Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelangelo Delfino

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus; however, voting was split between delete and redirect, so since it doesn't get deleted, it gets redirected. --cesarb 22:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michelangelo Delfino & Mary E. Day

These were two co-litigants in a case decided by the California Supreme Court. The 200 Google hits for there case are located [1] Many are from Wikipedia mirror articles Delfino published himself. Both co-authored a self published book on the experience. Amazon sales rank ~500k.

Delfino is likely the "Varion vandal" User:Kmccoy/Delfino He has inserted his case into a large number of entries (count still being determined). Here is an example of how ridiculous his attempts to relate his case to whatever entry became [2] An even more egregious example: [3] For weeks most edits were left unchallenged. He has also extensively linked the sales page of his book to unrelated entries and smeared former opposition, which includes "dishonest" judges and plaintiffs.

Good riddance

lots of issues | leave me a message 13:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - per nominator. --FCYTravis 12:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Don't delete Why censor when you can engage in an interesting dialogue about an interesting case. Have you followed this one? It's an amazing tale and Day and Delfino are two characters, that's for sure!" This text was added by an anonymous user, 64.160.178.5 (talk • contribs) ----kmccoy (talk) 03:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Delfino,

Welcome to this discussion. I am glad you are taking this step to communicate with the editors. However, I must politely ask you to cease your rampant epidemic of point of view and self promotional edits. Although your workplace tell all may contain details of a "skanky" co-worker, you should not use this superficial nexus to link your book storefront. I'm sure you are aware of your recent edits so I don't need to point to more specific instances of misbehavior. I look forward to working with you on your disputed SLAPP-related entries. Collaborative work with source participants will produce expert and comprehensive coverage. However, once again, cut the nonsense.

Regards,

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Michelangelo Delfino; redirect Mary E. Day to Michelangelo Delfino. The fact that an article on a notable topic comes from someone clearly out to push a point a view doesn't make the topic unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. SLAPP laws are controversial from a public policy standpoint, and as a such the plaintiff in a landmark case on the topic is necessarily notable. Mary E. Day, however, is not notable in her own right and should be redirected. Kelly Martin 12:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The case does seem to be notable, despite the spammish way its proponents are pushing it, but are the individual litigants notable in their own right? I'm unsure at this point. *Dan* 13:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO, the bio details of the litigants can be merged into the case entry. There is no more to comment than this case. Check out, Delfino's list of IPs. Just staggering - to think some of his self promotion was left in popular entries such as Yahoo! for 3 weeks is disconcerting. lots of issues | leave me a message 13:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not noteable. ConeyCyclone 17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Account created 17:05, 12 Jun 2005 and mostly used to vote on VfD's. Kaibabsquirrel 21:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soap box or a vehicle for advocacy. →Raul654 18:12, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non noteable self-promotion.--Rogerd 18:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete articles about any author who can't use proper grammar in the titles of their books. (It should be whom you SLAPP). RickK 22:45, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Rick, honey, you are wrong. Do you understand the difference between Be Careful Who You SLAPP and Be careful whom you slap?" This comment was left by 64.170.193.243 (talk • contribs) in an edit in which he/she also changed other people's votes. kmccoy (talk) 05:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• At this point I recommend everyone please avoid speaking to these vandals, I fear conflict only reinforces their behavior. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete these articles are vanity in a large way. Delfino could be mentioned in SLAPP or perhaps the entry for the case. He doesn't need an article on his own, and the rampant abuse of wikipedia makes me lean especially towards deletion. kmccoy (talk) 03:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Any reason not to redirect to Varian v. Delfino? -R. fiend 05:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Everyone should note that an anonymous user at 64.170.195.181 (and other IP addresses) has been changing other people's votes. Any admin who may be counting votes here in the future should check the history for vandalism in case there's any fraudulent change that hasn't been reverted. *Dan* 15:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to article about case, Varian v. Delfino. A2Kafir 14:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Varian v. Delfino. VANITY. carmeld1 21:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.