Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (second 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 was Delete. The event is notable, the subject is not.--§hanel 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Massoud Tofangsazan

Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article survived a previous AfD with a no consensus closure. A DRV consensus narrowly overturned, citing inadequate consideration of WP:BLP, and lack of extensive reasoning by the closer. The matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Xoloz 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: this is actually the fourth time this article has been nominated for deletion. Sfacets 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Two early nominations came while the matter was still in the tabloids, and before the current version of WP:LIVING a/k/a WP:BLP was adopted, and this is a relisting of the third nomination because the reviewing administrator at DRV decided to relist for more community input (see above). Newyorkbrad 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator)
• Strong keep. There are no BLP concerns at work here, and it meets all of our standards. Given the amount of attention, no harm can be done by our article on it, so there's no problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete A trivial piece of malicious gossip. No way is this encyclopaedic. Its brief appearance in a few sections of the UK media for a couple of days last summer does not mean this is permanently notable or accurate (count the "allegedlys"). Utterly unworthy of this project. --Folantin 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This doesn't seem to have gotten any media attention other than a few days in May... I can't buy that the alleged perpetrator of one count of small-time eBay fraud is notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as the original AfD and DRV nominator. From my prior statement: "This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living person. As noted in the article itself, the Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this individual's life and we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and other participants' comments in that RfC, as well as recent threads on the notability policy pages for related discussion. In addition, it has been noted that this article's reports of unproven allegations raise WP:LIVING issues, and also that the proposed NOTNEWS guideline would also strongly support deletion. The "do no harm" test underlying WP:LIVING as applied to a non-notable person strongly supports deletion of this article, whose encyclopedic value is slight, as a matter of principle. It would be desirable for the community to have the opportunity to address this set of issues in a situation that is not wiki-notorious a la Brian Peppers and Daniel Brandt." Newyorkbrad 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Notable as multiple reliable sources. --J2thawiki 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per NYB sometimes we need to rise above the tendency to source count (and the sources here are bad anyway - and article which uses 'alleged' and 'claimed' as often as this one does should be speedy deleted anyway). With the powerful medium we are comes some responsibilities - the fact is that we don't need this trivial rubbish, and we are a better encyclopedia without it. BLP isn't just a rule to be applied - it is a mindset to be adopted.--Doc^g 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT vigilante justice. This is the sort of material which circulates in a tabloid for a week then ends up in the bottom of the bird cage.. where it belongs because it's just not encyclopedic. Maybe if people are still talking about it years from now it will be worth documenting, but it's a violation of our duty to make a determination of notability which may ultimately be self-fulfilling. --Gmaxwell 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete once again. This is not encyclopedic, it's just a continuation of unfounded harrassment based on an unproven claim against a living person. We don't need to extend this ridiculous 15 minutes of fame piece. I see no reason to think this is of continued importance. The references are from a very limited time-span. Mak (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename (possibly to Laptop Guy?) - the article needs a new name, certainly, but has notability via mention in several daily newspapers. I recall hearing about this back when it was still fresh, and I'm hardly a blogoholic. NPOV here is tricky, as to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Tofangsazan has not gone on the "official" record with his version of events, and I beleive it prudent to keep in mind that Richard Nixon was never convicted of any crime, either. Fifteen minutes of fame is still fame. --Action Jackson IV 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is the fourth AFD for this article - it meets all the criteria for an article, there is no reason it should be deleted. As well as being notable in the media, it was a huge Internet Phenomenon which attracted millions of visitors. If this article were to be deleted, it would be a hypocritical double standard and other articles such as Bonsai Kitten, and in fact most of the Category:Internet_memes. This has nothing to do with vigilante justice, the article is neutral in tone and well sourced. Keep. Sfacets 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It is well referenced and there are dozens of other references that can be added from other British papers, if there is a need. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you cite those sources please? Most of us don't have access to UK news archives. I'm trying to see whether it would meet WP:NOTNEWS criteria. Kla'quot 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There are 18 under a search for his surname (which is pretty unique) at google news and some specific uk ones --J2thawiki 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I have added a couple more to the article, one from The Independent (major UK broadsheet) and one from the BBC. This incident is noteable. GameKeeper 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not convinced yet that it meets WP:NOTNEWS. If it does, it seems borderline. The sources from the Google News Archive are mostly from the same week, and the ones which come later are one- or two- paragraph mentions which use it as a hook for articles whose main focus is digital privacy. WP:NOTNEWS requires multiple-paragraph coverage in distinct articles spanning multiple weeks. Can you point to any multiple=paragraph coverage of this after early June, 2006? The longest I can find is two paragraphs in Macleans Kla'quot 17:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I do not think it meets WP:NOTNEWS either. However this is not wikipeida policy, it is proposed policy. If it passes then this should definitely be revisited and I will support any deletion. The sources provided are sufficent to meet WP:BLP. GameKeeper 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
            • According to its talk page, WP:NOTNEWS has support in principle. It is likely to pass in some form. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I think it's reasonable to apply a policy or guideline in advance of it actually passing.Kla'quot 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. To say that there are no BLP concerns at all is to ignore the plain wording of that policy. The question remaining is whether those concerns are outweighed by other considerations. In this case, I do not consider them to justify the continuation of this page. It is a hostile page written about a person who is at best semi-public and who has not apparently taken any steps to put himself into the public eye. This is a trivial little spat that got some column-inches on a slow newsday. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. The argument that we have to keep it because "it's an internet meme" also utterly fails to convince me. This has no place in the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but move This article does have a place in WP, but not under the name of the victim. (At least, the one whom I regard as the victim. It is NN to sell a defective computer. It is N to create a major web phenomenon out of it.)DGG 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Like we also keep the Star Wars Kid and the Green Helmet Guy. It doesn't do any harm, his name is all over the net without wikipedia already. The article is rather a chance to present all sides and aspects of the story. --Tilman 06:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but move It is noteable, not because it was an internet meme but because of the amount of press coverage, including editorial discussion, see the independant source I added to the article. I also added a link to a BBC source article, and there are more if anyone thinks that it is necessary to add more. I would appriciate it if someone added {{fact}} tags to anything in the article that looks dubiously sourced. I have looked at it too long to do this well myself. I have added some discussion to the talk page as to a suitable name. GameKeeper 09:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Withdrawn my Keep , due to WP:NOTNEWS which this does not furfil and does appear to be accepted in principle, as per Kla'quot GameKeeper 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per NY Brad, Makemi, Rossami, etc. A case of unremarkable people and unremarkable events. Please leave playing journalist to the people on Wikinews. I entirely agree with Doc Glasgow that articles on living people where "alleged" or its variants need to be employed to explain the "notability" of the subject should be speedily deleted, probably under G10. There's no deadline, and we can easily wait until allegations become facts, or not as the case may be, before publishing. It does a great deal of harm, to us and to the subjects, to include this egregious WP:BLP-ignoring eyesore. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough for WP. Jpierreg --Jpierreg 11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - an attack page masquerading as an encyclopedia article, as such violates BLP. Perhaps the incident is notable, but this person certainly isn't. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Claiming that the case is unremarkable is original research and a user's own POV. The fact that it has been reported by major news sources, and that it doesn't contravene any policy on Wikipedia makes it an acceptable article. Sfacets 12:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's funny you should mention WP:NOR. It's irrelevant here AFD, but let's try a little thought experiment. It's 2050, and for whatever reason the subject of this article is going to be the subject of a PhD thesis (original research in action). How would the hypothetical PhD student research their thesis? They'd consult press and web archives, diaries, official documents, etc. Their paper would reference the Times, the Independent, diaries, an archive of Sawyer's blog if available, and similar material. Although it would be much longer, better written, and in a position to offer some broader context for the events, the hypothetical thesis would be based on exactly the same kind of sources as this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete again. These formal relistings are becoming extremely tiresome. Do they ever succeed? --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to eBay. Now, why would I say that. Well, the incident took place on eBay, and there is a section on eBay fraud in the article. So, what I would suggest is maybe merge the whole incident, condense to a few sentences and redirect the article to eBay. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Forget it, delete it. The incident might be notable, but this person ain't. Many people are using net justice to out bad eBay sellers and are getting attention from the news. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Muliple independent published works. Passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for biography of living persons considerations. This may seem fascinating now, but in six months it'll be yesterday's news, and in ten years nobody will care except for the principals. If I'm wrong, and it continues to be relevant somehow in a year's time, we can write the article then. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - you are aware that the article is 9 months old, give or take? Sfacets 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment And the first of the handful of sources dates from May 30, 2006, the last from June 3, 2006. There has been nothing subsequently. All of which suggests that this minor incident of alleged fraud didn't even make it to "nine day wonder" status. --Folantin 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying WP:IGNORE to the WP:N guideline WP:Notability is permanent might be okay, but a lot of editors disagree. --Oakshade 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Newyorkbrad. Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Same vote as last time, after looking at the sources provided: *Delete. Strictly under WP:LIVING, this article unfortunately passes muster. However, I'll apply the proposed WP:NOTNEWS which is likely to gain consensus in a form that would support deleting this article. Even in the absence of WP:NOTNEWS, common sense indicates that we are not a directory of news stories, and if we have to cut off minor news stories this is a good place to start. The argument that the sources focus on the event, not the person, is also a good argument for not having an article at this title. Having said this, if this event happens to be discussed in an article describing its historical significance (if there is any), its significance to the study of Internet memes, etc., I don't think I would object to including the information in those kinds of contexts. Kla'quot 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• KeepDoesn't the fact that this has been afd'd FOUR TIMES tell you there is no consensus?Let's stop wasting all our time on this one.Sumoeagle179 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you read the respose to a similar comment above? Nil Einne 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, did you?Sumoeagle179 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being an internet phenomenon does not necessarily mean that something is inherently notable, and neither does appearing in the news. This was in the news for a couple days nine months ago, there is no lasting significance. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, this article is not encyclopedic. Rje 11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this article use to be terrible. Photos with dubious copyright status and probably violating BLP, OR, and other such stuff. I did my best to improve it, nominating the photos to be deleted & removing some of the worst content. But none of this changes the fact the person is not noteable, only the incident so we shouldn't have an article on the person anyway. Nil Einne 19:21, 13 March 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.