Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dixie Randock

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dixie Randock

This appears to be a self-promotional CV for a real estate agent who is marketing a line of training courses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as ad. (nominator's vote) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm...reading the other comments about her running diploma mills almost makes me want to keep an NPOV treatment of her career as an object lesson in the dangers of self-promotion on Wikipedia...almost. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Per Jimbo's remarks below, it seems she isn't even possibly noteworthy for a relationship with diploma mills. My delete as non-notable self-promotion stands.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral this is an advert. However we may be able to NPOV it.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not only because it is an advertisement, but also because the "school" (and it's founder by extension) is non-notable. - Thatdog 00:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. She's been accused of operating a series of diploma mills. She has some notability through notoriety. Pburka 03:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete : NN/Vanity --Ragib 04:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article by a woman who allegedly runs diploma mills, and has already made legal threats against another Wikipedia editor. Rhobite 04:24, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a NPOV version of her biography, or merge it with Saint Regis University, the diploma mill she runs. This and its various allied "universities" appear rather notorious in this business and get several hits on news sites in connection with fake degree scandals. As we have articles on several of these interconnected Liberia-registered diploma mills, I find it completely reasonable to have articles on the people who actually run the scam. (If this exposes Wikipedia to the risk of being sued, I suggest we should let Jimbo take a decision on whether this is a significant enough risk to desist from writing about her.) Tupsharru 06:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based on comment by Jimbo Wales below. Tupsharru 11:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Running a diploma mill isn't much of a personal accomplishment. The diploma mill might be worth an article, but not the proprietor. --Calton | Talk 06:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not an expert on this, but as I understand it, these diploma mills are rather ephemeral entities; as soon as one name gets too compromised, the business moves over to another one. They also work in fake "networks", complete with their own accreditation organizations, as a way of falsely reinforcing the image of respectability they strive to maintain. If anything, I would suggest an article on the proprietors is more motivated, whenever they may be identified, and we should have the various diploma mills and other scams they have been running merged and redirected to the biography. That would have the additional advantage of making monitoring for POV edits easier. Tupsharru 07:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The owner is not notable. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Kurt Weber 17:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The diploma mill is noteworthy. The owner isn't. --Carnildo 19:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Diploma_mill. --Alan Au 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Diploma mill. This is a vanity page. It should not be here but if the creator wants to have a page, it should redirect to a page that seems to fit what she allegedly does. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete - It appears to me that this person is a victim of mistaken identity. She has offered to send a copy of the settlement of the lawsuit, which she says acknowledges that her being named in it was an error: "As far as I can tell my name appeared in a domain registration a few years ago, of which I had no ownership. I owned a web hosting company and I believe that at one time an employee used my credit card to register a customer's domain. The information was corrected (about a week later) but ever since my name appeared on a domain I do not own I have been harassed, stalked, defamed and even threatened by certain misinformed individuals." I think based on this that she's clearly a victim of circumstances, and otherwise non-notable but respectable person. --Jimbo Wales 11:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity - Tεxτurε 16:57, 3 August 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.