| Revision as of 00:03, 16 September 2006 editMattyblueeyes (talk | contribs)194 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:44, 16 September 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (overturn and redirect)Next edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| '''Overturn and <s>semi-protect</s> redirect <s>per Guy</s>''' As much as I realize an article on him will feed his ego, my objective, encyclopedic slant says that this is not enough to bury an article. The ] lasted four and a half hours from posting to deletion, despite an AFD general ]. As for non-notability, the insistence on using mass-media for ] is flawed, but outside my opinions about ], I would have to say that if a person is on Wired (twice ), BoingBoing , and Slashdot -- et al -- all within a week, that's notable. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 18:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' There is a reason that blogs are not ]: they don't have the fact-checking resources or commitment that reliable sources do. They are probably rising to the level of primary sources (anyone's diary is a primary source), but encyclopedias are these days tertiary sources. That means we don't do original research, we rely on secondary sources to get original research done. If you believe that a verifiable article adhering to our policies ], ], and ]an be written, why not draft one in your user space and then let us review that? Also beware of the issues raised in the essay ]; current events more properly belongs on Wikinews than here. ] 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' The question is not whether they were covered all over the blogosphere "within a week". The question is whether anyone will still be talking about it, after a month. Forget the hundred-year test; will this one last 100 days? Re-open in a month or two if, and only if, the story has legs. ] 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Fan-1967 claims she doesn't want to be a crystal ball but in fact makes the prediction that no one will want to read this, and so deletes the page. Then Fan-1967 has to protect his own page because she is surprised that he has pissed off people through her acts of vandalism. Myself, I nominate Fan-1967 for blocking. She is a vandal. In other words, an AFD of 4 hours is BULLSHIT.{{unsigned|130.76.64.16}} | |||
| :*'''Comment''' I didn't nominate it. I voted in the middle of that discussion, after four others, and two others voted after me. I didn't close the discussion. I didn't delete it (I can't, not being an admin). My page was protected months ago because of a ticked off teenager who didn't like his nonsense articles being nominated for deletion. Oh, and I'm not a she. You didn't get a single thing right. ] 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I closed it, because of what seem to me to be insurmountable concerns re ]. Even the source form the BBC, listed below, is an op-ed piece by Bill Thompson, who writes a technology blog for the BBC News website. I have yet to see anything approaching an authoritative treatment of the ''article subject'', one Jaosn Fortuny. This might merit a paragraph in an article on online privacy. <b>]</b> 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The issue is now big enough for a stand alone article. ] 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I cannot understand why we need authoritative treatment of the ''article subject'', Jason Fortuny. As per ], under non-public persons "editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability". The only thing of any notability here is the incident that he caused. If you don't think the Metro source, or the BBC source is that reliable then let's put it to the test with a proper AFD. I've never seen the article, maybe it was an absolute ED piece of shit, but I don't think it should have been salted at the first available opportunity and never given a chance. - ]]] 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''': I found one pretty good source for this, a nice long article on the BBC News website , and another one that might serve for corroboration (in ]). As such, this page probably could be edited to conform to policies and guidelines if it were re-opened. -]<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn, relist'''. DRV is about process, right? Obviously, a 4 hour AfD debate isn't long enough to figure anything out. --] <small>]</small> 20:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Overturn''' per above. --] 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unprotect''' - I mentioned this on the Administrators notice board at ], it mentions the BBC and Metro source. - ]]] 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''': The article was supposedly listed for speedy deletion, but looking at the speedy deletion criteria, this article absolutely falls into the "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article* -- Face it, the AFD of 4 hours was completely uncalled for. I propose that the person that proposed this article for deletion AND the person deleting the article be banned as vandals. {{Unsigned|130.76.64.93}} | |||
| **Depends. If it was a poorly sourced attack page then ] might apply. ~ ] 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * As closer, here is my rationale. First, ] had already achieved more input than most valid AfDs, and ''every single editor'' advocated Delete. Second, this thread on ]: , showed serious concerns. Third, having reviewed the AfD and the comments on the noticeboard, it seemed to me that the ] concenrs were both valid and insurmountable. Misplaced Pages is '''not a mirror of Encyclopaedia Dramatica'''. We have precisely the same kind of crap with ]. Unless and until someone can provide credible evidence that this person has achieved sufficient external coverage in reliable secondary sources for a verifiably neutral biography, '''we cannot have an article'''. Of the 91 unique Googles off Misplaced Pages, I did not see a single reliable source. <b>]</b> 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and Relist''', let it run the full five days. ] 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn'''. I don't like executive decisions on Misplaced Pages. — ] ] 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse''' per Jimbo: ''There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.'' I get zero hits on Newsbank (one actually, but that's a letter to the editor on ] signed by a Jason Fortuny) and one on ] (], didn't know L-N carries blogs now). That's awfully little material to base a biographical article on. ~ ] 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Amend to support the '''redirect''' per ]. ~ ] 18:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **This doesn't fall under what Jimmy said. It's up to 100+ news sources now. Notable. ] 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Irrelevant. This is hardly an uncorroborated rumor. . This isn't merely the primary source saying "I did something" -- this is the actual evidence. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Got anything other than blog crap? ~ ] 00:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****I don't know, maybe the BBC and Metro mentioned above? Or a story in the ] which took it off AP. - ]]] 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****'''Note''' - There are quite a few news papers running with the AP story. Including the ], and ]. - ]]] 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''', ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn'''. ]-- There's no reason to delete this at this time, especially as it's become newsworthy at this point in time. If in a few weeks or months it's no longer appropriate, the decision can be revisited. ] 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep deleted'''. Misplaced Pages is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. --] 00:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep deleted'''. Horrible ], privacy, ], and notability concerns, and if the usual ED suspects want the notoriety they can do it without Misplaced Pages's help. --] | ] 02:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep deleted''' For now with no prejudice against a future DRV if this becomes more notable. Since the matter has been mentioned in ] sources such as the ] a claim of notability can be made and a claim that it could be written as a stub can also be made. However, from the Times article and one or two other similar sources we would have at best a paragraph stub and even that would be close to running afoul of ]. If more reliable sources become avaliable in a few weeks we should revisit the matter then. ] 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist it'' It's just complete nonsense that this article was poorly sourced. When I edited it, I added at least one reference to an article in a newspapers the Metro UK. In addition, as I have pointed out, Jason Fortuny, on the website he registered in his name, links to the threads. Between newspaper sources and Jason Fortuny himself, poorly sourced cannot mean that Jason denies his acts, poorly sourced can only mean the wiki editors think the act never took place. The day this article was deleted, Google News listed 3-8 sources, today it lists 73, including one in the Chron that interviews Lauren Weinstein, Computer Scientist and Privacy Expert, Jim Buckmaster, CL CEO, and quotes from the EFF. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4179361.html This shows the "speedy deletion" was completely inappropriate. Face it, the wiki was punked and aided and abetted by the vandals that listed this page in speedy deletion and then removed the page from the wikipedia. I suggest you investigate if the deletion was performed by Fortuny or one of his puppets. If the page were restored now, it would quickly have 3-4 real live, even for wikiality, respectable articles, including ones from the Chron, the Metro UK, the Register, the Ottawa Recorder, Wired, and others. As Lauren Weinstein says, "Weinstein said the action could potentially make Internet users more likely to question the legitimacy of Craigslist ads and more reluctant to participate. "Once you've lost that trust," he said, "a large part of the utility of what those services were there for in the first place is lost."" Why is the wiki the only people that think that that would not be notable? ] 04:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' and possibly relist. This made ABC News, BBC News, BoingBoing, The New York Times, Slashdot, Sydney Morning Herald, and Wired Magazine. Twice. That's pretty damn verifiably notable. ] 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Two things. First, I got 91 unique Googles outside fo WP last night, which suggests it might not be as notable as all that. Second, what those sources are talking about is a privacy incident '''not''' a person. We have no sources devoted to the '''person''', only to the privacy incident. Logically, yhat means it should be covered as a paragraph in an article on online privacy. <b>]</b> 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' - Four hour Afd? Absolutely not. Speedy? Not. ] 06:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' - I normally am against excessive "Net-culture" pages on Misplaced Pages, but this has attracted plenty of mass media attention and the implications go far; it's not just another Habbo Hotel raid. While I know Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, I think Fortuny's life might be getting pretty interesting soon. ] 06:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' no need to return to AfD just to follow a process especially when the subject apparently falls insurmountably foul of BLP. ] 08:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''A proposal:''' This article was created and edited almost exclusively by anons and editors with no or very little history. I think we can safely assume they are not as conversant with policy as longer-standing editors. We have a policy, ], and a guideline, ], which mean we simply cannot write an article on Jason Fortuny because we don't know enough about him. We ''can'' write a section on the Fortuny incident in ], and that section ''can'' be both neutral and sourced. Because it does not purport to be about Jason Fortuny, it will not violate ] by giving undue weight to a single incident. The reliable sources, which are talking about the privacy incident not the individual, will be acceptable in this context. A redirect from ] to ] will also not violate policy because what people will eb looking for is the online privacy issue, and what they will get is actually ''better'' than simply describing this one incident, because they will see it in the context of other online privacy problems. How do poeple feel about that? <b>]</b> 09:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - We can write a verifiable article about this incident, of which the best place to put it would be at ]. Protecting the article at the earliest possible opportunity, and then having to argue over an article's creation on DRV is ridiculous. Heck, like GRBerry below, I don't even care about the original article, I just feel it should be unprotected and given a chance. It does ''not'' violate ] by giving an undue weight to one incident, at all. Are you telling me that ] should be deleted and protected against recreation because all it details are his crimes? And merge it into some internet fakery article? As per WP:LIVING, "editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability", this guy has only been notable for one event, writing an article on him including only information relevent to their notability isn't impossible. - ]]] 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I think there is some difference between a notable crime, whihc is covered over a lengthy period in mainstream media, and something like this, which appears to be at least fifty percent egregious vanity on Fortuny's part. Actually I think it's a reasonably notable event, although not by any means a shoo-in, but it raises other questions and has similarities to other privacy violations. Which is why I suggest depersonalising it somewhat by including it in an article on online privacy and redirecting. Is that so strange? It looks as if some at least are motivated by a desire to "name and shame", which is disquieting. Above all I think we should wait and see if it's a nine-days' wonder. <b>]</b> 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' I admit I have no knowledge of the original content. However, the content wasn't merely deleted, or improved, and appropriate blocks put in place, but instead was made into a protected blank. As Guy notes, the perpetrators were anons and ]'s -- just the sort of thing semi-protection is for. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': . . . . . . . . . (not the AP line, unique). And that's only 24 odd hours after it broke past the ton of Blog-related hits seen here: | |||
| * it's out of control and a major international news story about online privacy now swirling around this person. Clearly he's become notable. Big New York Times article will be out either 9/13 or 9/14. Given the mounting scope and scale of this the article needs to be recreated. The NY times one mentioned already is just the AP wire. They're doing a 'real' story due in 24 hours or so. | |||
| :: Oh, we're Wikinews now are we? I had no idea. I thought we were an encyclopaedia, not a news source out to scoop the New York Times. <b>]</b> 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess not, but thats a disingenious way to discard that above point that this is clearly and obviously a notable event. Someone said to make an article like ] and to redirect Jason Fortuny to it. At the least something like that needs to happen. I guess the person is borderline notable (for now) but the event clearly is. Misplaced Pages isn't harming the 178 people in any way by having an article about the incident--it's all over the Internet and is clearly a news story. As long as WP doesn't include their personal data its fine. ] 16:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' and '''unprotect'''. Deletions should be reversed when both 1) we should have an article on the topic and 2) the deleted content is helpful for building that article. That there are now reliable sources available does not change the fact that the previously existing article did not use reliable sources, and as such all content in it should be removed. The new article should be written from the reliable sources, not the blogs. That of course, ''could be done now'' in userspace if someone really wanted to make a case for unprotecting. ] 13:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse deletion''' per notability concerns ''about the subject of the biography'' as well as serious concerns about facilitating publicizing a vicious attack on the privacy of innocent, non-prominent people. A DRV that re-creates a page about a garage band or a junior high school harms no one; but creating a full article with links about the subject under discussion here will help destroy lives. At some point, noteworthy is noteworthy, I suppose, but helping to do gratuitous harm is not why we are writing an encyclopedia. The potential for links to sites disclosing information obtained from third parties under the circumstances of the subject's behavior may also create a ] issue in view of the privacy and legal concerns. In addition, although not governing the deletion decision, the personal attacks on the deleting admin and other users on this page are highly inappropriate. ] 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I absolutely understand your concerns here for the scammed people. However, we do not link to attack sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica, or to other mirrors of the information. An article here should discuss the event and its implications, not point fingers. - ]]] 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I agree. We have articles on ] and ], but that doesn't mean that we as an institution endorse cannibalism or white supremacy. We just have to be sure that the material is not presented in an unnecessarily salacious manner. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****There are complexities, but the difference is that in this instance, publicizing this situation makes us participants in ''compounding the precise harm'' that was intended to be caused here. ] 16:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *****Thats backwards and silly logic... by that measure/rationale this would have no article even if the matter went to Federal court level, just to not possibly cast a light back on the victims. Is wikipedia censored? ] 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Overturn, plenty of sources out there as per the above. Should have been a speedy keep in 20/20 hindsight. Since there are sources, I think that's an ''overriding reason'' to have this article. ] 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Shouldn't be a biography'''. Even if there is enough reliable material to write an article on the incident (and I'm not convinced of that), it still shouldn't be presented as a biography. We have neglible material on Jason Fortuny the person, and no evidence of notability aside from this event. At best, someone should write up the incident and redirect "Jason Fortuny" to it. ] 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Exactly, thank you. And the "where" int his case should, I feel, include more than just this one incident, because it ties in with other concerns. <b>]</b> 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Inspired by Guy's suggestion, I have added a section on ] including descriptions of the AOL search fiasco and Fortuny's incident. I invite others to add more cases. ] 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and relist''' It'll get deleted anyway, better to take it through the whole process. And anonymous users calling for bans of established users for being ] would be funny if it weren't so irritating. ] 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and redirect''' to the newly created ]. Eventually this may have enough meat for its own article, but I don't think we're there yet. ] 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *: I strongly support this for the reasons stated above: this is not about Jason Fortuny the person, it's about the Craigslist incident, and should be covered in the context of other notable privacy incidents. A redirect to that new section will be great. Also this demonstrates once again that Misplaced Pages is poorly suited to being at the cutting edge of reporting emerging events. Nor should we aspire to do so. <b>]</b> 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::''this is not about Jason Fortuny the person, it's about the Craigslist incident'' - Point taken. Though, like William P., I can foresee e.g. ]. Although... crystal-balling, and having spun in some circles where Jason Fortuny has left his wake, I also foresee that, unless some sort of serious penalty results (which it hasn't, yet), the "success" of this prank means it won't be the last mediaworthy incident from him. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Redirect''' as per William Pietri. I doubt that this will ever merit its own article though (reliable sources are a necessary but insufficient condition) unless Mr. Fortuny's village-idiot-of-the-week antics causes a change in law or something on that scale. ] 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I don't want to necessarily commit that a redirect should be to ] as opposed to a main article on the incident. But IMO it'll do as a resolution for now. BTW, and have since picked it up. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Television Coverage Now''' The Jason Fortuny story is now getting television news coverage. , and mirror. ] 10:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Why is this considered a ''Craigslist'' scandal? The invasion of privacy aspect of this incident occurred on Encyclopedia Dramatica. --] 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 14:44, 16 September 2006
| < September 10 | September 12 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
11 September 2006
Roni Lynn Deutch
This article was improperly deleted afer it was spammed for delete votes and an inflated consensus voted to delete. I think that the arguements come down to this, Roni Lynn Deutch is the head of a nationwide tax law firm that specializes in tax debt relief, her company has been around for almost 16 years. Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia, there are different standards for inclusion, people come here to research companies that they intend to use, like Jackson Hewitt, JK Harris & Company, LLC, Video Professor, Dell, and many other companies that use television ads. There are people who are going to want to know about Ronie Deutch and who will come to wikipedia and want to find out about her. This article was requested long before I even created it. And if every single pokemon character has their own wikipedia page, then why should Roni Deutch not have one? I am sure more people are going to want to know about Roni Deutch then about some unknown pokemon character. WP:BIO says "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." I would say she fits this requirement, her company was one of the first ones to provide offer in compromise services, and she has gained recognition for her work. Hundreds of blogs and forums talk about her, she has thousands of google results, she has a post about her in urban dictionary, and she even has a fan site. The article deletion discussion brought up good points, but then it was spammed for delete votes. If these votes had not been included then the article would have been no consesus. The admin who deleted it said that the votes did not change the outcome, but I disagree. Herostratus posted this at Famspear's talk page: "After deleting the article Roni Lynn Deutch, what did I find in the links but that you had spammed user tall pages regarding the AfD. If you had not done this, I would have deleted anyway, but now the deletion is tainted. There's every reason now for the article to go to deletion review where is should probably be relisted and start again. I'll make a note of this on the AfD page. This is pain because the article should not exist in my opinion. So don't do that. Herostratus 03:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)" Herostratus says that in his opinion the article should not exist, it seems that Herostratus let their opinion about Roni Deutch get in the way of judging the article fairly. After the vote spam was discovered there is no reason the article should not be overturned to a no consensus vote.
- speedy overturn I feel very strongly that this article was improperly deleted, I think that the decision should be changed to no consesus which is the decision that would have been reached had there not been vote spam.--mathewguiver 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- In what way was it not spam? Most of the article talked about her "pennies on the dollar" tax claim business. Guy 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here is the most recent AFD discussion, with deletion review closer's reference to the last deletion review and the prior AFD discussion. GRBerry 18:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Explanation
Dear fellow editors:
I have been asked to explain the criteria I used for choosing other editors to contact regarding the deletion of the Roni Lynn Deutch article. First, this is the message I sent:
- Dear fellow editor: Your input could be valuable regarding the article Roni Lynn Deutch at
- My personal view is that the article is pretty much an advertisement, even if the article wasn't put there by Ms. Deutch herself -- but you may have a different perspective. Yours,
I sent the above message to the following editors:
Coolcaesar
Peter Reilly
Psb 777
Bona Fides
Morphh
Robert A West
BD2412
Taxman
The criterion I used was that these are editors whose judgment I respect. With respect to some editors (Robert A West, BD2412, and Taxman) I have had extensive interaction with over the months. Others, such as Coolcaesar, Morphh and Psb 777, are ones with whom I have had mild disagreements, but whose opinions I respect. I edit mainly in the areas of articles on legal matters, especially taxation.
If any of these editors had any prior dealing with the Roni Deutch article, I am not aware of it. I also am not aware (or, was not aware until Herostratus brought it to my attention) that there is or might be a Misplaced Pages rule, guideline, etc., that does not allow an editor to inform other editors of a deletion discussion in this way.
When I called on these editors I certainly had a sense that each and every one of them was somewhat more likely than not to agree with my own assessment of the Roni Deutch article. This was based on the fact that in numerous edits to various articles, I perceived that our senses of judgment were similar. However, I had no way of knowing how any of these editors would actually vote in this particular case, or even whether they would be interested in voting.
Four of the eight editors I contacted did respond, and all did indeed vote the same way I did: delete. (Interestingly, DS1953, another editor whose work I respect also joined the fray and voted the same way, although I had not contacted DS1953.)
At any rate, I have informed fellow editor Herostratus that I will not do this again until and unless the issue of the propriety of this practice under the Misplaced Pages rules, etc., is somehow resolved. Also, regardless of what a consensus ultimately determines, I apologize to all Misplaced Pages editors for creating this problem with respect to the deletion of this article. Yours, Famspear 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment from closing admin. First of all, at least one of the Keep votes was a
puppetfirst-time editor. Second of all, forget the Delete votes at the end, whether improperly obtained or not. I would have closed the AfD as a Delete anyway because strength of argument is as important as raw numbers if not more so. The strength of argument was very clearly in favor of the Delete commentors. The Keep commentors argument was very weak, amounting basically to little more than "I saw her ads on TV". Finally, anyone with a personal interest in the subject who is arguing to keep this article around might do well to read WP:SNARK and reflect on the wisdom of being careful what you wish for. Herostratus 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- saying that the arguements to keep the article come down to just saying i've seen her ads on television is simply untrue. There are many arguements for why the article should be included from multiple editors. --mathewguiver 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, that was a bit over the top. The Delete arguments were still a deal stronger, though, in my opinion. Herostratus 02:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- saying that the arguements to keep the article come down to just saying i've seen her ads on television is simply untrue. There are many arguements for why the article should be included from multiple editors. --mathewguiver 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion I investigated the notifications by User:Famspear and find no evidence for "spam trolling", as detailed on User talk:Herostratus. I also asked Herostratus to retract the comments about Famspear's actions. I can't find any evidence that Herostratus had an opinion about the article prior to closing the AfD, but if evidence can be provided I might have to revert my opinion and endorse relisting. Absent this I have to assume that the "opinion" expressed is that of a closing admin and not of a biased editor. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see Herostratus has responded to this on his page. Septentrionalis 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah he apologized at User talk:Famspear. ~ trialsanderrors 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see Herostratus has responded to this on his page. Septentrionalis 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as individual appears to fail WP:BIO despite impressive self-promotion per Google. Seems to just-barely have a cultural presence due to TV ads (that I've never seen). --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Telling someone about a vote is not spamming unless there is some reason to believe that the people told have been selected as likely to agree with the asker; asking editors in good standing with reasonable judgment does not count. There seems no such claim here. I actually think that the keep argument "Her ads are well-known, someone may be curious." is non-trivial; but Herostratus is acting reasonably in holding it to be outweighed by our need to keep out advertising. Septentrionalis 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Famspear said above "When I called on these editors I certainly had a sense that each and every one of them was somewhat more likely than not to agree with my own assessment of the Roni Deutch article." That sounds to me like he selected people who were likely to agree with him.
- And his stated reason for this was that he thought his position reasonable, and therefore likely to appeal to other reasonable, knowledgeable, and experienced editors. I do not blame Herostratus for looking at the notes, but I would have judged differently. Septentrionalis 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Famspear said above "When I called on these editors I certainly had a sense that each and every one of them was somewhat more likely than not to agree with my own assessment of the Roni Deutch article." That sounds to me like he selected people who were likely to agree with him.
- Whatever. The vote-to-delete spam thing isn't what bothers me. I just think its unfortunate that we are wasting more disk space going back and forth about this when in actuality this person is notable (or "notable enough") for an encyclopedia aiming to be the complete sum of human knowledge. Has she done something earth shattering in the field of law? Maybe not. Is she well known, or perhaps more well known to the average person due to her unusual advertising campaigns? Would those same people come to Misplaced Pages to learn more about here? Probably so. And there, we fail. RFerreira 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be averse to it if you can actually draw up an article that isn't a transparent little gush piece. The problem is of course to sift through the piles of gunk and find the reliable sources. An exercise that already proved fruitless during the AfD. While this is certainly interesting background material it sadly doesn't qualify as "reliable". ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion of blatant spam, no prejudice against creation of a much better article if relible secondary sources can be found about the subject, not trivial passing mentions of her business. Needless to say blogs and urban dictionary are not reliable sources. Guy 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- comment I strongly agree with RFerreira. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia and it allows for many diverse articles. It seems very likely to me that a person would want to search wikipedia for information on Roni Deutch, remember from the first afd discussion that Roni Deutch was a requested article before I created it. Other similar articles are in wikipedia such as Jackson Hewitt and JK Harris & Company, LLC have wikipedia pages. If it comes to the text in the article, then why not edit it? And if the article isn't perfect now that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Articles do not need to be perfect to be included, they can get better over time as people contribute to it. --mathewguiver 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Kai Christophe Wong
This was deleted by a sysop under racist bias a copyright violation against the Asian-American actor and producer. Kai Wong has been on an Oscar-winning production team. Credits include film starring Naomi Watts and Kate Hudson. This is a valid wikipedia entry that should be kept, instead of being eliminated by a group of racist sysops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.13 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse This AfD looks like a pretty clear 'delete' to me, and according to the logs the article was a repost. Note that I'm not an admin, so I can't even see what the article was about; if you have new information that might persuade the AfD commentors to change their mind, please let us know in this DRV. --ais523 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse. The AfD is valid, and the subject's IMDB profile gives such gems as "man in courtroom (uncredited)". Completely unfounded allegations of racism against sysops is the icing on the cake. Guy 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Some unacceptable remarks from the nominator who was rightly warned by the closing admin. AfD is valid. Bwithh 16:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Note that while User:Blintz and I disagreed on attitude towards other editors, we both agreed (as did most others) that this article was a horrible piece of gunk. I also warned the nominator of this DRV to refrain from personal attacks. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Update 218.186.8.13 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week for making legal threats. ~ trialsanderrors 04:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse per JzG, valid AFD closure. RFerreira 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse why are anons allowed to do this? Danny Lilithborne 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because many anons are good faith contributors. Unfortunately, those that aren't tend to become more visible. Engaging in discussion is considered preferrable to limiting the rights of anonymous users. GRBerry 18:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
{{3di H1}}
This was deemed "useless" by the voters, however, the fact that this template is required by WP:IH was neglected. An IP nominated this, and it received 3 votes for deletion (one unsigned.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's still just as useless. This was a single use template with the single purpose of linking from Interstate H-201 back to Interstate H-1, an action better accomplished with a text link - like the one in the first paragraph. This setup makes sense when there is more than one auxiliary route - see Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) for an example - but it is ridiculous on I-H1. --SPUI (T - C) 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's required by WP:IH, and there are other templates that exist like this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television
When this article was put up for afd 1, it was closed with a no consensus. However, when similar afds for the closing logos of Columbia-Tristar and Tristar Television ended, they were deleted: Columbia-Tristar, Tristar TV. I have talked to the admin about this situation, and he said that I made a good case and that I should report it here, more details can be found at my talk page. In accordance to the 2 articles being deleted, I feel that the decision should be overturned to delete the Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television page as well. Renosecond 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure The one kept had a keep opiner (now unsigned, but originally not, see the history), the others didn't. That is a signficant difference in the AfD discussions. The discussion could have been relisted; relisting sometimes generates batches of comments simply because it has been relisted, but that is a discretionary action. No consensus results are essentially no precedent for further discussion. Additionally, the third linked AFD included in the nomination that that page was unneeded because this one existed, which is weak evidence of additional reason to keep this page. GRBerry 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure This is a no consensus closure, so can be sent back to AfD right away with the addditional evidence. We don't have to discuss this here. ~ trialsanderrors 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)