Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgeous George (TV personality)

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 deleted as a non-notable biography. JDoorjam Talk 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgeous George (TV personality)

This is may be a vanity entry, particularly judging from the horrendously vandalized talk page. Either way, the subject is not notable. This is an entry repeatedly attacking and harrassing the subject of an Internet meme, a local access TV presenter who received prank calls on-air. The entry was protected due to repeated mean-spirited vandalism. We'd all be better off if it didn't exist. Chris Griswold 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Local public access call-in show is about as non-notable as you can get. Fan1967 20:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons.Sonic Hog 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you have done some reverts on the talk page. What on Earth has been going on there? --Chris Griswold 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone apparently George himself kept censoring or removing comments. He was doing the same to the article until it was put under protection. He just did it to your comment on the talk page..Sonic Hog 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There were also many anon ip's adding very nasty insults directed towards George.

He removed Chris' comment about notability, it's not just "insults" he is removing.Sonic Hog 22:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I see he removed my comment too :(. Lapinmies 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence of notability can be produced. Ace of Sevens 21:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Gorgeous George is a popular internet meme. I could compare George to John Daker, his popularity is also mostly negative. I have been looking at this article since it was created, and it definitely was not vanity, as the article was mostly insults. He has been featured on Ebaumsworld, Something Awful etc. so this is clearly one of the more popular memes. Lapinmies 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence (or at least an assertion) of notability can be produced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that it needs to be mentioned on the page that his show had been attacked by prank callers, and that as a popular target of malicious comedic enjoyment on the internet, the article warrants keeping. Soulsrocker 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Local public-access host, apparently made fun of on Something Awful forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable local public access host. Not vanity: the article was originally written by people attacking the subject, and after a complaint on OTRS, I removed the unsourced and offensive material, leaving the current content. The article and talk page have subsequently been vandalised by people wishing to re-add the material, and the subject has then blanked the talk page. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Thebainer. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep George is a subject of discussion on many internet forums, infamous among users of Something Awful and it should be documented in an appropriate manner. No opinionated slander, just the facts Plebmonk 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I would ask the editors voting to keep the entry to police its vandalism should the entry stay. --Chris Griswold 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lampooned on Something Awful, among other websites. --Takeel 23:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE= REQUESTED FROM GEORGE HIMSELF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.78.86 (talk • contribs) 13:28, June 10, 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not a factor in our decision. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • OH NO ! I THINK IT IS A BIG FACTOR!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.78.86 (talk • contribs) June 10, 2006 (UTC)

Typing in ALL CAPS is not going to help you with anythingSonic Hog 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I added an assertion of notability, for what it's worth. --Takeel 18:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At best a figure of minor notability, and his minor notability is mostly being attacked on Something Awful. He is (understandably) upset about becoming famous purely by being mocked by people he's never met. Basic decency says that we should remove the article of a borderline notable person who is actively disinterested in the grounds for their notability. Phil Sandifer 16:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough for an article here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy, snowball delete as nn-bio, and as an article written to disparage the subject, per Thebainer. JDoorjam Talk 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (edit conflict) Would you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia, if your only reason for notability was that some website made character attacks at you? If an article is borderlining non-notability and a potential legal battle, I think there is enough incentive to delete it.-- The ikiroid  16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Deleting an article solely because its subject demands it would be a bad precedent; it would encourage others to get all Daniel Brandt on us to try to manipulate our coverage. I'm not from the area where G.G. has his show, so I'm not prepared to pass judgment on its degree of notability (I've never heard of him or his show before now), but the deletion or not should be based on this rather than on his personal wishes. *Dan T.* 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And while I agree with keeping the Daniel Brandt article, I cannot help but notice that the precedent we set there made every admin on this site into a real-world target of anyone with a grudge. Phil Sandifer 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree - the principle is to keep the article if it's notable and encyclopedic, not to keep it just to prove that Wikipedia doesn't buckle to pressure. KWH 18:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with that; we should strive not to let grudges and personal feelings influence us either to keep or to delete an article where the encyclopedic course would be the opposite. Being human, we may not always follow this guideline (I suspect that in cases like this, a "reverse psychology" approach might work at manipulating Wikipedia editors -- if you really want the article on you kept, you should loudly and obnoxiously demand it be deleted, or vice versa), but it should at least be our stated goal. *Dan T.* 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jkelly 17:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A popular internet meme. I.e. a non-notable presenter with 15 minutes of fame who will be entirely forgotten when the power goes out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete', does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. If he was borderline notable (on an encyclopedic scale), and I don't think he is even that notable, I would lean towards delete due to the apparent harassment by Something Awful and its users. -- Kjkolb 07:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Admin request - Please look into and address the actions of User:Sonic Hog, who appears to be using Wikipedia's rules simply to harrass George on his entry and talk page. It's really kind of awful. --Chris Griswold 07:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see anything that User:Sonic Hog is doing wrong. Have you something specific in mind? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. —Ruud 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Ral315 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is not just an internet meme, it's gained notoriety because of George's outlandish show and the criticism. --Liface 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he's just as notable as most other internet memes. Chris Buckey 19:28, 12 June 2006 (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.