Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar (2nd nomination)

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 all redirected to Daily Kos and protected. There is a significant majority here who support deletion, redirection and/or merging, and as there is already content on Armando in Daily Kos I see that as sufficient consensus for the redirect. This article is so light on content of interest to those outside the blogosphere, with the only claims to outside recognition being a few radio appearances, that I see neither convincing reasons nor overwhelming majority opinion to keep this article against its subject's wishes.

The subject's objection to this article does not influence my decision - but I do suspect that, given the extreme lack of substance to this article, the generation of so much hot air (or impassioned discussion, if you prefer) towards getting this article kept on its own partly arises from a backlash against his agitation.

The continued existence of Armando Lloréns-Sar as a redirect may be a privacy issue, however this AfD has not sufficiently addressed that issue to support a deletion of that redirect, so if deletion of that redirect is desired it should be taken to redirects for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armando (Blogger), Armando Lloréns-Sar, Armando (blogger)

OK, this is as a follow-up to the 1st nomination (edited to include last unblanked version) which was brought up for review. The review was unanimous in favor of overturning/relisting, as far as I can tell, but was not properly closed but removed as moribund (review here). ~ trialsanderrors 01:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary: [Full professional name] is the blogger Armando on Daily Kos and as such was deemed notable by most editors. The issue revolved around privacy because WP seemingly was used to spread private information on Armando. After new evidence on public appearances was posted this became moot, and can be traced now from various 1 1/2 news articles. So the question that remains for the community to find consensus on is:

1. Is Armando as a blogger notable?
2. Would it be better to merge or redirect to Daily Kos and add the news story there?
3. Should this be deleted outright?

I'm recusing myself from the debate, but mention that "[FULL NAME] and variants don't pass my T&E:510 test. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE After User:Hipocrite's unilateral action, the question becomes: Should this article be kept as a stand-alone, either at Armando Lloréns-Sar or at Armando (blogger) (note correct capitalization), should it be redirected with or without merging any current or prior content to Daily Kos, or should both versions be deleted outright? ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• NOTE: I have renamed the article and the AFD to comply with WP:BLP Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Only 315 Google results--TBCTaLk?!? 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (posted prior to finishing nomination ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment Try searching on armando (dailykos OR 'daily kos') instead. 349,000 hits? That's notable. Dori 03:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The Google Test doesn't work well when dealing with bloggers and online personalities. In Armando's case, nearly all of the references are from other political blogs and after the first 5 pages, all of them seem to be from the Daily Kos website itself. Maximusveritas 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Then try armando (dailykos OR 'daily kos') -site:dailykos.com. The result is 149,000 pages not on dailykos. Again, I think that that counts as notable. Dori 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Daily Kos; there doesn't seem to be enough independent of that site to warrant separate inclusion. Ziggurat 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RPA. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 02:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge to the Daily Kos page. Not enough notability by himself Bwithh 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If he's enough of a public figure that he's asked to talk about politics on NPR and Majority Report Radio [1] and at Stanford [2], then he should have an article. Dori 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Majority Radio airs on Air America not NPR. They seem only to be interested in this guy for his Kos connection. The majority of speakers listed for the Stanford conference are not notable enough for Wikipedia and armando is not listed as a lead speaker. Bwithh 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I didn't say that Majority Radio aired on NPR. I said he'd been on both The Majority Report and NPR [3]. I couldn't find a good link for the latter, so I didn't include it. It's still weak, although sufficient to show that he has talked on both. But I never claimed the two were related. Dori 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It should be noted that Armando is given a lower billing at that conference panel than a law school student. In all 3 of his public appearances, he is there in his capacity as a blogger at Daily Kos. Now that he's no longer a blogger, are we really going to assert that a couple years of contributing at a blog and a couple panel appearances on radio are enough to establish notability? Maximusveritas 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Why wouldn't we? I don't understand this argument, can you explain? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm questioning whether "a couple years of contributing at a blog and a couple panel appearances on radio" is enough to establish notability. It does not satisfy any of the criteria set out by WP:BIO. As I noted down below, Armando wasn't even mentioned in the Daily Kos article prior to this incident. The separate article on him was created solely for the purpose of further publicizing his identity and hurting him. I fail to see any reasonable argument for why this article should be kept. Maximusveritas 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Consider New Republic article cited below. ~ trialsanderrors 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, but even that article discusses him only in relation to the Daily Kos site/convention. I think that's good enough to establish his notability on the Daily Kos page, but not enough for his own page. Also, WP:BIO does generally ask for "multiple" independent articles. Maximusveritas 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
              • OK, your call on how to evaluate the sources. You just did not seem to take it into account. ~ trialsanderrors 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
                • Yeah, I had forgotten about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Maximusveritas 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment And after only about two hours, User:Guettarda has deleted the contents of the article. Well that didn't last long. Dori 03:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It was an attack article, so it was speedyable. In addition, it was not deleted, it was a redirect. There's nothing wrong with reverting it to a redirect. There's nothing for AFD. Guettarda 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh? I'm not familiar with the subject and I haven't been involved with the previous discussions, but (even though I agree that it isn't notable) I don't really see how the previous version was an attack page. [4] Could someone clarify this for me?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • • The page was used to "out" the subject, connecting his real-life identity with his username on dKos. He had worked to keep his real-life identity separate from his blogging. Once the page was created, being Wikipedia it became highly visible. It was then picked up by NRO. Since he saw it as a threat to his livelihood, he quit blogging. Using a Wikipedia article to "out" someone and threaten their livelihood is clearly an attack. It should have been speedy'd when it first appeared. Guettarda 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It is my understanding that the subject of the article, User:armandoatdailykos, wanted it deleted. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If you feel like it you can read the whole story on the 1st nomination page. If you want the short version, the original editor used publicly available information to link ALS the lawyer to Armando the (then anonymous) blogger. The consensus was in favor of Speedy/Delete until it turned out that Armando the blogger had on two prior public speaking occasions identified himself as ALS the lawyer. After that there was no strong reason to delete and the majority voted for keep, more or less ignoring the Notability question. The closing admin deleted because the page was blanked and protected by User:Guettarda. ~ trialsanderrors 04:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • This reminds me of the Tron naming controversy that occured at the German Wikipedia, which revealed the identity of a hacker called Tron against the wishes of his parents. Even so, the article was kept in the end (which also resulted in a temporary restraining order in a Berlin court against Wikimedia Foundation).--TBCTaLk?!? 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - attack article that was used to drive him to quit blogging. It's a disgrace that Wikipedia is used for this purpose. Guettarda 04:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The AfD review ended in 3 Overturn action, Endorse result, and revert to last unblanked version, 3 Relist, an admission by the closing administrator that he deleted in error, and the restoration of the edit history. You're clearly acting against community consensus here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Aren't we forming a new community consensus now? I agree with Guettarda, per WP:RPA. This material would not be tolerated in user or talk space, and we are far more liberal about what we allow there. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Reverting to the redirect is against community consensus. Please explain what you consider PA in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • To begin with, no it is not. Anyone can edit an article. There is nothing that says that you cannot change an article back to a redirect. It is patently false to claim that it is "community consensus" that the article should not be a redirect. The majority opinion expressed was to delete the article; merge had substantial support. Few people have expressed the opinion that the article should be anything more than a redirect. It's ridiculous to claim that minority view represents "consensus". Guettarda 05:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I just noticed now that you left the AfD tag up on your second revert, so I strike the part above. The consensus referred to the review, not the 1st AfD. The 1st AfD was a clear no consensus, but also with a clear drift towards Keep after the revelation of the 2 sources. ~ trialsanderrors 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two links from the 1st nomination for reference: Begin quote

Reference to Armando Llorens as guest blogger on Daily Kos at the Stanford Law School's "The Bay Area Law School Technology Conference" speakers page.

Reference to "Mr. ARMANDO LLORENS (Daily Kos)" at NPR Transcripts search page. Transcript available for purchase.

--Guest458 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

End quote ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are not acceptable for biograpies of living people. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Stanford is the secondary source, since they clearly did not make up the bio stub. The primary source is Armando himself. ~ trialsanderrors 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change the basic fact that the article is an attack article that was used to threaten the livelihood of the subject. It doesn't change the fact that it's disgraceful that Wikipedia should be used in such a way. It doesn't change that fact that using Wikipedia in such a way hurts the project because it earns us additional ill-will and fodder for our critics. Just because we can have an article on a subject doesn't mean that we should have that article. It isn't acceptable to use Wikipedia as a tool for harrassment and threats. Guettarda 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, a similar issue happened last year in the Tron naming controversy, where an article was kept by the Wikimedia foundation even though it contained personal information on the subject (such as the hacker's real name). I believe that Wikipedia's response to that situation should be applied to this situation. However, if this article is to be deleted, in my opinion it should be because of the WP:BIO guideline, not WP:RPA --TBCTaLk?!? 05:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC Tron was a. underage and b. did not personally reveal his full name? ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tron was underaged and his full name was revealed in a Wikipedia article, against the wishes of his parents and the ruling of a Berlin court (until the ruling was later overturned).--TBCTaLk?!? 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tron is also not a living person (he died in 1998) so WP:BLP doesn't apply to him. Phr (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as it fails WP:BIO per arguments above. Keep read some more about it, appears to be notable. Whether or not the article was used to "out" someone in the past is irrelevant to the present incarnation of the article; whether it was right or wrong, it's in the past, and deleting the article isn't going to change it. Excluding information for this reason will, moreover, impose unnecessary limits on Wikipedia. If properly sourced, I see no reason for excluding such information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a moral statement. ikh (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) *Merge (aka, retain as redirect to Daily Kos). Fails WP:BIO except in conjunction with Daily Kos. WP:RPA clearly does not apply. (At this point, those who read the first AfD and still believe that Wikipedia is the source of the "outing" do not deserve WP:AGF. I'm not naming names, but it was clearly revealed that he was outed before the date of the article (if everything was undeleted).) WP:BLP suggests we need to watch the article carefully for relevance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:BIO. Highly notable blogger providing it is verifiable which it seems to be. I have no problems with Wikipedia providing publicly available information on significant bloggers providing it meets our verifiability standards which it seems to do. Capitalistroadster 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • agreed (thats a keep btw)  ALKIVAR™ 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. This meets verifiability standards, period. WP is not censored, etc, and having his name out there certainly doesn't violate any laws. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Passes WP:BIO, not legally defamatory. Tevildo 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. While I personally don't think bloggers are notable at all unless they are published in real media, there is certainly nothing in this article that can't go into Daily Kos. What is said there about "Armando" is all that needs to be said. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Arthur Rubin, Aguerriero. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect without any Merge of any data. The info on Armando on the Daily KOS article is sufficient. •Jim62sch• 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• redirect Boldly done already. People who disagree are directed to WP:BLP, which they will follow, or be blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What part of BLP does this comply with? I see nothing to suggest in the guideline that this change makes sense, nor do I see anything that would allow anyone to be "blocked" due to a disagreement regarding your interpretation of a guideline, not a policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • BLP reads, in part "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above)." WP:BLP has wide consensus. If you fail to follow it, you will almost certainly be blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is fine, and your change eliminates plenty that is relevant to his nobility. As noted elsewhere, the blocking policy concerning this type of threat, which is the part you should focus on, states that "[e]ditors who repeatedly insert critical material into the biography of a living person (or its talk page), or into a section about a living person in another article (or its talk page), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy if, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the material is unsourced, or incorrectly sourced, and may constitute defamation." Mentioning who Armando is in the title and sourcing the information about National Review, a major publication, outing him violates nothing, and I believe your threats are entirely without merit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • 1. Neither the print nor online versions of National Review has used his name - only their low-readership media blog.
          • Which is an extension of the magazine. Regardless, his full name is still in the WP entry, and has been used in association with the blog in numerous other places besides that, such as NPR. It's certainly not a secret, nor does it fall under any sort of "defamation." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • 2. I refer specifically to information designed to harm the individuals career - his employer, for instance. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Irrelevant to this discussion. A Wikipedia entry that mentions a sourced situation which has been out in the open for weeks now has absolutely no danger in harming his career. Armando's use of his name in attachment to his appearances on the radio, for instance, did not supposedly harm his career. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
            • It is not established that he used his full name on the radio on purpose, or gave it to the radio show in confidence and they released it without checking with him first. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • 3. Further, it would be disruption to consistantly violate the other sections of WP:BLP - specifically, the part about "primary sources" and that you can't use them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • We're not using any primary sources, either, so this point is moot. A primary source would be, as an example, the link to Armando's law firm that has his name, picture, and contact information without attribution to the fact that he's been outed. A secontdary source would be NRO mentioning which law firm he works at. The third party information is the NRO information, the NPR link, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ziggurat. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Er, was there some sort of controversy surrounding the redirect that stood for about 8 days without reversion? I think going back to the Redirect to Daily Kos is the best idea.--Isotope23 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That eight days was during the deletion review, so it's not relevant. Dori 21:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, ah, so there was some sort of controversy. Interesting... doesn't change my opinion though... redirect is sufficient because subject is right on the line of WP:BIO.--Isotope23 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because he's notable enough. Thumbelina 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on comment by Capitalistroadster, this person is notable. Yamaguchi先生 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge anything useful. This person appears well-known for association with Daily Kos, but any post-Kos notability seems unverifiable, and WP is not a crystal ball. --DaveG12345 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge to Daily Kos --Ragib 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. —Xyrael _{/ 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)} 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge anything notable and verifiable to Daily Kos, per above. Jim Butler^(talk) 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons enumerated above. --Myles Long 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge. As I mentioned on the previous AfD, Armando wasn't even mentioned in the Daily Kos article prior to this incident. His only claim to fame is as a former contributor to the Daily Kos website. After this incident, it is appropriate to mention him in that article, but he is certainly not notable enough for his own page. Maximusveritas 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment New Republic write-up on Yearly Kos and the controversy subscriber link, Google cache:

But someone is missing: Armando. A favorite blogger and foreign policy wonk, Armando earned the privilege of posting on the front page of Daily Kos. But, before the festivities began in Las Vegas, National Review Online revealed this hero of the liberal blogosphere to be Armando Lloréns-Sar, a corporate lawyer in Puerto Rico who has represented Wal-Mart and Clorox. Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website, his unmasking sent shockwaves through the Daily Kos community and led Lloréns-Sar to quit the site--and, according to bloggers here, cancel his appearance at the convention, lest his pastime create a conflict for his employers. ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to highlight a section, as this is from a third party source for those confused: "Even though this information is a matter of public record, and even though Lloréns-Sar's picture and affiliation are listed on his firm's website..." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is incidentally the same as on his TPMCafe profile. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I don't think Armando's affiliation with Daily Kos was listed on his law firm's web site, just like your affiliation with Wikipedia is probably not listed on your firm's web site. If someone managed to connect your Wikipedia handle back to your real-world name and workpace, I don't think you'd want it posted here, if that helps you understand this situation a little better. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per badlydrawnjeff. The claim that this article somehow violates WP:BLP is completely without merit, Lloréns-Sar has repeatedly gone on record as the same Armando who posted on Daily Kos. Silensor 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is even one example known where he (Armando himself) went on record as the same Armando who posted on Daily Kos? The sources cited so far seem to be from third parties who had access to the info and revealed it, possibly without realizing that it was supposed to be private. I.e. suppose I interview you on TV as "Silensor" and you give me your real name privately before the taping starts, but then somehow your real name shows up on the TV station's web site--have you gone on the record as being the same Silensor who edits Wikipedia? I'd say you haven't. Phr (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Stanford link I included above [5] appears to satisfy this. Conference speakers virtually always supply their own biography, and if he didn't want it used I think he would have said something to them in the last 14 months. The alternative is that Stanford was able to do their own research and come up with that bio back in April 2005, which I think is less likely. Dori 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems to be notable enough. bbx 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. — Dunc|☺ 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Armando is a notable blogger with a high profile by virtue of his Daily Kos posts and his full name was publicly known on NPR and other major media, in some cases by his own volition. Calling it an attack page is a misrepresentation. Rcade
• Delete. Non-notable outside the context of Daily Kos. I would say merge but there doesn't look like anything here to merge except a single mention in the Daily Kos article that he is one of their contributors. KleenupKrew 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the various arguments of badlydrawnjeff. ScottW 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this person is important and meets bio requirements too Yuckfoo 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He was not really a notable blogger on Daily Kos eventhough Daily Kos is a notable blog. He is not neccesarily notable because he used to blog there. Not all former writers for the New York Times or Washington Post are considered notable. Beyond the Daily Kos service he fails to meet the standards listed in WP:BIO. --Strothra 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, barely ekes out notability by association to Daily Kos. Any other notability in media stems from that, not vice versa. KWH 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Delete. Per comments section, it seems like this article was originally created as part of the attempt to "out" this person, and the subsequent events since outing do not confer notability. Also a bit shameful on Wikipedia, I believe, we ought to have learned how to manage these things in a bit more sensitive manner by now. KWH 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, really should speedy, the article barely asserts notability. It says the subject is best known for frequent posting to Daily Kos. Wikipedia is much more popular than Daily Kos, and yet frequently editing Wikipedia doesn't create notability. The article also deliberately includes personal info (the subject's full name), which he does not use in his Daily Kos posts and tried to keep private. It should certainly be omitted from the article on the same grounds under which we omit home addresses and phone numbers and sometimes birthdates even though that info could be found by similar stalking efforts. The situation with Tron is not comparable since Tron is unfortunately no longer a living person, and also because Tron's real name was widely reported in the international press after his grisly and mysterious death. That's much different than someone trying to stay private but having someone slip up on a few obscure occasions. I basically see this article as an attack piece whose main purpose is to out an anonymous blogger who is generally non-notable but who is disliked by a certain crowd that opposes his point of view. So it's a misuse of Wikipedia. Phr (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Posting his personal phone number or other private information would clearly be a breach of WP:BLP. His full name and professional information, now that it has been second-sourced, not so. ~ trialsanderrors 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all as notable blogger. Also a comment: as long as his real name is verifiable (which appears to be the case here), it should be mentioned. What's outed cannot be outed. –Dicty (T/C) 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Changing my vote to delete and salt the earth in its wake. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia. If I wanted blogdom wankery, I'd go read a blog. –Dicty (T/C) 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see the logical connection between Armando's real name being verifiable and it belonging in the article. Can you explain further? If we can somehow find out and verify his mothers' maiden name and his social security number, should we include those too? Any notability that he has as a blogger is under his blogging name, which is simply Armando. Phr (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  Not at all. His mother's maiden name and SS # aren't necessary or relevant for a typical biography. A person's real name and occupation are, as WP:BLP clearly states, as long as it's well-sourced by third party sources and doesn't create any issues, which this obviously does not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think you can say that it "obviously" does not create any issues. The person in question certainly thinks it does as do some other editors here. I personally don't think it does, but WP:BLP states that "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" Maximusveritas 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think it's obvious either. But WP:BLP also says If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Clearly this sequence of events had a major impact on A's notability. As some people claimed, prior to his outing A didn't even appear in the Daily Kos article. ~ trialsanderrors 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  We can reasonably disagree on that, but it's mostly because I don't think this is a borderline case. If we didn't have the TNR and NPR and NRO evidence, I wouldn't be arguing about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  (Edit conflict) Verifiability is not a reason for including, merely a criterion. Independently of verifiability, the real name of a notable person is interesting and encyclopedic information, in the sense that the average person looking up Armando in an encyclopedia might expect to find it and might even be interested in this info. His social security number isn't similarly encyclopedic. With regard to keeping names secret, a recent similar case is with the real names of the bandmembers of Lordi. –Dicty (T/C) 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all as a notable blogger, the name was "outed" half a year ago. This controversy is manufactured in the worst possible way. RFerreira 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all per badlydrawnjeff. BaseballBaby 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please locate a secondary source that documents his employer name. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please try to take a more WP:CIVIL tone with those you are in disagreement with. Edit summaries like this are inappropriate and uncalled for. Silensor 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Daily Kos. --Merovingian {T C @} 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Protect for one year to stop a new article from being started. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. There is no urgency to decide if this information is encyclopedic. We will be in a better position to decide a year from now. Do no harm should be our guiding rule. FloNight ^talk 00:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, hatecruft. A stand-in blogger, at a notable political blog was "outed" for something construed to be political hypocracy? Not encyclopedic now, and certainly not encyclopedic in 500 years. WP is not the appropriate venue for silly political games, especially ones involving non-politicians. Ronabop 04:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Daily Kos. He is not notable in himself, all the assertions of him as "notable" are him as a blogger on Daily Kos. —Centrx→talk • 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As per my various comments on article talk page. --CSTAR 16:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to follow all this, but it appears that it violates, or violated, WP:BLP and WP:NOT EVIL. And how notable is this guy really? Scores of people appear on the radio every day. Herostratus 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Like most bloggers, seems to be an unknown of little distinction. But since we have articles on other bloggers and wiki is not paper, no harm in keeping it. --JJay 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Comments

Since it is clear that those who wish to do me harm are numerous at Wikipedia, I withdraw my request for deletion and ask for the following - IF I am so notable a blogger to merit such attention, then where is the discussion of my actual posts? I think the article should discuss what I consider my two most notable blogging issues - opposition to the Bush Administration's torture regime and to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, and my posts on the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Indeed, as the folks who hate me so have duly noted, my appearances on the radio were wholly related to these two areas of discussion. Since the evidence of my notoriety that supposedly merit this article, relate to my posts on those subjects, then in all fairness they should be part of the article.

In addition, the evidence of my notoriety includes the name Armando Llorens, NOT Armando Llorens-Sar, thus any references to my name should be to my "notable name" - not to my non-notable professional name. Further, my law firm was not mentioned in my "notable appearances and is clearly not of interest to any but those with harmful intnetions. It should be excluded. Similarly, the client list of my firm also was not mentioned in any "notable" appearances and thus that too should be excluded from the article.

Thus, the description of my non-notable personal life should be to my name - as stated in my notable appearances "Armando Llorens" and my private professional life should be described as "an attorney in large corporate law firm." It seems to me that those who perceive these facts as "notable" should have little to complain about with such descriptions. Those with axes to grind of course will object to excluding the names of my children and where they go to school. I hope Wikipedia has the good sense to not let it be the vehicle for vicious person who have harm and hate as their agendas.--Armandoatdailykos 06:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I must ask one further question. I just checked and saw that Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia. It boggles the mind to believe that I am more notable than Duncan Black. I must again wonder how Duncan Black, once porrayed as a character on the West Wing, is not sufficently notable for his own bio, but somehow I am. I also review the standard for notability and inclusion as a bio at Wikipedia and no one can seriously argue that I qualify. I must insist that the clear inappropriateness of having a separate bio for me is conclusive proof that those who are insisting that it exist are motivated by hatred and the thirst for revenge. I do not believe any honest person can believe that there should be a separate biography for me at all.

I am now more convinced than ever that to include a biography of me in Wikipedia would be a sheer act of malice, a violation of Wikipedia policy and strong evidence that Wikipedia itself jhas flown off the rails. I must imagine that others have been subject to these vicious uses of Wikipedia to cause harm. Frankly, any sincere believer in this project will have a hard time explaining how this can be justified. I urge those of you who believe in Wikipedia to consider the damage you do to the credibility of this project. I can say that in all sincerity it is my view that the sooner Wikipedia collapses from its complete lack of control, the better. This is simply disgraceful.--Armandoatdailykos 09:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Atrios (created April 2004). Dr. Duncan B. Black and Duncan B. Black (redirect created Sept. 30, 2005), and Duncan Black which has a disambiguation link to Atrios. –Dicty (T/C) 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that there is a separate biography of Duncan Black? It seems to me that it means that there is a link to an article about Atrios. My point was that the link to Duncan Black did not stand alone. Obviously, I am less notable than Duncan Black. The minimum would require that a redirect would be the most I would face. Moreover, Duncan Black is a fulltime blogger who now blogs for a living. So, not only is Duncan Black much more notable than me, he is a fulltime blogger who no longer is anonymous. I am a non-paid occasional blogger, unknown to most of the world, who does not even come close to meeting the notability requirements established by Wikipedia, who no longer posts on the front page of daily kos, who was the victim of a concerted vendetta that used as its primary weapon Wikipedia and its extremely lax controls.

I am not sure what your view is on these issues as you expressed none but I think that your information misses my point.--Armandoatdailykos 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The main article Atrios is a biographical sketch of Duncan B. Black (a redirect to the main article). Your initial claim "Duncan black, more famously known as Atrios, does not have a biography in Wikipedia" is incorrect. Your point in the comment directly above is unclear to me. The pattern in Atrios' biography article is exactly parallel to that of Armando (blogger) (main article) and Armando Lloréns-Sar (a redirect to it). I certainly agree with you that Dr. Black appears to be more well known than you—to illustrate, I was aware of him independently of his Wikipedia biography, whereas I have come to know of you through reading this deletion discussion—but I think the Armando (blogger) article makes a sufficient case for your notability. As to whether your name should be rendered as "Armando Lloréns-Sar" or "Armando Llorens", the issue seems completely pointless to me; and since you're here, I would much rather just ask you what your name is. You say it is the latter– good enough for me! One final thing: I would request you not to impute ulterior motives to any wikipedia editors here (assume good faith, etc.). Politically, I probably agree with you to a great degree (I have not yet found anything to disagree with in your columns on Daily Kos), and I have no reason to wish you any harm. I just don't see why stating your name, especially when it is well sourced, confirmed by you yourself, and especially when your livelihood does not depend on your anonymity, can constitute harm. If there are elements in Armando (blogger) article that are directly harming you or your livelihood, please point them out and I will remove them from the article, or an administrator will remove them by hiding a portion of the article's history such that it is no long publicly accessible. I will now make the changes regarding your name and place of employment that you requested above. (these changes have already been made by others.) –Dicty (T/C) 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Such changes are under heavy dispute at the moment. None of the information he claims is anything that's only available here, and our policies are clear in such regard - "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If we let the subjects decide what's worthy of inclusion, we may as well not do any biographies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

However, the onus is on the person wishing to include information about Armando's place of employment or the name he uses professionally to show why this information is notable. WP is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. –Dicty (T/C) 17:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading the discussion on the talk page of the article, we've beaten the horse to a bloody, zombified pulp at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the discussion page once before, and have now refreshed my memory of it. I still do not see a proper argument for why Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients is notable information. What I see instead is repeated hamfisted use of WP:BLP to quash dissent and no small amount of bad faith accusations flung to and fro. You will do me a favour if you summarise the arguments for the notability of Armando's professional name, his law firm, and its list of clients in a separate section here or on Talk:Armando (blogger), without reference to any earlier argument. –Dicty (T/C) 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Armando's "professional name" has been used by Armando in his appearances associated with Daily Kos at NPR, among others. His law firm helps fill out a full biography of him, which is also cited in a variety of different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. The type of clients he has served helps fill out a full biography of him, also cited in different mediums and doesn't rely on primary sources. They're notable to be published all over the place, much of it is notable enough to be put out there by other third party places associated with Armando. I'm completely puzzled as to why this is an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points: first, there seems to be a mistake of fact in your comment. The cited NPR interview[6] used the name "Armando Llorens", not "Armando Lloréns-Sar". The sole citation for the latter form of his name is the NRO blog posting (which was cited by Slate). In his comment above, Armando asked that the former be used in the article, and it's a reasonable request as the latter name is not as verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Second, that some fact is notable in other media does not make it ipso facto notable for WP. What is notable in a gossip rag (to furnish an example) is not necessarily notable in an encyclopedia. Armando is a notable blogger, not a notable lawyer. Information about his blogging activities are directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be included in his WP biography. The name of his law firm, the list of clients of said law firm, the brand of suit he prefers wearing while at work, the make and size of his shoes, and the length of his stride are examples of facts that are not directly relevant to what makes him notable, and should be left out. By the way, this discussion is off topic in an AfD nomination and should be moved to a relevant talk page. –Dicty (T/C) 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with going w/"Llorens" officially, that's not a problem, although I disagree that we HAVE to. And we also disagree on what "makes him notable." Armando has gained additional prominence due to his "outing," all of which is encompassed in what we know about him. Certainly, no one's arguing shoe size or how many grey hairs anyone's given him recently, simply what's known, verifiable, and adds to the entry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Now am I to believe that this person is not acting in bad faith. Only if I agree to assume the role of an idiot. Of what significance can it be to this person that my entry use "Armando Llorens" not "Armando Llorens-Sar"? Why the same reason I prefer "Armando Llorens" (the only named used, against my wishes and permission,even in the evidence presented for my supposed acquiescence to my "outing") because I want to distance the entry from my law firm and professional life. Why? Because it is more likely to do me harm if the "Llorens-Sar" is used. And that is exactly why this person wishes to use "Llorens-Sar."

Thus this user is wrong when he says NPR used "Llorens-Sar." This user is wrong when says "his law firm helps fill out a full biography of him." Not one of you would claim that my law firm is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Why pretend this editor is acting in good faith?

This user is wrong when he say that different mediums mentioned my law firm PRIOR to the vindictive efforts to out me, commenced and forwarded right here at Wikipedia. This person is wrong when he says the names of my clients are relevant. He claims to be completely puzzled why there is objection to it. And I am asked to assume the good faith of the editors here? Ridiculous. Please do not insult my intelligence.

Does he want to describe the "type of clients" I represent? How about this descritpion? "Fortune 500 companies." Will that satisfy him? Of course it will not.

My position is clear. The integrity of Wikipedia is clearly going to be reflected by what is done here.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that this discussion is dominated by persons of bad faith. I expect the worst.--Armandoatdailykos 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I claimed or intended to claim that NPR used "Llorens-Sar." If you inferred that, fine, but that's hardly the issue at this point. You accuse people of claiming different mediums presented this information prior to "the vindictive efforts to out" you, although I see no evidence of that. If "Fortune 500" clients is accurate, great, if we can grab a third party source on that (since we have editors who will object to using you as a primary source) we'll be glad to use it. I'm sorry you feel that "this editor" is not acting in good faith - on the contrary, I've largely put my reputation here on the line in defense of the straightforward policies we have here regarding biographies of living people, which I suggest you take a look over sometime. The integrity of Wikipedia is going to be reflected poorly if we bow to the demands of anyone who is upset by a neutral, well-sourced biography of themselves here, and I'm sorry you can't grasp that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion as a biography, at least as I understnad it the following:

"Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes biographies of important historical figures and people involved in current events. Even though wiki is not paper, there are some criteria which may be considered for inclusion.

See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion. As well read the rules for biographies of living persons.

Important note: Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7 (Unremarkable people or groups).

The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

• The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
• Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongiong discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)
• Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage
• Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)
• Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.
• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • An independent biography
  • Name recognition
  • Commercial endorsements
• Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
• Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field
• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"

I simply do not qualify in any sense. I do not k now how anyone, acting in good faith can think I do. You claim to be upholding the ethics of Wikipedia by violating them. It is an absurdity. Indeed, this whole exercise is an absurdity. Any honest person must acknowledge that that the only reason a biography was written about me was because I debunked a Jason Leopold/Wayne Madsen acolyte who, in an act of malicious vindictiveness, wrote a biography about me which has been the subject of this ridiculous charade.

Well, the rest of you can pretend that this is a reasonable discussion in good faith. But let's be clear about this. You are fooling no one. You are bringing disrepute onto Wikipedia.--Armandoatdailykos 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In good faith, you should clearly understand that you meet the second to last one, and many would consider you to qualify under the final one, too. Considering that you meet the second to last, that's when you need to check up on WP:BLP, which is the guideline concerning biographies of living persons. Besides, what you've quoted above "is not intended to be an exclusionary list."

Perhaps someone originally created an article on you because of vindictiveness. I was personally surprised you DIDN'T have an article prior to your supposed "outing." Regardless of what the original intent was, the fact remains that the article now, except for the whitewashing, is a neutral, factual piece, and continues to be with the currently deleted information. It meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about good faith. Jeez. There's 1,225,146 other articles on Wikipedia. Give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry this exchange upsets you so much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is now argued that I qualify as notable under these two rubriks:

• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

What noteworthy event would that be? Why my outing by a malicious member of WIKIPEDIA and the revert war that ensued!! This is ridiculous. Thus, in order to make something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia one need only write a malicious article about them, start a manufactured scandal and THEN make such person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

That is your entire argument. That, you say, is the Wikipedia ethic. If it is, it is an indictment of Wikipedia.

You say you are putting your reputation on the line in this dispute. I would say you have damaged your reputation here in this matter. And unless you are a simpleton, I can not believe you believe this article merits such attention and such damage for your reputation. You clearly have other motives. Others can play the fool for you. I will not. It is not credible.

You also say I am notable under this standard:

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"

I have not been the subject of ANY non-trivial works. None. You argue that the National Review hit piece on me is not non-trivial? An article, by the way, about how I was fighting my outing in a WIKIPEDIA article! You argue that the TNR article about the reaction to my OUTING caused by a WIKIPEDIA article is non-trivial!

And you say you are upholding the Wikipedia ethic. For the sake of Wikipedia, I certainly hope not. Because it is about the most unethical course of action I can imagine. Malicious use of Wikipedia to make someone notable as the basis for a wikpedia article. Your ethics boggle the mind.--Armandoatdailykos 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BTE, even if such articles were not non-trivial, the involve only one event, my outing at Wikipedia. So even if you, um, "ethic" is the Wikipedia ethic, I still do not meet the notable standard.

Now, what will your next straw man be?--Armandoatdailykos 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you fail to understand how we do things here is no reason to get snippy. Yes, National Review and The New Republic are non-trivial, it may be time to accept that. Furthermore, I've said my piece and you're being unnecessarily nasty, so I'm done spelling it out for you further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I will get snippy when you and others like you continue to campaign to do me harm. As for how you do things here, I did not know you were appointed King of Wikipedia. Rather presumptuous of you don't you think? A number of people are saying that what you suggest is NOT how things are done here.

Finally, the non-trivial requirement is for the story themselves, not for the publication. Moreover, it is my view the the National Review website is very trivial in the main and that TNR is often trivial. Moreover, I doubt very much that either publication would consider the stories written about me or that mention me (the TNR article was NOT about me) as serious.

So, Mr. Objective, what is your NEXT red herring?--Armandoatdailykos 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have no answer for the one event not being sufficient for notability rule. I take it you concede that I am not covered there. so you are left with the argument that I am a"[p]erson achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - the newsworthy event being my malicious outing by a Wikipedia article. That is the ethic you are left to defend.

Well done.--Armandoatdailykos 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for rational end to the fighting

Armando, do you disagree with the article as it currently stands? If so, please indicate which parts you disagree with. (I am not promising to edit the article according to your tastes, but merely would like a clear enumeration of the currently controversial parts.) If not, there is no further need to continue fighting or accusing "WIKIPEDIA" of trying to harm you.

If you want to discuss the content of the article further, please do it in Talk:Armando (blogger). If you want to continue fighting with User:Badlydrawnjeff, please do it in a different venue (eg. User talk:Badlydrawnjeff).

This page has a single purpose — to decide whether an article on you should be included in WP or not. Your argument that you are not notable has been recorded and will be considered in the final evaluation. –Dicty (T/C) 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

With due respect Dicty, I am not through presenting my argument, but this will be my final points. The guidelines for biographies of livin g persons states, in pertinent part:

"editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons with these key areas in mind:

   * The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies,

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

I think the INCLUSION of a separate biography about me violates each of these guidelines. We must always start from the most significant fact - the original article about was undisputedly maicious, written by the banned dkosser and Leopold/Madsen acolyte jiggy flunknut. This is so because it was a verbatim copy of his diary at daily kos which led to his banning. He posted that diary because I debunked his article based on some delusional reporting by Madsen and Leopold. It was without question a malicious use of Wikipedia. This abuse of Wikipedia to harm me led to the NRO article, which led to my alleged notability. When considering whether this article should be deleted, the misuse of Wikipedia as the genesis of my alleged notability should be central to your decision. To allow this article is to invite similar malicious use of Wikipedia to do harm. In my opinion, absent strong reasons, there should be a strong presumption to delete.

The guideline further state:

"Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy."

This article is in clear contradiction to this policy.

. . . Non-public figures

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

I repeat "it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to b e the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating clams about people's lives." This is EXACTLY what Wikipedia has been in this situation. To further harm me by including this article is to make a mockery of that stated policy.

The guidelines further state:

"Malicious editing

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

That is exactly what happened here. This article rewards that behavior.

You have read my further arguments made previously.

I object to all articles about me that relate to my personal and professional life and include my real name.

I especially object to the inclusion of the name of my law firm, the name I use professionally, and the names of my clients.

I especially object to the article entry Armando Llorens-Sar.

As I am sure my objections will not be agreed to, I will formally withdraw my objection to the article titled Armando (Blogger) as it is written today. Any changes will of course be objected to by me.

I ask that all references to Armando Llorens-Sar be removed from Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my views of this matter.

I now retire from the field.--Armandoatdailykos 01:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reintrude but I must object to this requrst for comment posted by Jeff:

"* Armando (blogger) - is using the name of an "outed" blogger a violation of WP:BLP? As the blogger is aprogressive one at a leading site, and has had relevant information published clearly in multiple areas that fulfill the various requirements of WP:BLP's standards, specifically "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it," even if some editors believe that including it - regardless of that prior quote - "does harm." The more input, the better, this is a policy issue, not a political one. --14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)"

This request for comment is violative of the requirement that they be presented neutrally. I request it be retracted or deleted.--Armandoatdailykos 05:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Only articles need be presented neutrally. Discussions need not be. (I actually think that a redirect to Daily Kos is appropriate, provided a reasonable amount of information is included there. You, though, are out of line.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr. Rubin, but the guidleines for Request for Comments clearly state that request for comments must be presented neutrally. I thought you were an old Wikipedia hand.--Armandoatdailykos 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And Mr. Rubin, your comment that I am out of line is, well, out of line. Particularly since you are clearly in error here and all said was that Jeff violated the express Wikipedia guideline, which he did. In shirt Mr. Rubin, your slip is showing. Now, you can safely say I was out og line.--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)--Armandoatdailykos 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC's should be presented neutrally. It compromises the comments if the arguments of one side are presented in the RFC and the arguments of the other are expressed only on the talk page by giving undue weight to the arguments of the side that filed the RFC. As such, I have edited the request, but note that the three users who commented on the AFD post the RFC, one an administrator, all voted delete or merge. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think there were any neutrality issues with the RFC, but if you're going to change them, don't eliminate major parts of the conflict. The RFC, for the record, ahs to do with the ARTICLE, not the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the RfC. It's not mentioned on the article talk page, as it should be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned, but not pointed to (that points to the main RfC page, rather than /Politics), as of a few minutes ago, anyway. It's still irrelevant to the AfD. (Looking back over Armando's rant, it does refer to the RfC. My apologies for not seeing it, but it was badly written. If his blog writings are as bad as this, I think I'd go back to delete.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur:

They are much much worse. I think you should be counted as voting to delete the article. Thank you.--Armandoatdailykos 16:29, 2 July 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.