Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Tofangsazan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Tofangsazan

Prod disupted on talk page. This is a non-notable "meme" (I counted 12 Google hits) centered around a buyer's revenge story. While some of these stories achieve sufficient notability by virtue of their creativity and execution (i.e., "P-P-P-Powerbook" and "scam the 411 scammer" stories), there's nothing particularly notable about this one; in fact, it's little more than an attack of the seller via dissemination of personal information. It seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to further promote a short-lived blog subject that is losing steam. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • As the original author of the page, I obviously feel that the meme is of sufficient notability to have a place in Wikipedia. The internet meme is exceedingly difficult to assess regarding notability. However, according to the guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MEME), the creativity involved is not a determiner in a meme's notability. Even so, if you look at the web page started by the buyer, there is a modicum of creativity involved anyway. The fact that it's an attack via the dissemination of information is not a determiner either - it may be wrong, it may be childish, but it's still notable. The main reasons I feel that it's notable are, however, the coverage it has received in the UK and Irish press (linked in the article), covered by national newspapers and on the radio. I don't understand the assertion that the blog is losing steam, stated on the very day it receives such coverage in the national papers. For this and the reasons above, I believe the item is of sufficient notability. Blaise Joshua 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The blog that outlines this has been mentioned on the BBC, by the newspapers both here in the UK and in other countries, and the blog has also clocked up over a million hits. This is not just about the google test(which, incidentally, since it's last algorithm update, seems, to me, to be returning a lot of junk links quite frequently, google is only indicative, it should not be the only criterion) --Cal 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The name completely fails the Google test, bringing up just NINE total (not unique- total) hits. Notability for a newsmaker can be established by citing multiple reliable sources relating to separate events, and one article in a tabloid does not meet the criteria. -- Kicking222 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above digital_me(t/c) 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (sorry - I think I should have added that earlier). Just a note guys - I just tried the Google test for myself. You're quite right - a search on "Amir Tofangsazan" returns hardly any hits, but a search on "Amir Moussoud Tofangsazan" (the poor guy's full name) got 145 hits on my count, and a search of Amir and eBay produces 245,000 hits, which are obviously not all related to this particular meme, but there were specific hits down as far as page 10 (after that I stopped checking). Therefore, depending on your search terms, I don't think it fails the Google test at all. Maybe I've named the article poorly. Blaise Joshua 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just one last point - I just tried entering the search words Amir, laptop and eBay. This got almost 25,000 hits, and from this entry you can see how well represented this story is on the internet. Blaise Joshua 21:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Whether the blog this meme satirizes is notable or not is irrelevant; I don't automatically become notable if I satirize George Bush. Beyond that, I don't know what Google methodology the author's using, but "Amir Massoud Tofangsazan" as an exact phrase gets 40 unique hits. [1] (Of course Googling and/ors on each name will get a pile of hits.) RGTraynor 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: this seems to be gaining momentum. It was mentioned on Digg today [2], on Bluesnews [3], and Consumerist [4]. Googling for the exact phrase "the broken laptop I sold on ebay" gets over 700 hits [5]. Similarly a google for "amir sold laptop" [6] finds several pages of hits. I think this is a meme in its ascendant phase (I'd bet it'll be on Slashdot tomorrow and Wired by Friday) - that doesn't mean it really meets WP:MEME right now. It's unfortunate that we're in AfD right now - in a week we'd have clarity as to its fate. If we delete it and it does turn out to be notable, we're stuck in the hideous deletion-review process. Equally if we keep and it peaks before the WP:MEME threshold, it's hard to AfD again (for the same reason) for a month or two. So I'm not expressing a view right now, and personally I'd prefer we adjourn this AfD discussion for 7 days. Middenface 15:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from nominator I'm not against adjournment, given that the story appears to be receiving much more media attention than I initially thought. While I'm against this sort of thing in principle (we're only getting one side of the story, and the seller has been "convicted" without a trial), I can't deny the notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The original blog has received over a million hits in a week.130.154.0.250 17:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Jamie - I agree that the article, as it stands, only presents one side of the story, but this is a problem that can be rectified and certainly doesn't warrant deletion on the grounds of being non-notable. There are bound to be press reports stating Amir's side of the story - we can put these in to make it more balanced. Unfortunately for Amir, however, from what I've been reading on blogs most people are sympathetic to the buyer of the laptop, probably ones who have been done on eBay! Blaise Joshua 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well, I've been screwed both ways on eBay; by unscrupulous sellers and surprisingly by a buyer (who filed bogus complaints against me to try to weasel out of paying for items that UPS tracking said were delivered; fortunately, I prevailed in that one, but it was a huge pain). On the other hand, I think the P-P-P-Powerbook story is great, though in that one it's undeniable that a scam was going on. This case is a little different because it's not entirely clear if there was a scam going on; it may be that the laptop was damaged (or just died) in transit, and the seller was slow to respond to the complaint. Brian Peppers is an example of a precedent where the subject was notable yet ultimately Jimbo kaboshed the article for other reasons (at least temporarily). OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Let's wait and see how this whole thing turns out. Might be a real precident case here, in the times we live in, scaming on eBay is a very serious internet problem. --HamstaHuey 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's just appeared as part of a serious discussion of the legal implications of how 'Tougher libel laws may be needed to combat cyber vigilantes, lawyers warn' in The Times of 31 May.
  • Keep This is the true 'one man does good story'. Far too many of us have been scammed over the years by the faceless, nameless, untouchable individual....well frankly this story is one many of us can relate to in terms of 'appropriate' revenge. The victim of the fraud has never advocated violence, racism or any similar inappropriate behaviour. Instead given the information they had they very reasonably just asked the perp to reimburse them for the amount of the fraud and the matter would end there. Instead the perp mocked the victim, accused the victim of being a paedophile, threatened them with violence and called them a liar. The weight of evidence available shows the victim gave the perp every opportunity to 'make good' before they posted the story. The biggest reason to keep this entry is because it's now become a global story inside 2 weeks, and in my opinion the reason for that is because so many of us can relate to it as we've been the victim.

keep it


  • remove I've only seen the 'blog' once. I think the concept of 'internet revenge' is a common theme on the net. I don't think this one incident pervades our culture enough to be condsidered a 'meme'. I'd consider it a meme when the Tshirts and spoof sites of it come out such as 'Amir sold me a photocopier that didn't work but it had an ass copy stuck in the mechanisms' I'd like to see a fake blog made about the 'revenge buyer' going My name is .... and I got suckered into buying a crappy laptop and instead of resorting to the eBay dispute resolution process, I had a hissy fit and scanned the drive for personal information. Don't these people know they're supposed to PGP their drives! AMATEURS! I guess I will never work again because by now my name has been googlebombed a million times and every HR person will think I'm a big fat loser who sits at computer day and night. At least Amir has some friends in his pictures, and is photogenic enough to pose semi nude, unlike myself."
  • Weak Keep - As a few people have already said, it is quite notable with all those media sites have posted it. - Ðra
  • Keep This whole thing has now been reached by media outside the internet (the Sun, the Daily Mail, the BBC, ITV (in the UK) and others) and is propogating all over the world on various news sites across multiple countries. The original blog site now has over 2 million hits. I think it has "sufficient notability" now. It's now just a case of making the article NPOV.Neilius 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and 'redirect' to Amir Massoud Tofangsazan, an earlier more complete article. Sfacets 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article needs updating, namely, by naming the disgruntled buyer, Thomas Sawyer, 23, Exeter. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=409510&in_page_id=2

This article should be kept. This has been an internet phenomenon. It would be a bit like removing an article about the launch of the Ipod. The subject matter is of less importance than the event itself in my opinion... Keep it.

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. It's definitely not encyclopedia material. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 3 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Amir_Tofangsazan_a73d.html"