Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Schoen

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. There is a 2/3 majority for delete votes, but the keep voters (particularly User:Linkspro and User:Arnivan) have a good argument, and "Seth Schoen" does get 49 600 Google hits. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Schoen

is simply a vanity page about an inconsequential person 66.130.46.176 01:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Completing misplaced nomination. No vote. Waterguy 03:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered that "Californians for Academic Freedom" only gets 19 displayed hits, and their website http://www.loyalty.org/ has no content, so notability seems pretty iffy. Waterguy 03:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I appreciate that he works for the EFF, but he doesn't even claim to be notable within their ranks. Vanity. --InShaneee 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and should be considered for speedy delete. PatGallacher 11:25, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, and so tagged.DES ^(talk) 15:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• A very inappropriate speedy candidate, as there are multiple assertions of notability. The only time you should use speedy A7 is if there is no assertion of notability ("Jim is a man he lives in Cupcake he is an insurance agent."). Here, for example, he is asserted to be the founder of a non-trivial group, etc. etc.. That said, let's examine the claims to notability: apart from some boosterism about how he was a copyright expert in high school, the main one is that he founded "CfAF", but that group is, as he admits elsewhere on the web: "www.loyalty.org itself is the web site for Californians for Academic Freedom, a hypothetical group of California loyalty oath opponents" [1]. So much for that. Beyond that, he is the author of the "DeCSS haiku", which is amusing, but does not exactly make him notable. Ergo, delete, wish him luck. (We could do with a wikipedia article on the weird loyalty oath, though.) Sdedeo 17:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. He is said to have founde a group. There is no indication that the gorup is "non-trivial". To my mind, a statement is not a "claim of notability" under A7 unless the claim would, if true, indicatate notability to some significant minority of likely editors discussing the issue on AfD. A mere adjective ("famous", "notable", etc) is not a claim. A statement that a person "founded a group" with no suggestion that the group is itself notable in any way, or indeed is more than a one-person group is not a claim. this is a perfect A7 speedy, IMO. DES ^(talk) 19:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The text of the A7 says "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." In general, it is best to use speedy deletes only for 100% non-controversial cases where notability is not asserted, but I certaintly don't want to get into a revert war (or legalistic debate over the A7!) over this. Sdedeo 20:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Fang Aili 18:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto Larsoner 19:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It is quite apparent that editors have differing standards when it comes to interpreting "assertion of notability." My own are very conservative. In this case, however, reading the page line by line looking for candidate assertions of notability, I found none; I agree with David that this is an A7.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  21:30:45, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
• Delete Not a speedy, but kill it with fire anyway --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Sure sounds verifiable to me. And, this is not a CSD, as per Sdedeo. I just removed the speedy tag from the image on it also. "See Seth Schoen" is not a criterion for speedy deletion that I have ever heard of. --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:14, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Marcus22 14:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity Speaking as a linux user and Open Source proponent (more of the pragmatic than the fanatical variety), working for EEF does not make one notable.---CH (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep To clarify, the position of Staff Technologist was created for him personally, in order to "help other technologists understand the civil liberties implications of their work, EFF staff better understand the underlying technology related to EFF's legal work, and the public understand what the technology products they use really do."[2] I read comments here that assume he wrote his Wikipedia article himself, but user:Schoen didn't contribute to it at all. Linkspro 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even has a picture. May be vanity.... but why not keep? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain For the record, I did not write this article about myself. --Schoen 06:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The authorship and author of the DeCSS haiku is notable (WSJ article, inclusion in Illegal Art collection, mention in Dan Gillmor's book, Boing Boing, Slashdot) Anirvan 01:33, 17 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.