" 

 Hesperian's guesses about an editor's motives are irrelevant.  The only question is whether the material added by the editors was relevant, informative, and documented.  The reviews of Hart's poetry and Hart's own views of poetry and his fellow poets are all relevant, informative, and documented.  Therefore this material should stand.  Hesperian needs to back down and stop policing articles about which he admittedly knows nothing at all.  Let those who know something about poetry and scholarship have their say.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 I quote from the NPOV/FAQ page: ""Lack of neutrality as an EXCUSE to delete. 
 The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?  In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed.""   

 This policy makes a strong case that the possible ""bias"" of the editor's additions to the Kevin Hart article should stand.  Any editor who finds bias has the burden of adding material to balance this perceived bias.  Hesperian and others need to stand down and either leave the article on Hart alone or add documented and relevant material of their own. 

 Let me add that Hesperian has continued to accuse me of sock-puppetry (note that his/her diatribe begins ""I don't know what Hart did to piss this person off""), which is a ridiculous delusion.  There have been at least four editors that have been involved in the development of this piece.  I restored edits made by another editor because I agreed with that him/her that the article is valid and informed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 == Stubbing and semi-protection an abuse of authority == 

 Hesperian semi-protected and stubbed this article after someone posted Hart's own published comments on a fellow Australian poet. I cannot fathom how removing this material is a gesture of neutrality. Now the article is left with bits of praise, with no real sense of who Hart is. That's what is missing now. Who Hart really is, and how the academic community perceives him, is the basis for an excellent article. Was the piece excellent before Hesperian stubbed it? No, but we were all working on getting it there, and at least it was informative (until Hesperian stubbed it), and anyone who felt the piece lacked balance was free to add strong and positive reviews of Hart's work. Hesperian has deleted well-researched, accurately documented, informative material about Hart, material that was not available anywhere else on the web. Significantly, it was material that was submitted by several editors, not just one.  (Moreover, Hesperian has continued to make accusations of sock-puppetry, which is a ridiculous delusion. There have been at least four editors that have been involved in the development of this piece. I restored edits made by another editor because I agreed with that him/her that the article is valid and informed.)  Hesperian's stub amounts to a hatchet job on what was growing slowly into a well-rounded and important analysis of a highly successful poet and critic. Such an article needs both positive and negative reviews if it is to have any validity at all. Some of that material might not flatter Kevin Hart, but so what? Is it Wikipedia's purpose to flatter? If so, it has no reliability. Please bear in mind that all deleted material was well-documented and was originally published in scholarly, peer-reviewed presses. In my view, Hesperian has abused this system, and his actions border on vandalism. You should look closely at the article's contents the day Hesperian stubbed it. The inappropriate comments about Hart that he cites had been deleted long, long ago. 

 Hesperian's guesses about an editor's motives are irrelevant. The only question is whether the material added by the editors was relevant, informative, and documented. The reviews of Hart's poetry and Hart's own views of poetry and his fellow poets are all relevant, informative, and documented. Therefore this material should stand. Hesperian needs to back down and stop policing articles about which he admittedly knows nothing at all. Let those who know something about poetry and scholarship have their say.  I quote from the NPOV/FAQ page: ""Lack of neut