615:. It's irrelevant here AFD, but let's try a little thought experiment. It's 2050, and for whatever reason the subject of this article is going to be the subject of a PhD thesis (original research in action). How would the hypothetical PhD student research their thesis? They'd consult press and web archives, diaries, official documents, etc. Their paper would reference the Times, the Independent, diaries, an archive of Sawyer's blog if available, and similar material. Although it would be much longer, better written, and in a position to offer some broader context for the events, the hypothetical thesis would be based on exactly the same kind of sources as this article.
220:, and other participants' comments in that RfC, as well as recent threads on the notability policy pages for related discussion. In addition, it has been noted that this article's reports of unproven allegations raise WP:LIVING issues, and also that the proposed NOTNEWS guideline would also strongly support deletion. The "do no harm" test underlying WP:LIVING as applied to a non-notable person strongly supports deletion of this article, whose encyclopedic value is slight, as a matter of principle. It would be desirable for the community to have the opportunity to address this set of issues in a situation that is not wiki-notorious a la Brian Peppers and Daniel Brandt."
292:?) - the article needs a new name, certainly, but has notability via mention in several daily newspapers. I recall hearing about this back when it was still fresh, and I'm hardly a blogoholic. NPOV here is tricky, as to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Tofangsazan has not gone on the "official" record with his version of events, and I beleive it prudent to keep in mind that
883:- this article use to be terrible. Photos with dubious copyright status and probably violating BLP, OR, and other such stuff. I did my best to improve it, nominating the photos to be deleted & removing some of the worst content. But none of this changes the fact the person is not noteable, only the incident so we shouldn't have an article on the person anyway.
457:
semi-public and who has not apparently taken any steps to put himself into the public eye. This is a trivial little spat that got some column-inches on a slow newsday. Knowledge (XXG) is not WikiNews. The argument that we have to keep it because "it's an internet meme" also utterly fails to convince me. This has no place in the encyclopedia.
871:. Being an internet phenomenon does not necessarily mean that something is inherently notable, and neither does appearing in the news. This was in the news for a couple days nine months ago, there is no lasting significance. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be an encyclopedia, this article is not encyclopedic.
549:
per NY Brad, Makemi, Rossami, etc. A case of unremarkable people and unremarkable events. Please leave playing journalist to the people on
Wikinews. I entirely agree with Doc Glasgow that articles on living people where "alleged" or its variants need to be employed to explain the "notability" of the
515:
source I added to the article. I also added a link to a BBC source article, and there are more if anyone thinks that it is necessary to add more. I would appriciate it if someone added {{fact}} tags to anything in the article that looks dubiously sourced. I have looked at it too long to do this well
215:
as the original AfD and DRV nominator. From my prior statement: "This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living person. As noted in the article itself, the
Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this individual's life and
244:
per NYB sometimes we need to rise above the tendency to source count (and the sources here are bad anyway - and article which uses 'alleged' and 'claimed' as often as this one does should be speedy deleted anyway). With the powerful medium we are comes some responsibilities - the fact is that we
270:
once again. This is not encyclopedic, it's just a continuation of unfounded harrassment based on an unproven claim against a living person. We don't need to extend this ridiculous 15 minutes of fame piece. I see no reason to think this is of continued importance. The references are from a very
257:
WP:NOT vigilante justice. This is the sort of material which circulates in a tabloid for a week then ends up in the bottom of the bird cage.. where it belongs because it's just not encyclopedic. Maybe if people are still talking about it years from now it will be worth documenting, but it's a
456:
concerns at all is to ignore the plain wording of that policy. The question remaining is whether those concerns are outweighed by other considerations. In this case, I do not consider them to justify the continuation of this page. It is a hostile page written about a person who is at best
152:
Two early nominations came while the matter was still in the tabloids, and before the current version of WP:LIVING a/k/a WP:BLP was adopted, and this is a relisting of the third nomination because the reviewing administrator at DRV decided to relist for more community input (see above).
824:
Having said this, if this event happens to be discussed in an article describing its historical significance (if there is any), its significance to the study of
Internet memes, etc., I don't think I would object to including the information in those kinds of contexts.
185:
A trivial piece of malicious gossip. No way is this encyclopaedic. Its brief appearance in a few sections of the UK media for a couple of days last summer does not mean this is permanently notable or accurate (count the "allegedlys"). Utterly unworthy of this project.
820:, common sense indicates that we are not a directory of news stories, and if we have to cut off minor news stories this is a good place to start. The argument that the sources focus on the event, not the person, is also a good argument for not having an article
550:
subject should be speedily deleted, probably under G10. There's no deadline, and we can easily wait until allegations become facts, or not as the case may be, before publishing. It does a great deal of harm, to us and to the subjects, to include this egregious
709:
considerations. This may seem fascinating now, but in six months it'll be yesterday's news, and in ten years nobody will care except for the principals. If I'm wrong, and it continues to be relevant somehow in a year's time, we can write the article then.
393:. If it does, it seems borderline. The sources from the Google News Archive are mostly from the same week, and the ones which come later are one- or two- paragraph mentions which use it as a hook for articles whose main focus is digital privacy.
756:
And the first of the handful of sources dates from May 30, 2006, the last from June 3, 2006. There has been nothing subsequently. All of which suggests that this minor incident of alleged fraud didn't even make it to "nine day wonder" status.
360:
654:
Now, why would I say that. Well, the incident took place on eBay, and there is a section on eBay fraud in the article. So, what I would suggest is maybe merge the whole incident, condense to a few sentences and redirect the article to
597:- Claiming that the case is unremarkable is original research and a user's own POV. The fact that it has been reported by major news sources, and that it doesn't contravene any policy on Knowledge (XXG) makes it an acceptable article.
427:
According to its talk page, WP:NOTNEWS has support in principle. It is likely to pass in some form. Since
Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy, I think it's reasonable to apply a policy or guideline in advance of it actually
474:
This article does have a place in WP, but not under the name of the victim. (At least, the one whom I regard as the victim. It is NN to sell a defective computer. It is N to create a major web phenomenon out of
397:
requires multiple-paragraph coverage in distinct articles spanning multiple weeks. Can you point to any multiple=paragraph coverage of this after early June, 2006? The longest I can find is two paragraphs in
216:
we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at
414:
either. However this is not wikipeida policy, it is proposed policy. If it passes then this should definitely be revisited and I will support any deletion. The sources provided are sufficent to meet
308:- this is the fourth AFD for this article - it meets all the criteria for an article, there is no reason it should be deleted. As well as being notable in the media, it was a huge
198:. This doesn't seem to have gotten any media attention other than a few days in May... I can't buy that the alleged perpetrator of one count of small-time eBay fraud is notable. -
168:. There are no BLP concerns at work here, and it meets all of our standards. Given the amount of attention, no harm can be done by our article on it, so there's no problem. --
114:
125:
narrowly overturned, citing inadequate consideration of WP:BLP, and lack of extensive reasoning by the closer. The matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration.
497:. It doesn't do any harm, his name is all over the net without wikipedia already. The article is rather a chance to present all sides and aspects of the story. --
217:
675:
it. The incident might be notable, but this person ain't. Many people are using net justice to out bad eBay sellers and are getting attention from the news.
87:
82:
91:
74:
245:
don't need this trivial rubbish, and we are a better encyclopedia without it. BLP isn't just a rule to be applied - it is a mindset to be adopted.--
887:
875:
859:
850:
841:
829:
799:
778:
761:
740:
719:
697:
681:
665:
641:
622:
606:
589:
577:
561:
539:
520:
501:
481:
466:
432:
422:
405:
384:
371:
354:
341:
329:
300:
280:
262:
249:
236:
224:
207:
190:
177:
157:
147:
129:
56:
585:- an attack page masquerading as an encyclopedia article, as such violates BLP. Perhaps the incident is notable, but this person certainly isn't.
312:
which attracted millions of visitors. If this article were to be deleted, it would be a hypocritical double standard and other articles such as
338:
511:
It is noteable, not because it was an internet meme but because of the amount of press coverage, including editorial discussion, see
17:
337:. It is well referenced and there are dozens of other references that can be added from other British papers, if there is a need. --
837:
Doesn't the fact that this has been afd'd FOUR TIMES tell you there is no consensus?Let's stop wasting all our time on this one.
364:
346:
Could you cite those sources please? Most of us don't have access to UK news archives. I'm trying to see whether it would meet
902:
36:
78:
901:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
173:
70:
62:
816:
which is likely to gain consensus in a form that would support deleting this article. Even in the absence of
619:
558:
317:
297:
715:
638:
320:. This has nothing to do with vigilante justice, the article is neutral in tone and well sourced. Keep.
169:
246:
203:
258:
violation of our duty to make a determination of notability which may ultimately be self-fulfilling. --
817:
813:
529:
411:
394:
390:
368:
347:
233:
796:
309:
809:
767:
616:
555:
289:
856:
838:
711:
462:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
494:
275:
221:
199:
154:
50:
706:
690:
612:
551:
453:
415:
536:
517:
512:
419:
381:
377:
533:
884:
847:
826:
793:
676:
660:
429:
402:
351:
771:
775:
758:
694:
586:
574:
570:
490:
313:
293:
259:
187:
732:
598:
458:
321:
296:
was never convicted of any crime, either. Fifteen minutes of fame is still fame. --
139:
108:
138:: this is actually the fourth time this article has been nominated for deletion.
498:
272:
532:
which this does not furfil and does appear to be accepted in principle, as per
126:
812:, this article unfortunately passes muster. However, I'll apply the proposed
516:
myself. I have added some discussion to the talk page as to a suitable name.
218:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by
Newyorkbrad
633:
again. These formal relistings are becoming extremely tiresome. Do they
872:
477:
399:
380:(major UK broadsheet) and one from the BBC. This incident is noteable.
121:
This article survived a previous AfD with a no consensus closure.
895:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
804:
Same vote as last time, after looking at the sources provided: *
656:
649:
363:(which is pretty unique) at google news and some specific
122:
104:
100:
96:
731:
aware that the article is 9 months old, give or take?
846:
Did you read the respose to a similar comment above?
376:
I have added a couple more to the article, one from
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
905:). No further edits should be made to this page.
774:might be okay, but a lot of editors disagree. --
689:- Muliple independent published works. Passes
8:
48:The event is notable, the subject is not.--
232:- Notable as multiple reliable sources. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
389:I'm not convinced yet that it meets
24:
611:It's funny you should mention
339:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
452:. To say that there are no
707:biography of living persons
569:not notable enough for WP.
528:Withdrawn my Keep , due to
922:
888:19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
876:11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
860:21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
851:19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
842:01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
830:00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
800:20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
779:17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
772:WP:Notability is permanent
762:17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
741:16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
720:16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
698:02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
682:01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
666:01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
642:00:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
623:13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
607:12:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
590:11:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
578:11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
562:11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
540:15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
521:09:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
502:06:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
482:03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
467:00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
433:01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
423:00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
406:17:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
385:09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
372:02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
355:02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
342:00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
330:00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
316:, and in fact most of the
158:01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
148:00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
57:22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
301:23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
281:22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
263:21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
250:21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
237:20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
225:19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
208:19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
191:18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
178:18:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
130:18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
898:Please do not modify it.
489:. Like we also keep the
410:I do not think it meets
71:Amir Massoud Tofangsazan
63:Amir Massoud Tofangsazan
32:Please do not modify it.
318:Category:Internet_memes
770:to the WP:N guideline
361:search for his surname
359:There are 18 under a
554:-ignoring eyesore.
310:Internet Phenomenon
271:limited time-span.
808:. Strictly under
792:per Newyorkbrad.
680:
664:
465:
298:Action Jackson IV
176:
913:
900:
738:
736:
679:
663:
604:
602:
495:Green Helmet Guy
461:
327:
325:
278:
172:
145:
143:
112:
94:
53:
34:
921:
920:
916:
915:
914:
912:
911:
910:
909:
903:deletion review
896:
734:
733:
600:
599:
513:the independant
378:The Independent
323:
322:
276:
141:
140:
123:A DRV consensus
85:
69:
66:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
919:
917:
908:
907:
891:
890:
878:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
832:
822:at this title.
802:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
764:
746:
745:
744:
743:
700:
684:
677:User:Zscout370
669:
661:User:Zscout370
644:
627:
626:
625:
617:Angus McLellan
592:
580:
564:
556:Angus McLellan
544:
543:
542:
504:
484:
469:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
332:
303:
283:
265:
252:
239:
227:
210:
193:
180:
170:badlydrawnjeff
163:
162:
161:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
918:
906:
904:
899:
893:
892:
889:
886:
882:
879:
877:
874:
870:
867:
861:
858:
855:Yes, did you?
854:
853:
852:
849:
845:
844:
843:
840:
836:
833:
831:
828:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
801:
798:
795:
791:
788:
787:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
763:
760:
755:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
742:
739:
730:
726:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
708:
704:
701:
699:
696:
692:
688:
685:
683:
678:
674:
670:
668:
667:
662:
658:
653:
651:
645:
643:
640:
636:
634:
628:
624:
621:
618:
614:
610:
609:
608:
605:
596:
593:
591:
588:
584:
581:
579:
576:
572:
568:
565:
563:
560:
557:
553:
548:
545:
541:
538:
535:
531:
527:
524:
523:
522:
519:
514:
510:
509:
508:Keep but move
505:
503:
500:
496:
492:
491:Star Wars Kid
488:
485:
483:
480:
479:
473:
472:Keep but move
470:
468:
464:
460:
455:
451:
448:
434:
431:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
408:
407:
404:
401:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
356:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
333:
331:
328:
319:
315:
314:Bonsai Kitten
311:
307:
304:
302:
299:
295:
294:Richard Nixon
291:
288:(possibly to
287:
284:
282:
279:
274:
269:
266:
264:
261:
256:
253:
251:
248:
243:
240:
238:
235:
231:
228:
226:
223:
219:
214:
211:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
192:
189:
184:
183:Strong delete
181:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
159:
156:
151:
150:
149:
146:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
897:
894:
880:
868:
857:Sumoeagle179
839:Sumoeagle179
834:
821:
805:
789:
753:
728:
724:
712:Kelly Martin
702:
686:
672:
647:
646:
639:Tony Sidaway
632:
630:
594:
582:
566:
546:
525:
507:
506:
486:
476:
471:
449:
334:
305:
285:
267:
254:
241:
229:
212:
195:
182:
165:
135:
120:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
687:Strong Keep
671:Forget it,
637:succeed? --
335:Strong keep
306:Strong keep
230:Strong Keep
222:Newyorkbrad
200:FisherQueen
166:Strong keep
160:(nominator)
155:Newyorkbrad
818:WP:NOTNEWS
814:WP:NOTNEWS
537:GameKeeper
530:WP:NOTNEWS
518:GameKeeper
420:GameKeeper
412:WP:NOTNEWS
395:WP:NOTNEWS
391:WP:NOTNEWS
382:GameKeeper
350:criteria.
348:WP:NOTNEWS
290:Laptop Guy
885:Nil Einne
848:Nil Einne
810:WP:LIVING
794:Mackensen
768:WP:IGNORE
766:Applying
648:Merge to
369:J2thawiki
234:J2thawiki
827:Kla'quot
776:Oakshade
759:Folantin
695:Oakshade
587:Moreschi
575:Jpierreg
571:Jpierreg
534:Kla'quot
493:and the
430:Kla'quot
428:passing.
403:Kla'quot
400:Macleans
352:Kla'quot
260:Gmaxwell
188:Folantin
115:View log
754:Comment
725:comment
595:Comment
526:Comment
459:Rossami
365:uk ones
88:protect
83:history
46:Delete.
881:Delete
869:Delete
806:Delete
797:(talk)
790:Delete
737:facets
727:- you
703:Delete
691:WP:BIO
673:delete
631:Delete
620:(Talk)
613:WP:NOR
603:facets
583:Delete
567:Delete
559:(Talk)
552:WP:BLP
547:Delete
499:Tilman
463:(talk)
450:Delete
416:WP:BLP
326:facets
286:Rename
277:(talk)
268:Delete
255:Delete
242:Delete
213:Delete
196:Delete
144:facets
92:delete
52:§hanel
693:. --
127:Xoloz
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
835:Keep
716:talk
705:for
657:eBay
650:eBay
635:ever
487:Keep
475:it.)
204:Talk
174:talk
136:Note
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
873:Rje
729:are
478:DGG
454:BLP
273:Mak
247:Doc
113:– (
757:--
718:)
659:.
573:--
418:.
367:--
206:)
186:--
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
735:S
714:(
652:.
629:'
601:S
324:S
202:(
142:S
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.