Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Ostrofsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was KEEP, apparently reluctantly. The nominator appears to eventually agree on notability also. -Splash - tk 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Marc Ostrofsky
This seems like an autobiography, it is biased and is written like an advertisment. It cites no sources and thus can not be proven credible or notable. Work must be done to fix the bias in this article and lack of verifiability. Vaniac 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sad KeepHe's, um, what's a civil way of saying <expletive deleted>? But he's out there. Big mover and shaker in the cybersquatting world. Article needs to be cut down and refactored to more clearly show what he actually does for a living. - Richfife 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)- Comment - Why are all the links red then? Vaniac 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Change vote to Weak Delete. You've got a point. He sold an URL for a lot of money, he has a bunch of other URLs up for sale (and he's clearly using Wikipedia to market them). He has severe problems with WP:COI and WP:OWN (he sent me a testy email when I cut the article back and restored it). Not notable enough to keep. - Richfife 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- FYI In case there was any doubt, the article is provably autobiographical. - Richfife 20:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment He sent me an email too, the authors attitude is fairly irritating. I understand that he has made a lot of money but being rich does not entail a page, and at the very least, the information about all these unknown websites should be cut down. The fact that he owns "VietnamWar.com" is far from important information. That would also deal with the advertising issue. Vaniac 21:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Why are all the links red then? Vaniac 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The afd tags on the page were deleted by Marcmpc. Granted some work has been done, but the author seems to want to disrupt the AFD process. Vaniac 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I cut the article way back. If there is a modern guy that stands as an argument in favor of Marxism, it's Ostrofsky. - Richfife 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I just did a further trimming and Wikification. Refs need to be added, but he is very obviously notable. If it were borderline, the emailing of eds. would have inclines me to delete. We should not confuse the wish to remove his activities from the RW with the wish to remove his article from here. I doubt that WP adds all that much to his advertising.
-
- While writing this, the original ed. made a number of reverts to restore deleted content, in apparent violation of the 3RR, which is being reported. It would be very tempting to change my!vote to Delete on this basis, but an objective point of view requires the admission that his business activities are notable. DGG 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think you're right, he is notable. I also think that the author should be banned from editing this page, he has complicated this afd process so much, has been stubborn, and clearly has a conflict of interest. Vaniac 06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- While writing this, the original ed. made a number of reverts to restore deleted content, in apparent violation of the 3RR, which is being reported. It would be very tempting to change my!vote to Delete on this basis, but an objective point of view requires the admission that his business activities are notable. DGG 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. While there is an assertion of notability, it isn't supported by external links, references, or attributions. At best, he's been in the book of world records - which isn't notable by itself. --Sigma 7 05:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He is, sadly, notable, and there are secondary sources. I agree with DGG that we should not want to delete the article as a consequence of wanting to ban him for his apparently bad faith activities. UnitedStatesian 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could we at least ban him for his bad faith activities then? Vaniac 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears notable. I added a couple of links. Stammer 17:17, 5 April 2007 (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.
