Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJ Marsicano

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

The result of the debate was userfy. —Cryptic (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CJ Marsicano

Looking back at the original article, it seems to be circulated around cover bands and “Bigg Trouble“, which when entered into google "Bigg Trouble cj marsicano" only returns results from posts cj marsicano has made on various sites and indeed his own personal websites. Perhaps an act of sock puppetry is responsible for this article?

It doesn’t seem as though this alleged “musician” is notable or relevant enough to warrant a Wiki article pertaining to them. Suspected "Vanity" article. (unsigned by Deathrocker, 09:12 21 December 2005 (UTC)) B.Wind 19:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I am the subject of this article, but certainly not its creator. As a matter of fact, it was my discovery of this when I googled my name (just my name - none of my old bands obviously have sites online) that led to my getting involved with Wikipedia as a contributor. I had some notoriety as part of the informational part of the dot-com boom, mainly with bigger and/or early sites related to sports entertainment, which is, I am guessing, what led to the article being created. I did add to some of my article at some point (somehow managing to keep an NPOV, thank you very much) but that's about it. I didn't link to any of my techno CD releases or create articles about them in order to avoid possible non-NPOV issues. I am flattered that this article was created about little old me, so honestly I would be quite offended if the article about me was deleted.

All that aside, I have reason to believe that this article is being nominated for deletion out of some sort of grudge. I questioned some of the heavyhanded recategorizing of sites I was monitoring by the person bringing up the article about me for deletion, User:Deathrocker, with an administrator that he had tangled with, as a cursory look at the individual's talk history, which he conveniently whites out on a regular basis, reveals that he has tangled in the past rather vehemently with those that disagree with him. I did choose not to bring anything up on his talk page given that fact, and chose to contact an admin in semi-private instead. I am not surprised, therefore, that Mr. Deathrocker, rather than contact me in private, chose to attack me in virtual public. I should think that there is some sort of Wikipedia guideline against this sort of thing (suggesting an item for deletion based on a grudge). --Cjmarsicano 16:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• This one's a close call. Had this been written by a third party and referenced, it probably would have been kept as the subject barely makes the notability bar with his ECW activities alone. But the original author of the article Downwiththebass seems to be the same person as Cjmarsicano as the former's sole contributions are this article and Francine Fournier, and two deletion votes. This makes it a vanity article. Lack of referencing hurts here, too. Weak delete and hope that it's recreated by a third party who will reference the stuffing out of it and keep the focus on the ECW activities as the later sections would indicate less notability, not more. B.Wind 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comments and a question or two.Let me state for the record that I am NOT Downwiththebass. I am more than willing to swear to that on the Bible... and I'm an agnostic!

Also for the record, as for further notablilty, that will probably be coming next year as I have two EPs and a single, all in the same techno vein as my first EP (which is out of print as a physical album but may be reissued.). I am well aware that Wikipedia isn't meant for promotional purposes, so I hope it's becoming more obvious that I am respecting what this site is for. I enjoy contributing here as a hobby and would hate for this debate to ruin that enjoyment.

"A third party to recreate..." Any volunteers? Is that possible? I don't want to feel like I'm comissioning an authorized biography or anything.

I would also like to request that if god forbid, this item is facing deletion, that it at least be instead moved to a subpage on my user page so that it is not lost. --Cjmarsicano 21:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete seems very likely to be a vanity article. As well as use of sock puppets to create it. - Deathrocker 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

CommentWith all due respect, haven't you had your say by nominating the article? --Cjmarsicano 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite if need be. The guy exists and is verifiable by the accepted means. Jcuk 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep. Borderline as far as the notability guidelines qare concerned, and may need trimming as an article. If the outcome of this discussion is not to keep, then it would make sense to userfy rather than delete (hell, if I've got a "non-article" about myself in my user pages, there's no reason why CJ shouldn't have). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Response. By all means, if you think it needs trimming, trim it. Hell, I'd gladly take the Wiki-Xacto knife to it myself since I have a good idea as to what other comments here feel is too much information. Much respect. Besides, if we end up userfying the article and I end up a little more noteworthy later on, I'd hate to put WikiPedia through the pain of having to unuserfy the article. ;)

While I have the floor, I have to say that it's funny, I've been listed as a Notable WikiPedian (aw, shucks -- so I made mention of that on my user page) for several months now and nothing's been brought up questioning it until now. Pretty cool to see my name on the same list as Roger Ebert, Leo Laporte and Phiber Optik. --Cjmarsicano 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment nobody is "attacking" anybody by the way, just been a good Wikipedian by trying to keep things encyclopaedic and keep articles that violate Wiki regulations out. :) - Deathrocker 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Response I understand that, and I would like to give you the full benefit of the doubt, but the coincidence between the inquiry I made with an admin yesterday about your wholesale renaming of an entire musical category plus your past questionable activity is a tad glaring. No beef from this end at present though, as my guard was up about you just as much as yours was about me. --Cjmarsicano 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. These unreferenced claims about writing for "one of the most popular wrestling newsletters" don't really meet WP:BIO for me. If it's kept, someone needs to delete all of the nonsense about his personal weblogs, music projects, and voting record(!). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There's only one problem with that... those music projects of mine do indeed exist. I agree that the rest needs to be trimmed out into some sort of "Etc." subsection. Reminder: I didn't write the original article. --Cjmarsicano 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

They are not encyclopedic. You are not a noteworthy musician, and this information is of little interest to anyone who isn't you or one of your friends or relations. Even if this article is retained (and I'd rather not see it kept), it should not be filled with trivia irrelevant to your claim to notariety (save for standard biographical info).
Take a look at Jimmy Carter; save for the (standard for a public figure) information about his childhood, the article is about his political and diplomatic life, not his hobbies or other trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• You know what? F*ck it. I'll probably end up userfying the damn thing by tomorrow myself just so we can all move on to other matters. --Cjmarsicano 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Absent references, that would be the best option without having a neutral third party rewrite this from scratch. At least the latter option would still survive if the article is userfied. B.Wind 17:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Finally, a voice of reason other than my own and Grutness'. I think that's exactly what I'm going to do right now. --Cjmarsicano 17:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• The end. Article reluctantly userfyed. Thanks to the few that had the wisdom to support. To the rest... have a rotten holiday season. --Cjmarsicano 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.