Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Lloréns-Sar

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 of the debate was there's no consensus either way, but there's no content I can actually find, so I'm deleting. – Will (message me!) 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Armando Lloréns-Sar

*** NB: moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter ReMine and Haldane's Dilemma ***

Barely any google hits. Non notable. Armando Lloréns-Sar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.11 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment If that's really Armando at DailyKos this AfD is misattributed because Armando is quite notable. The other issue is that User:armandoatdailykos does not seem to agree with his profile being posted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment article is currently blank which is grounds for speedy deletion. Given the popularity of Daily Kos, he may well be notable enough but he can wait for a decent article. Capitalistroadster 08:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not an expert on the rules on this, but it seems like he blanked it himself, with the comment it constitutes harassment. The article itself didn't seem objectionable but might have been seen as intrusion into his privacy. Does WP automatically follow the requests of subjects to delete their entries? ~ trialsanderrors 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Revert and keep The old article doesn't seem to have anything unusual in it. No idea why it was delted, but it seems like it was valid. Ace of Sevens 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - this was an attack page. Guettarda 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate? "This was an attack page" is usually not grounds for deletion, but for cleanup. From a little Googling it seems to me that Armando's identity got leakied/revealed just prior to the creation of the article [1]. I don't see the reasons for Speedy or Delete right now. ~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Given the popularity of Daily Kos and Armando's prominence there, he is absolutely notable. I did not look at everything in the page history, but the most recent non-blank version was certainly not an attack page. If he doesn't want to have a page here - well, that's unfortunate, but not a reason for deletion. (Daniel Brandt was on AfD several times because he doesn't want an article, and always kept.) David Sneek 13:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy attack page. Rewrite about notable blogger and his public activities at Armando (Blogger). Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Specifically, the combination of non-notable lawer A L-S with notable blogger A is OR, and designed to impact A L-S employment. We should have an article about notable blogger A, and no article about non-notable lawer A L-S. Given that individuals that are attempting to harm non-notable lawyer A L-S are able to link to diffs in wikipedia, history deletion is imperitive. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    The process would be to propose a move to Armando (blogger). AfD is the wrong avenue for this kind of process. Someone actually willing to provide a background on this?~ trialsanderrors 18:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply: I do not believe the history of the current article is useful for the creation of Armando (blogger), as it has no sourcing. I would not use it in a clean-room recreation, and the redirect created by the move would be WP:OR, requiring a deletion of the blanked page at A L-S after it was deleted. AFD is perfectly appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda. FeloniousMonk 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--CSTAR 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comments: Without some kind of authentication we don't know whether
  1. User:armandoatdailykos is actually armando the commenter and diarist at dailykos.
  2. Armando Lloréns-Sar is actually armando the commenter dailykos. There is a claim that on an NPR interview the latter was introduced as the former, but until this becomes public knowledge this is OR.
  3. User:armandoatdailykos is actually Armando Lloréns-Sar
--CSTAR 15:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda. FinFangFoom 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda Maximusveritas 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete empty now, not quite sure what we should do about this, though. Is there WP policy about not wanting articles about yourself on WP? —Mets501talk 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Hipocrite and Guettarda Pigkeeper 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in its blanked state for now until WP:BLP issues are handled. While the outing was trollish, and I respect the desire of many of you to not reward such poor behavior, Armando the Blogger is a notable blogger (one of the top bloggers at one of the top blog sites in the world), much more notable than the vast majority of other bloggers, and more notable than many tv and newspaper media commentators that we have articles on. Armando the blogger has already confirmed much of what has been reported, all we lack is a good citation. As a follow-up message to his diary, he has written on DKos: Who I represent is being posited as an issue. I can't put my clients in the middle of my politics. (by Armando on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 07:33:36 PM PDT). While he may want to deemphasize himself as a public figure, ultimately his real life issues can not be hidden from view on this encyclopedia any more than Limbaugh's drug issues can be (in fact, Armando looks quite good by comparison, since being a lawyer is not a crime ;-). The article needs to be NPOV and well cited, but deletion is not the answer (and will be appropriately overturned once proper sources are available). So we should just leave the article blanked and protected until a properly cited article can be written. NoSeptember 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think keeping an article in a blanked state is an option.--CSTAR 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Reply. Well, it has been blanked for almost two days already. But if you prefer, we can delete and restore. Once a valid source is found (and there are newspaper reporters typing away as we speak), the reasons for a speedy will be gone and a recreation will be valid. NoSeptember 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment We all appear to agree that the article about the lawyer fails WP:V. In the event that someone that is not-wikipedia becomes the progenator of the news, it would no longer fail WP:V. As it is now, we are the sole source of this information. As such, the article should be deleted untill that valid source exists. There is no reason to preserve the history, as there is nothing valid there, and difflinks to our history archives are being used to damage an individual. Why keep the article as blanked when you can just recreate it (and I would support such recreation) when a WP:RS reports the news without citing us as the source? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment OK, why don't we enter what we know: Armando Lloréns-Sar is an attorney and a partner in the litigation department of McConnell Valdés and stub it, without reference to his alleged blogging actitivies, pending confirmation. ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. But, who cares? Just another lawyer it seems.--CSTAR 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well in that case he's an unnotable lawyer and we can proceed as per nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Per Hipocrite's concerns above, I found the diffs that were linked from NRO and deleted those versions. So anyone clicking the NRO diffs will end up with an error message. Meanwhile, wikipedians who know how to use a history can still review the former content for purposes of this AfD. I hope this is an OK temporary solution for now :-). NoSeptember 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as blanked. As problem seems to be the association between Armando (blogger) and Armando Lloréns-Sar. If that becomes sourced, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the last non-blank article, except that it would have to be protected from User:armandoatdailykos, whoever that might be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well I don't think we can keep it blanked, but the protecting administrator should've cut it down to the easily verifiable info rather than blank it wholly. Blanking is usually subject to a vandalism tag, administrator or not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Keep, revert to last complete article, semiprotect, and warn User:KosNation about blanking vandalism. Include Guest458's references in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
Here are two references associating Armando Llorens with Daily Kos.
Reference to Armando Llorens as guest blogger on Daily Kos at the Stanford Law School's "The Bay Area Law School Technology Conference" speakers page.
Reference to "Mr. ARMANDO LLORENS (Daily Kos)" at NPR Transcripts search page. Transcript available for purchase.
--Guest458 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The first is pure WP:OR. Did you hear the second, or are you using an intermediate source to tell you what is says? It is not good academic practice to ignore intermediate sources - in fact, it is a violation of WP:CITE ("A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it.") Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow either of those points. Care to elaboate? ~ trialsanderrors 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Quite obvious and notable Kos blogger. Revert to last good version before someone vandalized it. B.ellis 19:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, restore content, move to Armando (blogger), and include Guest458's references. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per B.ellis Bejnar 20:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep an NPOV version. It's all publicly-available information, so I just don't get what there is to get upset about. A2Kafir 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the blogger "Armando" took steps to retain his anonimity. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The Stanford link above suggests otherwise. A2Kafir 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • He also went on the radio in 2005 as Armando Lloréns of Daily Kos: [2] David Sneek 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep He's definitely notable, and I don't believe that anyone is still arguing that they aren't the same person. This info is out, and pretending that it isn't is the wrong way to go. Clean it up and work on NPOV, but don't delete it. Dori 00:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I disagree that he's "definitely notable". It appears as though he has "retired" from blogging, so right now, he's just a lawyer with a brief past as a blogger. Until very recently, he didn't run his own blog, but was simply one of thousands of contributors at someone else's blog. He didn't have a separate page here at Wikipedia for him until this incident, when it was created simply to "out" him. That said, now that other sources have caught it, there's no point in trying to hide it. So it would probably be appropriate to put this new information on the Daily Kos page, but I don't think Armando deserves his own page. - Maximusveritas 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

- The initial entry under Daily Kos was sourced in information from a deleted diary and published in Wikipedia with intent to do harm to the well-known blogger Armando. The previous references to his name and profession are obscure. The publication of this information has compromised his personal and professional life. Is it actionable? Are there grounds for a charge of harrassment? How long will Wikipedia continue to consider personal and private information its province? - During these times of illegal warrantless domestic surveillance abuses by the present administration I am appalled at how quickly the "anonymous" mob mentality has jumped on this opportunity to "out" a person's identity, profession, and clients, with no other intent than to do him harm, cause him grief and hardship, and limit his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist. - M.Suskind - «Talk» 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Get a grip and stick to the topic at hand. No one was "outed" here. He is listed as a Kos contributor under his full name on a major news source (NPR) and on the website of a major university (Stanford). Are you seriously saying this fellow went on the radio and to an open university conference using his full name, announcing he was a Kos contributor, and expected that no one would make the connection between "Armando" the Kos diarist and "Armando Lloréns" the corporate lawyer? If he was trying to stay anonymous, why did he publicly announce his Kos connection? A2Kafir 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • And, by the way, legal threats are not considered valid parts of Wikipedia discussions. (Never mind that there is no case to be made here, since it was clearly public information; FYI, there is a difference between "widely known" and "public."). Also, you are assuming bad faith, another Wikipedia policy violation, with your charge that this page was created "with no other intent than to do him harm." A2Kafir 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to M.Suskind First of all, I don't see any evidence for any mob mentality in this discussion. Spend a few seconds reading WP:AGF before you make slanderous remarks about the intentions of the editors here. Second, about Armando's intent to keep his identity private, I have never heard anyone else claim that Stanford University and NPR are obscure entities. Moreover, it seems to me that both sources were voluntary opportunities to speak publicly and seemingly Armando agreed to have his (semi-)full name and both his affiliations (attorney and blogger) be used to identify him for those occasions. So the alleged interest in his privacy seems to be a rather new thing, and I'm sure Armando understands the dynamics of the internet well enough to realize that if any information is posted on any website it is very much in the public domain. I was very sympathetic to proposals to keep his full name out of the public domain before, but with the new evidence I fear it's an open and shut case. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with DailyKos article. This article describes one of the most widely known bloggers in the world. As with the "Jeff Gannon" a.k.a. James Dale Guckert page, the subject has voluntarily made himself a public figure. If this article collects falsehoods, attacks, or other inappropriate information, then these can be handled by other means than outright deletion of the article. -- 18.252.6.136 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy" There was no due regard for the subject's privacy. It impairs his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist. It was Armando himself who deleted the information from the entry on the Daily Kos page and said that he considered it harrassment.

I am sorry if it was understood that I meant Wikipedia editors were "outing" him. I did not mean that at all. His detractors and opponents on the right and those who just plain dislike him have made a concerted effort to disseminate this personal information as widely as they can. The publication of his personal and professional information is an attempt to smear him politically by his opponents. The original edit here was unethical and with intent to do harm. At issue here is intellectual property rights, and included in those rights is a person's right over publicity. As a web journalist he has built over the years a significant body of work. As a result of this "outing" he can no longer write on the web with the same name, as it would impact negatively on his profession, i.e. conflict of interest. Should he continue as a web journalist, he no longer can continue to claim that body of work.M.Suskind 10:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, M.Suskind, your reasoning is simply unsound. He was 'outed' (to use that term very, very, loosely) by himself on several different publications, going back as early as 2004, such non-notable publications as NPR, the Clark Campaign website, Stanford Web site, Majority Report Radio, and etc. The information was circulating on liberal blogs (truthout was one) two weeks ago. The cat was 'already out of the bag' as they say LONG before NRO 'outed' him. To suggest otherwise is to be uniformed on the facts. Even IF Armando himself suggests his identity was private, it simply was not, as he made it public himself many times over the last few years. --B.ellis 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The blogger Armando/lawyer Armando Llorens-Sar has NOT taken efforts to protect himself. Appearing by name at conferences, on a national radio network such as National Public Radio, etc., he has indeed "outed" himself.

  • Comment Looking through the comments, I sense a general consensus that we should be able to mention Armando's full name and profession now that he's already been "outed". The question we really haven't addressed, however, is whether or not Armando is notable enough to have his own page. Some people have simply stated it as a presumed fact, but I haven't seen any evidence to prove it. Note that prior to this incident, Armando was not even mentioned on the Daily Kos page, much less his own page. As I said above, if he stops blogging as he says he will, he will be nothing more than a lawyer in Puerto Rico. That certainly would not be notable enough for his own page. Maximusveritas 06:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'd say in a world where a Hindrocket is notable Armando is notable as well. But I really don't have a strong opinion about it. If he is listed under DailyKos I'm fine with it. ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    A Google search for Hinderaker shows far more unique hits, including some major publications like the BBC. Armando is only referenced by Daily Kos and other liberal blogs. I think listing him under just Daily Kos is probably the best option. Maximusveritas 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Well the fact that the first Google hit for the name Armando ends up on DailKos speaks for his notability. Also it seems like the majority of voters who didn't urge us not to "out" him seem to think he's notable. But then again, we could delete this entry as proposed, create an entry Armando (blogger) and put it up for AfD. Clearly the issues here have become too entangled to read a general consensus on his notability. ~ trialsanderrors 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Clearly notable enough to have his own page. He has appeared as a guest on several national programs, including The Majority Report and NPR's Morning Edition. Plus, he is clearly the most popular "front page" writer at Daily Kos, which is the largest political website in the country.
  • Keep While the intent of those "outing" Armando, may be malevolent, he certainly is a notable figure. Typos 09:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep I mirror the comments that the "outing" was mean, but his identity wasn't really hidden. And now the cat is out of the bag. People shouldn't have editorial control over their Wikipedia entries. Of course, we shouldn't be publishing private information. The Cunctator 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I heard this blogger mentioned on NPR's "Morning Edition" LAST YEAR. Listen to it yourself here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4978243 They say his full name, that he is an attorney, and that he is well-known blogger at daily kos. This program was heard by millions. I googled and found his full name, the fact that he is an attorney, and that writes for daily kos many, mentioned many times over the last several YEARS, including on the website of another nationally broadcasted program, "The Majority Report," where he also was a guest. The guy is obviously notable and should be included annnnnnnnnd I think ALL his biographical information that can be PROPERLY SOURCED by WIKI STANDARDS should be included -- just like every other wiki biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperconndria (talk • contribs)
    And it's his first edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is this page still blanked and protected? ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 17 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.