Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Cohen (internet)

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 keep – Gurch 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Cohen (internet)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

I can not see why this page should be deleted. I has sat here for over a year documenting a well known journalist and businessman in the UK. As a result of constant vandalism the page is continually flooded with innaccurate information.

Cohen is well known in the UK link

Also those continually changing the content of the page appear to have some personal or other grievance of Cohen as they only edit pages relating to him or his work. —The preceding unsigned comments were added by Philsome (talk • contribs) 04:54 – 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This article has only existed for four days, not a year. Please follow the proper AfD format when making your comments. KC9CQJ 16:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  I moved it from Benjamin Cohen after vandalism. --Philsome 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete how much nonsense can be written about cohen - he's not famous, most of the info philsome keeps uploading is nonsense, get rid. wikigreps

This is this user's 7th edit, see contribs. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006

• Delete --- I can't believe how much nonsense Philsome has added to this page looking back thru the edits -- Chavlaz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chavlaz (talk • contribs) 13:25, June 1, 2006 (UTC)

  This page is the user's first edits. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006

• Keep --- Having made some changes to tidy this up using content found elsewhere on Wikipedia. I think that this page is worth keeping as it does document an important figure.Testytesty 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep ---I don't see what all the fuss is about other than that Chavlaz and Wikigreps are either the same person or linked judging by their past contributions Philsome 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is obviously some competition by a group of idiots to put nonsense on wikipedia and watch us debate it. .Ajshelo 14:48, 4 June 2006

  This is this user's first and only edit. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006

• Question Has this ever been listed on the main AfD page? I think it should show up in a log somewhere. It was first tagged for AfD by an anon user who may not have completed the process. --HJMG 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 09:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't actually think it has, although I'm not sure how to - reckon we should delete though - taking a cursory glance at the edits shows philsome keeps adding garbage to the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stambelch (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  User's first and only edit – Gurch 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've heard of him, mainly becuase of the apple thing. Hence why i looked for him on WP only just now! Bjrobinson 10:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think it should be temporarily semi-protected, so that it can be fixed up a bit without interruption, though. Steveo2 11:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, notable journalism. The vandalism has nothing to do with deleting an article. Royalbroil 14:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep as obvious bad faith nomination. I have added sources to the page. Cohen is a clearly notable character, a figure of importance in the development of e-business in the UK. Also request that the page be protected by an admin. Vizjim 14:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - see also Benjamin Cohen (UK). There appears to have been some clumsy moving-around of content recently, so we now have two separate articles on the same guy. I guess a merge is in order, if someone can figure out exactly what's come from where. — Haeleth Talk 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Cohen is quite well-known in the UK. (I did some rewriting before reading Haeleth's comment.) --HJMG 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete none of the sourced articles are less than about 6 years old - Yedido —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yedido (talk • contribs) 18:09, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

  This is this user's only contribution. -- Kevin Breitenstein, 03:57, 9 June 2006

• Comment Yedido, part of the point of an online project like Wikipedia is that it is current and up to date. Claiming that something should be deleted because its sources are recent is irrelevant. Philsome 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  Philsome, if you read my post you'll see that I said that none of the references on the page about you are less than 6 years old. In other words, all the links you added about yourself are old, and not up to date. Who is this person who states that they just saw a TV series about Cohen? There was not any such series broadcast in this country (the UK) recently yet the IP address is a London one. Philsome claims to have heard a lecture on Cohen on the UCL economics course yet there is not one - I have checked with the department. Why on earth would there be? Not only this, but a brief glance at the history of this page, or at Philsome's talk page shows that he clearly repeatedly adds information about Cohen that, at best, could be described as an exaggeration. Wikipedia is not a forum for self-publicity and this whole page is entirely ridiculous. Cohen had a website that he sold for £40 000. He "occassionally" writes short articles for the Times of London's internet site. He used to run a pornography search engine. This is not reason for an article on wikipedia. If it is, I may as well put in an entry about my neighbour's cat. Look at Philsome's user page. He repeatedly dodges the remarks people have made about his posts there. 12:09, 11 June 2006 YEDIDO(UTC)

• CommentYedido- the IP address of the poster 80.33.141.151 is in Spain not in London. Secondly, the Trouble at the Top documentary was played on BBC Prime Europe on the 26th May this year. Thirdly, a lecture on the e-economy did reference Cohen earlier this year. Philsome 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A notable figure who belongs in the Wikipedia. Sugguest merging or refining the article as needed. Zachlipton 05:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think that Cohen is great. Just saw a tv series about him. He looks interesting.80.33.141.151 01:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  IP's first and only edit – Gurch 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They do appear to be notable, with enough references for me. Those citations are all wierd though, but the external notes, especially The Register. I find the large number of new people showing up to vote delete rather disturbing. Anon notice tag is added. Kevin_b_er 07:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sure Mr. Cohen is "great" and that he "looks interesting" but he's a used-to-be teenaged millionaire, a former pornographer, and ran a company once upon a time. In other words, back in the day, he used to be notable when he was all those things. Tychocat 09:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "Used to be notable" means "still notable". Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and yesterday's news is still news here. That's kind of what an encyclopedia's for. Vizjim 08:42, 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.