Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Max Freedom Pollard

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Salvio giuliano 14:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Max Freedom Pollard

[edit]
Draft:Max Freedom Pollard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Notability. This is questionable, and there are several articles and sections hanging off this, such that sorting out Mr Freedom's notability first would simplify a lot of issues.

He's the author of two self-published books, which seem to have attracted no secondary interest. His press coverage is almost all about a bizarre armed siege. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft, article standards do not apply to drafts. Every draft falls short of Wikipedia's standards, that's why they are drafts. It would have to be up to standard if and when it is resubmitted only. PaulHSAndrews (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as drafts go, this one is better than most. It's just that - a draft - and according to Wikipedia standards, it is only after 6 months of abandonment that a draft can be deleted, excepting very special circumstances and multiple users agreeing to the deletion. This is a draft, not a published article.
Can you quote the part of the current draft which you believe requires non-standard, immediate deletion?
PaulHSAndrews (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"article standards do not apply to drafts"
Please don't try and explain WP policy to us, that's likely to end badly. Both your understanding of policy and your judgement is seriously underdeveloped as yet, to the point where you're teetering on the edge of an indefinite CBAN (and worse than that, an infamous CBAN, the sort that becomes so memorable that there's no return from it). So humility, not hubris, would be advisable.
WP:BLPN applies to both articles and drafts. Enforcement might not be so stringent on drafts, but that's a subtle distinction. Certainly a draft would be excused failing to demonstrate notability. But if an article's topic is 'just not notable' and shows no sign that notability could ever be demonstrated for that subject (and specifically, the subject as they are today – who knows what they might do tomorrow) then be assured that a draft can be deleted for that, just as easily as an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't try to explain it, it's already explained here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%3AUserspace_draft
“Community consensus determined that ‘notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.’” PaulHSAndrews (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeatedly posting the same thing, or large chunks of the article itself, whilst also missing the whole point being made, is not a convincing debating technique. Your ANI posts also fell into the 'wall of text' trap and that doesn't work well here on WP.
If you want to make a case for saving this article and coverage of Freedom Pollard, then do so by showing independent sources arguing to his notability as an author. Because nothing else is likely to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulHSAndrews: There's no need to clutter this discussion with a copy of the draft itself. That's what the links are for. It's alao quite unhelpful to remove the pointer to this discussion from the top of the draft. I will be restoring that now. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections
"Moving an article to draftspace, like any action, requires consensus. It may initially be carried out as a bold move if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so is uncontroversial. But if another editor—including the creator of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest—objects to the move (for example by moving the page back to mainspace), then it is not uncontroversial. In these circumstances, refrain from further moves until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue. This means that an article should only be unilaterally moved to draftspace a single time."
As I have contested the deletion, this draft is now controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADrafts
“Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft, unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help%3AUserspace_draft
In an RfC … community consensus determined that ‘notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts.’” PaulHSAndrews (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable author, at best known for WP:BLP1E, that is, his arrest. Creating editor probably has some sort of COI with the subject (see [1]), as yet undisclosed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seven Hills library reference looks like it might have been user-generated content, to some degree. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject is clearly not notable, to the degree that there's no realistic chance this draft could become a viable article in the foreseeable future; and it's reasonably likely to cause him harm in the meantime. I've removed the copy that was pasted into the middle of this discussion. —Cryptic 17:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unhelpful to the project at this juncture. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability borderline at best: the strongest claim in my view is the lawsuit by his employer becoming part of case law, but I can't find any reports of that other than the case documentation. I can't find published reviews of either book, the library positions do not confer notability, and the arrest is a negative event with no long-lasting coverage. No biographical info apart from the unsourced birth year. Largely concur with Cryptic; rather than letting this languish as a borderline negative BLP of a non-notable person, better to delete the draft. Note to PaulHSAndrews: Deletion is not final. A new article can be created if Pollard achieves notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Seven Hills library is known to only one source, updated/created on the day that content was added to the article and possibly reliant solely on a user submission; the library is otherwise unknown to search engines. The cited source does not say he serves on the University of Adelaide Library committee, only the far less significant Friends of the University of Adelaide Library committee. The books are self-published and no significant reviews are offered. The text in "2024 Sydney police operation" seems to breach WP:SYNTH as sources do not generally name the subject, and no coverage of any trial is offered. Only primary sources for "Supreme Court litigation" are provided; it seems to have gone unreported. Notability, however much the subject may desire it, is not established. NebY (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just doesn't pass the notability test. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ironically, despite the COI concern, parts of this come close to an attack page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's one reason why I don't think there is any COI here. An odd fixation on the subject, maybe. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no COI, why would the subject link this page in the literal back cover of their book? Surely he desires this info being there for some reason. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but this edit on the same day as the creation of the source does make me suspect communication from subject to editor, and both that and this inflation of the subject's importance make me suspect editing in the subject's interest. NebY (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Yesterday I was inclined to say that the draft, like its subject, seemed merely eccentric and mostly harmless. Following the direction that the related ANI thread has taken, I'm now open to the possibility that Pollard and/or PaulHSAndrews are attention-seekers who are pranking or trolling us. (I don’t know how else to characterise the behaviour documented in the draft's sole reliable news source.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ClaudineChionh, that article is behind a paywall. Can you give a brief indication of the relevant points in it? JBW (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I sometimes forget what might be inaccessible to others.
"Bizarre videos emerge from inside 10-hour eastern suburbs siege" (23 October 2024)
Tactical police were sent to Pollard's apartment building following his refusal to leave after being evicted. Pollard filmed the ten-hour incident and posted some of this to Instagram. He was finally arrested and unauthorised firearms were found in his home.
The article says about his background:
  • Pollard claims on his LinkedIn profile to have worked for Harvard University in the US, as a staff member for the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission (ACIC), and as a “security equipment specialist”. He also wrote his own translation of the New Testament which “restores original meaning” to the text.
  • A spokesperson for the ACIC said Pollard “is not and never has been an Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission staff member.”
ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this would last five minutes in article space? (where it was, just a couple of days ago) 'Rules don't apply to drafts' is a very weak argument. When it inevitably went to AfD, would the outcome be to draftify it, or simply to delete it as unfixable non-notable BLP?
The point here isn't that the draft doesn't demonstrate notability, it's that the subject is not notable as either an author, a defendant, or as an armed besiegee and (crucially) there is no conceivable situation where we might change that viewpoint. We've done as much investigation of the subject as is practical for an AfD, and it's just not convincing that this non-notability opinion might change. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts do not need to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But as you can see by the !votes here, it doesn't carry too much weight in a situation like this.
If you think that Pollard is WP:BLPN, on which basis is that? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 22 October 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 page'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:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Max_Freedom_Pollard&oldid=1319054294"