it to make sure those things don't happen. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even weirder, I'm not entirly sure it's a privacy issue. Roaming TBBS, I've found him mentioning his other careers and even putting up his home email! Certainly that's more private matters than a list of his work, and an interview taht did appear on millions of DVDs... - AJ Halliwell 11:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I made up my mind - keep as is, eventually delete the image, though. This is a Trek encyclopedia which wants to be as complete as possible. A policy of simply deleting complete articles when requested goes against this goal, and should not be introduced, "backdoor-style", via a deletion discussion. Instead, if someone wants to propose this policy change, the suggestion should be thoroughly discussed in the forums first. At the moment, there's no policy or other good reason to delete this content, or even prevent people from adding more by protecting the page. -- Cid Highwind 09:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I am more or less Mr. Palmieri's advocate in this, I won't make any decision myself on this. But I will send him a final reply based on what is decided in this thread. Which, by the looks of it, will be... interesting (gulp!).-- Harry  t 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With the update, it seems clear that the request is for outright deletion (+ no re-creation, ever) of what is, in every way, a valid article. This means that we don't have any policy according to which deletion has to occur. If I had to decide now, I would choose to keep the article, as-is and open for further additions, and archive this discussion. There also seems to be a wide consensus for this already, so I don't know if we need to keep up this deletion discussion any longer. However, we might still want to discuss the more generic question before you're going to tell Mr. Palmieri the "bad news": Do we need a policy regulating "outside" requests for deletion of articles concerning individual people - and if we do, how do we handle these requests, given the fact that each of them would basically be against our very goals: always delete, always keep, always restrict to a minimum and protect? I suggest starting a forum discussion about that if anyone thinks that "no deletion" is not the way to go. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that no deletion is the clear consensus (but not unanimous). I guess it would help to know what his reasoning is, since it seems to be targeted at this site specifically, despite his protestations to the contrary. As Cid (and others) have stated, there's really very little information on that page, and nothing that isn't available at any number of other site and sources, in much more detail. It's his right to not want to be associated with MA for whatever reason and with no explanation, but it's also ours to reprint public, non-copyrighted information. Perhaps he doesn't want his information published here to appear to be a tacit endorsement or approval of the site; perhaps he's trying to distance himself from Trek in general, much as Kurt Vonnegut did years ago in regards to science fiction; perhaps... who knows? Bottom line, I think it would set a bad precident to delete a valid article, especially without a darn good reason. -- Renegade54 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since he asked, delete.--KrossTransmit on Holonet? 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The majority have opposed deletion. Article kept. Discussion archived. --From Andoria with Love 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection?
There were a few people above who suggested (or agreed with) protecting this article. So... should we? I personally don't see a need for it at the moment, although I did support it at the time. What do you guys think?

By the way, it is interesting to note that Palmieri has an article at our sister site, Memory Beta, which was actually created months before our article was. I wonder if Mr. Palmieri wants that one removed as well? From what I see, he's actually working with MB, as evident near the bottom of this page (under "Vanguard Emblem"). Actually, that discussion may have been what brought MA to Palmieri's attention... yet he said nothing about his MB page, as far as I can find. I think Palmieri just didn't want his page on a wiki for canon Star Trek. Or maybe he didn't know about the MB article but just doesn't want his page on a site that anyone can edit. In any case, you can find his MB page. --From Andoria with Love 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)