Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

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 wasThe decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes to keep.

After processing 293 total votes

Total Keep: 146

129 Keep
17 Keep/Merge

Total Delete: 46

40 delete
6 delete/merge

Total Merge: 124

101 merge
17 Keep/Merge
6 delete/merge

While this does not provide an overwhelming keep vs. merge consensus it does provide that this article should not be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

Notability, Non-Encyclopedic, and do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notoriety. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Delete

  • Delete This isn't important. Nobody cares. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:27, 15 Dec, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster). He has less than zero notability and anything here can be covered in John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy quite easily. Gamaliel 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per my comments in Talk:John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Brian_Chase. I think that a disambig link to the controversy can be made in the Brian Chase article. And to counter the transparency issues etc. It is transparent, theres a whole article about the controversy! - Hahnchen 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. His name can be mentioned in the controversy article. Besides that, he's totally non-notable. Jacoplane 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately. He is not notable. Just because he hoaxed Wikipedia does not make him notable. If we make an article about him, we have to make an article about every person who gets banned from Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The national media begs to differ with you. Keep for that reason, although I could tolerate merge and redirection. Pcb21 Pete 17:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Which "national media"? The English? The Australian? The Canadian? Please, don't think that because USA papers are giving attention to this, it suddenly became a world topic. JoaoRicardo talk 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ridiculous. there are hoaxes every day. what makes this guy more noteworthy than any other wikipedia troll? is anyone going to care about him in a year? i thought not. this is an encylopedia, not a blog. Derex 19:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- Oh? And how would that look to the mainstream if Wikipedia shoves this issue under the rug. Removing it would look like we are denying this event ever happened, out of embarassment. This information must be available; it's just a matter of where. See below for my suggestion to merge. --CoderGnome 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- I don't think other Wikipedia trolls have had New York Times articles about them. *Dan T.* 19:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE. The man tries to hold himself up as somoene who stepped forward when he learned of the damage he caused, but the truth is, he was traced by his IP address. DELETE.
  • Speedy delete, don't give this loser free ad space, or others will start to emulate him then come forward to say, "Hey, I was the one who vandalized place article title here. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Look at the big picture - in 2 days this will be gone from media attention. This is neither notable for Wikipedia as there have been numerous hoaxes that have gone on here, nor for Seigenthaler who has a lifetime of more notable experiences than this one. Were it not for his op-ed article for USA Today, this would not have been news, like if he had just edited out the hoax himself. 68.145.127.91 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Buns
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't think that pages describing edits should be allowed. Articles get reverted and edited all the time, just because this one got more press there needs to be an entire page about this guy? Sure there can be a snippet in the vandalized article that refutes the false claims, but there does not need to be an entire page that dwells on this edit alone. Leave the guy alone, there is no reason to ruin this person over an edit. Get over it people, you have a encyclopedia that anyone can edit, what did you expect? --Rain 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, and these hoaxes happen all the time. This is not at all noteworthy. Let's delete this and work on more important articles. --GilHamilton 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No vandal should gain notability for his actions on wikipedia. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge content & Delete. Having this article only encourages exactly the sort of behavior we don't want. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not an article that belongs in an Encyclopedia. Just because he made a fool of Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should in effect try to make a fool of him, by having an article on him. Gosh! 12 Dec 2005 14:46 GMT
  • Delete. Cribcage 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Avoid self references. Rhollenton 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and no merge and I am very stongly about that. This story was interesting, but it has gone to far. Let it die. Do we really want this in a published book of Wikipedia if it ever happens? --^BuGs^ 08:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Then I suppose we don't need the controversy article also, if your view is considered. But that page has already been voted to be kept and merging this into that would be the most appropriate thing to do. Jam2k
  • Reply That one is fine. This is page is just ridiculas. Also I think the controversy section on John Seigenthaler Sr. should be removed too.
  • Delete gives me no information at all. (plus no candy for vandals) Muzzle 09:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If we were to keep this article, we might as well keep an article on every person mentioned in the news, regardless of how important or unimportant they are. This gentleman, before this incident, was non-notable and will be non-notable after the incident has faded from our memories. There is absolutely no need for an article, no matter how brief it is, to be written about him. --Vortex 16:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia anonymity is one of its greatest assets, this article publicizes an editors mistake and ridicules him. It also may fall under Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks --Prodego talk 17:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How does the article begin to approach Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks? Hall Monitor 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • "Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks", the placement in an article makes this a very notable comment. Prodego talk 18:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • As far as I know, everything within this article is well sourced and verifiable, not accusatory. The vandal has personally come forward and apologised for his actions. Please come forward if you are aware of something within this article which qualifies as a personal attack. Hall Monitor 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it does not contain anything that's not already in the controversy article. I don't think we need a second article to mirror aspects of the main article. --Bringa 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least Merge. He won't be remembered in 3 weeks, much less in 3 years. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely non-notable and forgotten by everyone in several months. Wikipedia is encyclopedia of important things. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Elian Talk 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG DELETE - committing an act of libel or slander does not make one notable, even if it is against a person of note. Some of the arguments for keep here are apalling. Keeping it because he deserves further soiling of his reputation? That's just as wrong a use of wikipedia as what Chase did is. Pacian 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tell me, how is he any more notable than the thousands of other IP vandals? We don't have mainspace articles on User:Michael or User:Willy on Wheels or [that random IP across the street] now, do we? – ugen64 03:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Unless you buy into the tabloid press of course.Gateman1997 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --as many have said it is important not to reward a "hoaxer" so that such activity is not encrouaged. There has already been enough attention to the matter to encourage further vandalism. Why encourage more? 129.15.203.74 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, why should we be giving people who harm the Wikipedia community the credit they are seeking? To allow such action would be inviting other vandals in to get their 15 min of fame!. Tawker 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Agreed. ??????????????* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is an article about a vandal and we don't need to give them encouragement to corrupt other articles for their personal 1 minute of fame.--Dakota t e 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The guy is an irrelevant jerk and only the story, which is plentifully documented in other Wikipedia articles, is notable (and that only because the victim happened to have front page access to the MSM). 62.96.220.142 08:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the good-faith contributors on Wikipedia who work to make it better are more notable than a vandal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (merge, no redirect) a notable vandal, notable only locally inwikipedia. Merge the content into the main article. mikka (t) 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Willy on Wheels and friends don't get articles and they have caused more trouble than he has. QuaQue? 15:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete before this ends up like the GNAA votes. Swirlix 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't believe all the keep votes. This is a WikiNews item masquerading as an encyclopedia article. It looks like this is going to be kept, but a year from now, if there is another AFD, he'll have been well past his 15 minutes of fame and it will be a slam-dunk consensus to delete. BlankVerse 14:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I think the article is inappropriate and I agree with the original poster.BenPhil 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete we already have an article for this Ashibaka tock 01:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. His only notability is as a Wikipedia editor, and Wikipedia editors should not have articles on their Wikipedia edits. Chick Bowen 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no need for a separate article. --Ezeu 07:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN - agree with most of the above --rogerd 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete or merge

  • Delete or Merge Not notable enough to justify an article 203.109.252.196 17:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge See above -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly merge as suggested below. No candy for vandals (even if it's sour candy). PJM 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Would a delete and merge be a violation of GFDL? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, if actual text is merged, no, if information is just retold. Zocky 02:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Seigenthalergate, or, failing that, delete.--Sean|Black
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. person is only notably in the context of the Seigenthaler affair. otherwise, delete --Jiang 12:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per Jiang; leaning toward delete. I've never seen so many votes! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-15 09:07:18Z
  • Delete or merge per Jiang. Amcaja 17:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

  • Merge modified (which I'll do if no-one else will) into Wikipedia#History. Ideally retitle. If Wikipedia is valuable, which we presumably think it is, then deliberate sabotage of it (which this action amounts to) is notable and should be documented - if only to discourage other malicious little vandals from pulling similar stunts. Simon Brooke 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - either with Wikipedia#History or John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Perhaps put up a redirect to the merged acticle. CharonX 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. --Damian Yerrick 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. Nico 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. No need to reward this nitwit with his own page, or to prolong the myth that this somehow hurts Wikipedia's credibility. | Klaw Talk 16:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Mergeper CharonX. Not notable enough for an article of his own. (Haven't seen this many edit conflicts since the new pope.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. --Hugus 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. It's news, and linked by Slashdot so rather than break the internet and create a lot of 404 traffic we should have something there. When Wikipedia makes headlines, it's notable. The Brian Chase is not notable, but the story is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.63.155 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 December 2005
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate. Seigenthaler[gate] is notable, this guy isn't. --Fermatprime 17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate. I think this needs to be here, but not on its own page. --cpritchett42 17:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Seigenthalergate and redirect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. The guy isn't really that notable but his actions should be recorded. RicDod 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. This man is not notable for any other reason. --Explodicle 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The guy is inextricably tied to the Seigenthaler affair and not notable outside that context. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy --tersevs
  • Merge -- Utterly no information that cannot be kept Seigenthalergate don't reward vandals more than necessary. And by the way, Chase was exposed by an antiwiki critic, not us... Jarwulf 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. In the interest of accountability and transparency, this information must be available, but this guy isn't noteworthy outside the context of the Seigenthaler controversy. --CoderGnome 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. He's an important part of that issue, but is otherwise totally nn. Canderson7 (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The guy is not notable outside of Siegenthaler. Scott Ritchie 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per comments above --csloat 20:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Seigenthalergate. Yes, this person is notable, but not outside of the context of the Seigenthaler article. I think it'd be more convenient and make more sense for information about him to be in the article on main issue. Mo0[talk] 20:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into general affair article. It is entirely possible for the person who causes a notable thing not to be notable him/herself, and this seems to be the case. JoaoRicardo 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Not notable except for this incident. It is the event that is notable, not him. --mav 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into bio controversy article. Not notable enough to merit seperate article. Ttownfeen 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Not notable outside this incident. If he becomes more famous later on, then he can get his own article. —Psychonaut 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect -- The Anome 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and redirect there. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the controversy article. Alensha 21:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the controversy article. This is important part of Wikipedia history. Saigon from europe 21:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, per Canderson7. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, as stated above. Omphaloscope » talk 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The guy is not otherwise notable. There won't be enough material for a full biography. (Unless John Seigenthaler Sr. gets to write it.... just kidding... ) -- PFHLai 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the controversy article. Gazpacho 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, as mentioned above. Gflores Talk 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. No notability outside this incident. Capitalistroadster 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy Kwertii 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and Redirect. This article is not about the person "Brian Chase", but about one aspect of the Seigenthaler affair. Therefore the information should be added to the affair's article. The person Brian Chase is not notable and doesn't deserve an article. AxelBoldt 23:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and Redirect. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It's the controversy, not the individual, that's notable. --Zippy 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agree with many others above, especially MeekSaffron. Should not "keep", as this is another case of the event being much bigger than a participant. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. The other article can easily support another section. Neither this or the other article is too long that merging would make it unwieldy. MeekSaffron 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Seigenthalergate I agree with Rickyrab, it would make an example out of him. AgentFade2Black 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    User's ninth edit.
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It provides more detailed factual information but is largely redundant and doesn't deserve a separate article. Improve the Siegenthaler article instead.
  • MERGE. This article belongs with the biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.90.243 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge seems best. --Davril2020 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This guy hasn't done anything remarkable beyond perpetrating the Seigenthaler hoax, which in my irrelevant opinion is completely blown out of proportion. Pilatus 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Although this individual vandalized Wikipedia, he shouldn't be singled out and should instead be merged into the page on the controversy, as everything here pertains only to the controversy. --Jackson 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Per above. --Dana 03:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge After reading many opinions listed above I have actually changed from the opinion I came here with (keep) to merge. Kudos to everyone for putting forth good arguments. akds
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. tregoweth 05:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge His life is only notable in the context of this particular event, thus it should be merged with the article about the event. Kaldari 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge he's just not notable enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect This guy is not important enough to have his own article. Just because he was responsible for the mess does not merit a seperate page for himself. Please merge it into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Natalinasmpf, I'm sorry, but we are not here to punish people for their mistakes... we are maintaining an encyclopedia, not a newspaper... Jam2k 06:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I've changed my vote to include Redirect.Jam2k 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - If every two-bit Wikipedia vandal got an article written about them, we'd have a whole lot of articles... - Mark 07:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. His life is not that interesting aside from this singular act. I vote to merge it with the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. jasker
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Punishing the vandal's reputation should not be a factor here, we should follow the same criteria as for any other article. It is pretty clear that this bio is non-notable apart from the controversy. Dforest 08:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge: cost of peace of mind for John Seigenthaler: one man's job. Damage done to free speech by free speech advocate: incalculable. Putting the whole hazerai in one place, and granting Brian Chase the mercy of relative anonymity: priceless. - Nunh-huh 08:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy --Zpb52 08:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect --Pamri • Talk 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. — ciphergoth 09:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. -- SGBailey 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Merge as per Nunh-huh. David Sneek 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy - deserves coverage in the main article but no, IMO, his own article. CLW 14:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I've never seen so many people vote on one issue. I'd hate to be the one counting the votes! Davidpdx 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Larsinio 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per CharonX. I feel it would set a dangerous precedent if this article were left in the main article space, as it is both self-referential and a positive reward for hoaxing. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the article on the controversy. This article is basically the last part of that one. - David Gerard 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect; cut down on the self-referencing. Ral315 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, and agree with feeling sorry for him. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (From talk: Due to the size of the page, I cannot now edit it to add my vote... Could somebody please add this on my behalf. So signed by User:SusanLarson on his behalf.)
  • Merge and redirect to the contraversy article, not notable outside event.D-Rock 17:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, move the drummer back, and add a disambiguation notice for John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Austin Hair ? ? 20:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. A Minor player in a second rate event (Think about the event as if it had happened 5 years ago) 5 years from now noone will care. The event is part of history, so keep the event. But not the 3rd dwarf from the right. 213.235.192.21 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy with the usual redirect. --Macrakis 00:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • shorten to one sentence and merge. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about this guy which would warrant more than mentioning him in the parent article. Zocky 05:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. By itself not notable. Just more Wikipedia clutter. -Wiccan Quagga 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the most useful chunks of information with the Seigenthaler Controversy or put them wherever you see fit and then redirect. Apart from Mr Chase's involvement in this particular case, he's just your average Joe, so I see no point in dedicating him an entire article, and a boring one at that. --Schwallex 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge -- Subject of article is seemingly non-notable outside of Siegenthaler issue. Partial players in larger events do not presumptively merit their own individual article. If Mr. Chase continues to act in the public eye this may change, but for the moment he fits squarely into the Siegenthaler controversy article. It would be repetitive to multicast his involvement into a second article. Redirection may be appropriate. -- Adrian 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge -G Clark 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge we should not make a scapegoat out of this guy, after all he admitted to his "deeds". Mieciu K 23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wikipedia Biography contreversy, there is no point of having some computer vandal article on Wikipedia. Firstly, having an article for a Wikipedia vandal will probably incite more vandals to follow his antics. Also, aside from sparking of his little prank, he is pretty much unnotable (and considering the amount of Wikipedia vandals, he is not so relevant considering other actions such as date changing and spurious biographies are NOT foreign to Wikipedia). However, considering the long reaching effect of this dude, one needs to merge it with the already crazy Wikipedia controversy article. No need to keep this guy around and give him an article likes he's a trophy. ??????????????* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to main controversy page. He has no useful importance outside of the controversy. This kind of thing was bound to happen sooner or later due to the public's and media's misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of Wikipedia and he just happened to be the first one that garnered media attention. Nightwalker 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Seigenthalergate and redirect. Jasmol 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into the other article (as it has been dubbed, "Seigenthalergate")and redirect. --N410 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, as this is relevant to the situation. Otherwise, Move to a less deragotory page title. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the article on the controversy. I pity the admin who ends up closing this. --Carnildo 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to controversy article. If additional data needs to be added about this person, a separate article can be created later. -- Ze miguel 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Except for the media coverage caused directly by a single USA Today op-ed, this guy is the Wikipedia equivalent of Slashdot's Signal 11. (Who? Exactly.) -- Mpt 10:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect the fucking thing already. It's going to happen however the votes go. There's almost zero info in this article that's not already at the WP controversy article anyway. -R. fiend 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so for any given entry we ought to ask, "Would this subject/person/thing merit his/her/its own entry in a regular encyclopedia?" In Mr. Chase's case, the answer is unquestionably "no." There should certainly be an entry for Seigenthalergate on here if for no other reason than to not erase history, but Chase himself is merely a part of that. Aaron 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. If all Brian Chase ever did/does is be noted for the hoax, he should be included on the page about the hoax, not have his own page. --JohnDBuell 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. French Tourist 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. --ConradKilroy 23:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge absolutely not worthy of his own entry, but an indispensable part of the current controversy cori(talk) 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Siegenthaler controversy article and redirect to that article, as others suggested. Massysett 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge For future, facts of case the should be found in one place , Zache (comment by 130.234.200.110 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Merge to either John Seigenthaler Sr. or John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --cesarb 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy.-- GoodDay 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merege to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and redirect there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge or keep

  • Keep or Merge - he is well known b/c of what he did --209.222.54.242 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.54.242 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 December 2005
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. It is important, but the information is slim right now and it probably doesn't (yet) warrent its own article. Dark Nexus
  • Merge or Keep. If the Seigenthalergate is notable enough to keep, then this information is at least notable enough to be included on that page. Zacronos 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • First edit.
  • Merge or Keep. This incident was notable, and should be preserved. Plus, it shows that Wikipedia can admit to its failings, instead of hiding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.230.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep or Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and redirect. Rogue 9 02:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KeeporMerge'--User:Smerk
  • Keep or Merge' with some of the mentioned articles --Chester br 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The information needs to be available. I'm not sure if we should be giving this joker free advertising but at the same time, this is important to the events in question. Moonsword 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect This entry is essential to preserving the credibility of Wikipedia. This whole situation demonstrates that a self-correcting entity like Wikipedia can be a reliable source for information and that it does have all the necessary safety measures built in for policing its content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.78.109 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge, but definitely not delete. If anything, the amount of reactions on this VfD should demonstrate some demonstration of notability. The Minister of War (Peace) 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge, but fdont delete. This man is now part of Wikipedia's history, hence he deserves a mention. Omoo 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if it made the news, which it did... then keep. Sethie 16:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


  • keep or Merge . A quite importaint part of history of Wikipedia. Every good idea has its downsides and flaws , which need to be viewed in perspective ,and not hidden away. What most attracted me to wikipedia in 1st place was the whole idea of freedom of (reasoned) discussion and varied points of view of all types of issues.So to me the John Seigenthaler episode needs to be documented here. --Ludek9 01:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) .
  • Merge or Keep I don't have much to say here, I've only barely ever contributed anything to the Wikipeida. But I think this info should definitely stay in, in some form or another. As others have said, this is an important part of Wikipedia's history. Anyway, I suspect it's important enough that even if you totally delete it, it'll just come back in some form anyway. There's nothing to stop someone from recreating the entry from a locally cached copy of the page, is there? PragmaticallyWyrd 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. It happened. It was relatively important. It is our duty to document it....

Keep

  • Keep. Siegenthaler has said he wanted accountability, and this is evidence that Wikipedia has a certain level of transparency and accountability. Further, this story made national news and will be a notable event in the history of this project. Since this guy got "rewarded" with losing his job and apologizing in person to Siegenthaler innhopes of avoiding litigation, I don't believe this is going to encourage others. Jokestress 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep His actions and his confession are newsworthy events, and likely to be of interest for some time. Chris the speller 16:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - He is a notable player in an event that we have already decided to keep. --RayaruB 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure being outed and having other people write about you in a public forum is a "reward" for internet trolls like this. If anything, this is punishment. As the article mentions, this was covered in national media and is not just a big deal in the wiki community, so I think it's important enough to keep it. Besides, it smacks of fair comment. Guppy313 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Does no one else think that his details belong to the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy article? It's not like this guy is Nick Leeson or anything. - Hahnchen 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think some of us have a higher opinion of Wikipedia than others do. A search on Google news comes up with a grand total of 20 hits for '"Brian Chase" wikipedia'. The "national media" seem to be greeting this with total silence. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The Google query you have linked to now returns 115 hits. I suspect this number will increase significantly over the next few days as coverage continues. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • BBC -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Peripatetic 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The story has been covered by national media, and the wikipedia webpage is linked to by many websites. Somehow this has become encyclopedic material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 December 2005
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; he's been mentioned in major media now, so he's notable, and also an article on him is useful to help keep him from being confused with the musician of the same name who's already got an article. *Dan T.* 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and declare person a Dick and the enemy of wikipedia for waisting our, John Seigenthaler Sr, CNNs time. Also declare him a Terrorist or something. Just find an excuse to make his life miserable. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've read the deletion policy, and it doesn't fit into any of the categories. Not an acceptable candidate for deletion. Baltikatroika 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Comment on the above vote. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." and "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" specifically -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    How can the guy who caused the whole thing be considered a minor branch of the subject? Soo 17:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Because we have a pretty comprehensive article on the topic already and this is at the most a subsection of that. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 17:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • User's fifth edit.
  • Keep or Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. —BenFrantzDale 17:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Concealing information to prevent people imitating it? That's definitely the Wikipedia way! Soo 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. This a part of Wikipedia history, although it does require editing this person has become rather famous. User:Taylortbb 17:46, 11 December 2005
  • Keep. It's not about rewarding the guy. 1. It's about having a complete objective chronicle of something affects the Wikipedia. 2. The degree of notariety pretty much requires it. 3. If the whole deal wasn't about the Wikipedia, probably no one would have a problem with inclusion. Marcopolo 17:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We don't ignore news just because it happens to us. --BRIAN0918 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't merge. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is enough of a contributor to the Seigenthaler issue that there is no sense deleting the article but keeping the rest of the Seigenthaler silliness. Neilc 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We're keeping the Seigenthalergate page, why not this? -- 66.159.216.215 17:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    Anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If it is newsworthy, then it should stay in Wikipedia. (Bjorn Tipling 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep for now. Later on, merging or not merging should be condidered. WAS 4.250 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- JJay 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- SeanO 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- This is just an event of history, therefore it should be saved from deletion. Cosmotron 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    15th edit, only one to an article.
  • Keep. -- Perhaps this may be one day noted as the beginning of the end of a truly useful Wikipedia, when out of fear of hoaxing, user anonymity is sacrificed instead of finding a better solution to problems like this. It's the onus of the Wikipedia system to ensure the information is "maintained" as correct as possible, and the solution should not be to expose users (even abusers) like Chase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.27.39 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 December 2005
    • Ahh, the true sign of a Slashdot user: indentify the "incorrect solution" without making any effort to suggest an alternate solution. --BRIAN0918 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Part of a fairly notable hoax. Like it or not, he has a lot of notoriety. Cacophony 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this hoax became significant when national newspapers started reporting on it and the guy lost his job over it. Bryan 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this hoax is national news, and involves the wiki. --brokenfrog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.234.26 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 December 2005
  • Keep One of the complaints was lack of accountability, This shows that W is able to admit its errors and not hide it. Naelphin 20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if telling this story creates copy-cats, it is still a valid topic for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a notable part of Wikipedia history. --Groucho 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a part of Wikipedia history, like it or not. Should be linked from other pages abou this whole situation. --Ahbanks 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.
  • Keep. The Seigenthaler article should not become a place for discussion of this issue, but should mention it. Also, the fact that this person lost their job as a result of this should be kept around as a warning to others. --Jon Thompson 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.220.214 (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 11, 2005
  • Keep or Merge This is an important fact / story in the history of wikipedia, and will be around in the internet consciousness forever, so it should be documented, though this incident could be described in an article about vandalism / hoaxes on wikipedia in general. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.245.212.72 (talk • contribs) 21:16, December 11, 2005
  • Keep or Merge --156.34.70.132 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't merge. This vote took some time and thought.
    1. The story attracted significant attention from prestigious news sources.
    2. People can become notable for a single destructive act.
    3. He lost his job over the incident. That hardly encourages imitation.
    4. If Wikipedia were not involved in the story I suspect we would vote to keep.
    5. Since Wikipedia is involved in the story we have particular reason to keep. Visitors could construe a deletion, merge, or redirect as a less than forthcoming response. Durova 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 216.164.193.81 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.I thought it was funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.8.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. People will wonder whatever happened to the guy who was instrumental to the editorial by Siegenthaler in USA today. It does have encyclopaedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.85.241 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as a quick reference. Merging with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy would mean having to go through a long article. <KF> 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Its against NPOV to not list something simply becaused they did a bad thing. Also I find this notable as it triggered the anon can't create new pages anymore thing. (wouldn't mind to much if it were merge, but prefer keep) Bawolff 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this information. Whether it should exist under this title or the controversy article is an organizational issue best left to the editing process, so merging is fine. Demi T/C 00:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
This is the users sole edit. I think we should disregard it (even though he's voting the way I did). (Bjorn Tipling 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep and merge the information into Seigenthalergate (Seigenthalergate could be a useful short name for this scandal). Try to make an example out of the vandal and what happened to him so that they'll be discouraged from fucking up Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think that name works. (Bjorn Tipling 00:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep And it doesn't hurt that it pisses the guy off, he's an asshole.
This is an anonymous vote (and he's uncivil), I say disregard (even though again he voted the way I did. :( )(Bjorn Tipling 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep. He is way above the bar we commonly set for notability. I'm not saying that the events are equivalent in importance, but we have an article for the driver who told Rosa Parks to give up her seat, because his action precipitated a notable event. Only merge and redirect if a new norm is being created, so I can make redirects out of the stubs of minor TV characters I keep running into. - BanyanTree 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's important on its own as part of Wikipedia's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.151.246.150 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This story has generated more press than most of what passes AfD on Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I created it as Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster) last night because I thought he was encyclopedic (If Nick Leeson can get into Wikipedia for one screwup with major consequences, I think Chase belongs). It got turned into a redirect. Whatever. I also think this might deter non-vandalism–oriented jokes here by making sure this is what they get out of their 15 minutes. And, in that vein, I propose a new category: People who must never be allowed on Wikipedia again. (Just kidding). Daniel Case 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's not give this guy too much credit. Leeson, after a period of fraud and over $1bn in losses, caused the collapse of Barings Bank, rocked the financial markets and put 100s out of work. So far Chase is the only person to lose his job over this, and I doubt that Rogue Vandal is in the works with Robert Redford as Siegenthaler and Ewan McGregor as Chase. -- JJay 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • COMMENT Yeah, but it looks like he's just kicked off the largest, most active deletion vote in the history of Wikipedia (Does anyone keep these records? Has any deletion vote ever drawn this many users, even factoring out sock puppets?) That in itself confers notablility.
      • How about a compromise that would deter vandals alright ... Keep the article on Wikipedia; Delete the subject from reality (Joke! Joke! Joke!). Daniel Case 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. looking through the votes I think that User:Locke Cole nailed it; the story might not be finished playing out yet. If a few weeks go by and nothing new happens, it would be reasonable then to merge with the main controversy article. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If Osama Bin Laden can be noteworthy then this guy should also be noteworthy. 220.233.48.200 05:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've heard of so many wikiers bash on the mainstream media and encyclopedia writers by saying they cover up their own misdeeds and embarassments. Well, Brian Chase is an embarassment to the Wikipedia...and wouldn't you know, the citizen reference writers are trying to cover it up. "The more things change, the more they remain the same..." 24.2.49.140 05:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would say any and all factual statements belong in Wikipedia. If what was written about Brian Chase is true, and is presented from a neutral viewpoint, then it stays. User:Georgeccampbell
  • Keep - Newsworthy, and the name may go down in net history/parlance as a prominent example of a particular web phenomenon. Do delete the next 225 trolls who try to achieve notoriety in the same way. edgarde 05:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, in my opinion. Plus his reputation needs to be punished. -- Natalinasmpf 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the first big hoax for Wikipedia, and one of the 'turning points' for the Internet.
  • Keep. Wikipedia's reputation suffered because of the actions of Brian Chase.
    • So? Everytime a twelve year old puts a penis in George W. Bush makes Wikipedia's reputation suffer (provided someone sees it, of course).--Sean|Black 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • To be fair, the major difference in this case is that the vandalised article in question received worldwide press coverage, resulting in a major policy change on Wikipedia (only registered users may create new pages), the resignation of the vandal from their place of employment, and follow-up news coverage focused on the person personally responsible for the vandalism. If Willy on Wheels were to receive this type of coverage, he/she/they would warrant a Wikipedia article as well. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although it is unfortunate there are so many, erm, strange votes here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --TheGrza 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable? Check. Enyclopedic? Check. Nothing else to be said. Johnleemk | Talk 08:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. To not do so would be like never outing the author of Primary Colors.
    • Comment Non-sequitur. The Joe Klein article contains information that is otherwise notable. This article doesn't. Dforest 09:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very important character in Seigenthaler saga. --Jannex 10:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't quite understand the arguments for merging, he is significant and, as such, merits an article. Themindset 10:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 10:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP maybe even photoshop his asss on a galow, or in front o a fireingsquad. - anyway this must be remebered as danger to a world of free speach - I hope this guy loses more than just his job, - i shure as hell wouldn't want him as my son.-- 11:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, newsworthy stuff. --Sindri 11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep newsworthy ? UkPaolo/TALK? 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because the nominator used a non-word. Kurt Weber 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If it's good enough for the BBC [1] it's good enough for an article. Also, it's an important cautionary tale for all Wikipedians. Lee M 12:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Completely agree with previous comment - read about this man on BBC news and want to know who he is Mattmm 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Totally agree with the accountability argument Jbarfield 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just about notable, though I am uncomfortable about giving such "recognition" to vandals/dispensers of misinformation. Plus I have a strange feeling Seigenthaler wouldn't be too fond of an article on Brian Chase being merged into an article about him ;-) SoLando (Talk) 13:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted to delete the Seigenthaler controversy article, and now I think I was wrong about that. It seems to getting a lot more attention than I thought. I was worried about having an excessive focus on things that happen to us, a different standard of notability, or skewed perception...but now I'm pretty sure that article is worth having. So, when I look at this article on Brian Chase, my first reaction is to think it should be merged/redirected, and anything worth saying can go in that controversy article. But, I figure I ought to learn a lesson and err on the side of a keep vote, because if you're in doubt a keep vote is usually the way to go. I think on the article talk page it might be a good idea to discuss merging there, though, and let the editors who are interested in the subject make a decision about that. I think in an uncertain case it's a good idea to put down a vote for keeping it, but also urge interested editors on the talk page to look at it more deeply and make an eventual decision about whether to merge it or keep it independent. A keep vote doesn't necessarily have to contradict eventual merging; I would expect interested editors in the future to make a better decision than me. It just means "keep pending talk page review". Everyking 14:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As a side note, I also want to say I feel really sorry for the guy. Vandalism and deliberate inaccuracy can't be tolerated, but it should be dealt with quietly here on Wikipedia, not through all this press coverage. He shouldn't have to suffer in his real life for this, just because Seigenthaler wanted to blow it up out of proportion to serve his idea that Wikipedia is dangerous, or whatever it is he thinks. But anyway. Everyking 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I happen to know Seigenthaler through professsional ties. He is an honorable man and I think his airing of this editing issue is valid. It is just as valid for us to publicize the person who dishonored him. Not for retribution, but for accuracy. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke and other infamous journalists of the past, for example, should be remembered as the scoundrels they were just as accurately as we remember the heroes. Kazari 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Chase ignited an international controversy and sparked some fairly important debate on the nature of Wikipedia by his ill-considered actions, which I think makes him notable enough to have his own entry.--Chuckhoffmann 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, easily meets and exceeds the bar of WP:BIO. Silensor 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep To do anything else but keep this article would be the same as a cover-up!!! Some users should also be careful what they say about people outside of the article sites as well such as Rfiend who seems to libel people at the drop of a hat! Dwain 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP- very notable Astrotrain 16:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- He's now made so many newspapers that he hit the top of the news.google.com page. Even if he never does anything else newsworthy in his life, he's earned himself a spot in the encyclopedia. --Mareino 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Removing such a noteworthy event in Wikipedia's history would mar it's reputation, similar to a cover up. I would suggest this be kept as a learning experience to make this tool better.--Britsda 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and then discuss what to do with the content (merge or keep seperate) once the media publicity blitz dies down. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This man was just mentioned on a BBC Radio 4 news programme. If the BBC considers him notable, so do I. Dmn 17:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment But he's only notable for this hoax. Most of the info already exists in or could be easily integrated into the controversy article. Unless he becomes notable for something additional, I don't see a compelling reason to have a separate article for him. MeekSaffron 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Being "mentioned" in a news programme does not equal notability. I bet thousands of people are mentioned by the BBC in its news programmes. JoaoRicardo talk 06:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or if we must merge into the Siegenthaler subarticle.  ALKIVAR™ 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - up for deletion? What gives? Merge is also possible, as there's not much here just now, but the story's not over yet. And what would a deletion look like to the outside world? --Plumbago 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An important event that may shape Wikipedia policy for years to come. A man who has changed the way people look at Wikipedia in a major way. There are many other less important articles about more minor people. This could easily be something people care about 5 years from now.160.36.121.50 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of Wikipedia history. --Neverborn 21:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please erasing this does not make any sense Yuckfoo 04:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't delete this article, because this 'accident' was in the media so hard. --Johannes Buchner
  • Keep. Merge, modify, edit, whatever...but KEEP because this topic may (or then again it may not) help Wikipedia deter real vandals. Then there's its historic significance too.,,,,,Ariele 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not quite generic enough to be merged into the main article, and why get rid of part of the site's history? Imdwalrus 20:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. It is notable, and guess what... being caught, losing your job, feeling the need to apologize doesn't exactly encourage one to vandalize Wikipedia. Misguided AFD. - RoyBoy 800 21:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is now (unfortunately) an historical event in the world of the internet. Wikipedia may be the biggest and best wiki, but it isn't the only one. As we progress in time and technology, wiki's will play a bigger part in people's lives. Documenting what is the first national furor over a wiki's vandalism is pertinent information for future generations. Jaileer 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. obviously. The fact that a gazillion people have voted here is testament to it's popularity. Anybody who wants to delete is denying their own reasons for coming to this page in the first place. There are better candidates for deletion out there that nobody cares about. "do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notoriety?" Huh? While we're at it, let's delete Hitler's entry, too. Malnova 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -This gained considerable coverage on various cable news channels, and a big controversy within Wikipedia --BrenDJ 22:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep JH 128.214.200.202 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable because he is part of what led to WP removing abilities from anon users. nae'blis (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least Merge and redirect if the article don't grow three kb --Marc Lacoste 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is illustrative information highly relevant to the discussion of the viability of the wikipedia concept proper. 84.167.142.65 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is now a part of Wiki history and shows the own honesty and power to document facts of interest in a neutral manner. See the german article of the Spiegel Kt66 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Wookieepedian 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Stbalbach 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.124.137.87 (talk • contribs) 01:02, December 13, 2005
  • Strong Keep - His existance and relevance are proven by his already being here, deleting him would be attempting to alter historical purity. laurens.whipple 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Extra Strong Keep - Exercising total and complete honesty is done by keeping things level, balanced and fair -- especially with things that might reflect negativly upon the place hosting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.67.59 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep. The libelous Siegenthaler edit is a big story, as shown by the national news coverage given to the identification of this hoaxster. I believe there will be interest in this controversy's two main participants as long as there's interest in Wikipedia. Rcade 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because he's notable enough to warrant his own page. The fact is, his identity and name have widely reported. As a result, he's not just another vandal, I'm surprised that some people don't appear to understand this. Whether or not it will encourage other vandals is irrelevant. We should not hide an article just because it may encourage vandalism. The widespread reporting is far more likely to encourage further vandals anyway. Merge with redirect is acceptable but not preferble. He's now notable enough for his own article... Nil Einne 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Ratclaw 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I only found this page thanks to Yahoo. I think that's notable and newsworthy enough to warrant it staying. --Beau99|talk 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mr. Brian Chase is an honourable and upstanding citizen of the United States. By deleting his entry Wikipedia risks damaging its reputations further for "covering-up". 129.97.252.63 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. "'I'm glad this aspect of it is over,' Seigenthaler, 78, said. But he expressed concern that 'every biography on Wikipedia is going to be hit by this stuff - think what they'd do to Tom DeLay and Hillary Clinton, to mention two. My fear is that we're going to get government regulation of the Internet as a result.'" (source: Yahoo! News -- "Author Apologizes for Fake Wikipedia Entry" http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051212/tc_usatoday/authorapologizesforfakewikipediabiography) Brian Chase is a key player in an event that could bring about consequences for all of us. For the simple fact that there's national debate about government regulation of the internet, it defies logic to say that Brian Chase is not noteworthy. He's part of the reason there's national debate to begin with, and while he may not be the person who has sparked said debate (Siegenthaler gets credit for that, with the article he wrote in USA Today), there wouldn't be any debate, had he not done what he did. Everyone knows what caused the World Wars, everyone knows what lead up to Roe v. Wade and to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, everyone knows about the draft during Vietnam, and everyone should know about what Brian Chase did. To play any kind of role in bringing about such debate that could lead to a landmark decision, especially one that deals with privacy laws, freedom of speech, and a whole slew of other issues, is definitely noteworthy. --Putainsdetoiles 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep its important to our history....as is this....clean it and leave it. not all past is bright. learn, keep it, cleanit, and move on--Alex 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there are tons and tons of random people listed in wikipedia, and this guy has made national news. i agree that wikipedia should not become a blog, but brian chase has shown a hole in the screening process of posts on wikipedia, he has significance in illustrating the great freedom of the internet. i suggest that wikipedia screens people's entries and notes whether or not an article has been verified.
  • Strong Keep Notable person in the realm of world wide web free speech. --DuKot 05:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or at the very least Merge. Chase has now become news, and deleting him so rapidly makes us look like CBS killing the 60 Minutes tobacco story. Transparency is key here. Sleeper99999 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep he had made himself notable enough abakharev 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it's become part of wikipedia's history, international media reported on it, he is part of the historical event. dr who 07:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Even german "der spiegel" is refering to that article [2] --Superbass 07:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vandal or not, he's now one of the top ten names associated with Wikipedia in the English language media. Vincent 09:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is important for people to know that vandalism will not be tollerated or go unnoticed--SethG 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there will be more of them and a category of wiki spam, defacers and hoaxers. Just wait till april 1 comes round. we'd better be ready and ahve responses for the public.
  • Keep interesting thing in the histoy of wiki 13.00, 13 December 2005
  • Keep a good example of how anti-Wikipedia trolls may ruin your career.  Grue  14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. He's a major figure in Wikipedia history, and he will serve as a precendent for inevitable future controversy. Avengerx 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If someone want to know about the issue, they go to the issue article. If they want to know about the involved people, they go to the involved people's article. (unsigned comment by Algumacoisaqq 18:02 13 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep Don't rewrite history just because you don't like it. --Geverend 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Or, at the very least, merge.) Most vandals don't make headline news — this one has. jareha 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The media attention this has gotten make this person noteable, although most wikipedia vandals are not. DES (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Like it or not, this whole affair is a genuine news event. CarbonCopy 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable enough to have hits on Yahoo News coming up when a search for Wikipedia is done. Cobra22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP this is seen on major news sites now, and should be kept, even google turns up these results (unsigned comment by Broodwars20850 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)) (dated by poster as "12.13.2005 17:48 EST")
  • Strong Keep. If someone is famous enough to be all over the newspapers and on the media then he is by definition notable and worthy of an article. The fact WP deems it necessary to vote on whether someone in the media for an infamous scam on a major internet site is notable just highlights the weaknesses and lack of logic that is bedevilling WP. IMHO keeping this article is a "no brainer". Deleting it would be unencylopćdic and just make WP look as though it was deleting it to cover up the scandal. I can hardly think of a more stupid tactic in terms of news management. As they say in the media business, you'd only give the story "more legs". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! this is a vital piece of wiki history! (unigned comment by 131.212.42.164 01:29, 14 December 2005
  • Strong Keep. If he is noteworthy enough to appear in newsmedia worldwide, he is noteworthy enough for an entry. The huge amount of traffic to this VfD page shows how much interest it is generating. To delete this guy's story as "punishment" is incredibly POV, and is tantamount to a whitewashed rewrite of Wikipedia's history. TheDewi 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a part of our history. Paul, in Saudi 15:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep simply put, it is not a vanity page. CastAStone 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This whole story has been made important by other media. 10, 20, 50 years from now, what happens with wiki, blogs, and other Internet media, we have no way to predict, but like it or not, this story may become important to the history of the wiki.MutantJedi 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because this a lesson that somebody somewhere could learn from. Sweetfreek 08:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with as much information as possible about what happens to this guy because of what he did. And he should be banned from editing for life. Let this serve as an example to vandals: This is what kind of damage you can do to someone else, and this (loss of job, loss of privileges, loss of credibility; and you can be tracked down!) is what can happen to you! Jersey_Jim 12:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this is an "encyclopedia" article. BCorr|Брайен 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: This guy gave himself up, it was in newspapers... Wikipedia stands only to gain by showing the consequences of vandalizing articles. --Howrealisreal 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleting it may be perceived as trying to sweep the matter under the rug. Under no circumstances can we give that impression. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and delist from AFD immediately. You'll have to excuse my sweetheart, she's a terrible, terrible judge of character. —RaD Man (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
users 8138th edit.
  • Keep: --ST ○ 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Though Brian Chase made a joke out of Wikipedia's expense, he has certainly passed the notability test(though more in terms of notority). In addition, since many news articles talk about the incidient, it is verifiable. Thus, no matter what our opinion is of him, the article should be kept. --Hurricane111 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. With this incident cause for some people to call for the boycotting of Wikipedia, and as widely covered in the news as it was, I believe that this article is certainly noteworthy. However, consider renaming. Not only is the qualifier "(Wikipedia hoaxer)" bulky and unwieldy, it also states in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably... 3. are not insulting..." --Mark Yen 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Participant in a notable incident. --DrTorstenHenning 10:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is critical that this information be kept, especially now while so many people are looking for information about this issue. This is important accountability on the part of Wikipedia and demonstrates critical fairness that Wikipedia is able to not only post information about others, but willing to discuss/address the shortcomings of its platform and user base. Removing this post will only further undermine Wikipedia's credibility and I urge you to not do it. In a compendium of tens or hundreds of thousands of topics, leaving this one additional page surely won't hurt anything and can only help. --Fhoenix Fan 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. 199.46.198.237 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for now. Perhaps, bring it up for AFD at a later time when the controversy has cooled off. ---Aude 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps merge later when things die down.--Aleron235 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regardless of the wrongness of what he did his actions have had a huge impact, making wikipedia high profile for the 1st time ever, and thus he is entirely nottable enough to be here, SqueakBox 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Other

  • Keep for now to see where this story goes, but if this article isn't expandable beyond the hoax info, Merge. —Locke Cole 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • TATTOO TO JIMBO WALES' FOREHEAD. Why? Why not. Really, the arguments here are quite amusing, not unlike those squeaky toys you get out of a vending machine, but like such toys, you quickly realize there's hundreds of them, they're pretty much the same, and they're all worth about a quarter. By the way, this is a keep or merge. --Jscott 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Holy freaking cow, that's a lot of RfD responses! I think I'll just pass... :) — RJH 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge the information into Seigenthalergate. I want to see the day that wikipedia is so exhaustive in scope that it contains every man, woman, and child. Also pets. JeffWaxman 04:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no idea where to vote... this thing is crazy. Wikipedia is not self-referential, and this doesn't pass notability standards. Delete forever. Mention his name in the other article, but none of this is really worth having. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Undecided There are many good arguments on both sides of this debate, and it will be weeks or months before the dust settles and cooler heads can make an informed decision on the merits. Meanwhile, the article should be kept right where it is so that the many people following the many external links to it will know exactly where to find it. //NetEsq 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Hehe. While I've given my vote above, I'm not violently opposed to the alternatives. Especially the tattoo option. However, I don't understand why merge & redirect is bad for those opposed to it, since currently 99% of the information in Brian Chase is contained in the other article as well, as I mentioned on this Afd's discussion page. --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel sorry for the poor sap who has to count the votes on this thing.
  • Try to start a national controversy about this vote page so that a Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Brian Chase (hoaxer) controversy article is necessary. But seriously, I find myself profoundly unable to care about this matter. Once we're at the point of having a passionately contested, in-depth, 30-page debate about a three-paragraph stub, it's clear that Wikipedia loses either way. The process has eaten the encyclopedia. There's plenty of reason to delete this article (it's redundant to other articles and the figure probably won't be noteworthy enough for an article once we've given the events some perspective), and then there's reason to keep it (might as well leave up an article until there's more space between the present and the events, since it's easier to delete an article later than to recreate it later after it's been deleted, and lets people work to improve the article in question in the meantime), and somehow I don't see how it makes the slightest difference to the future of mankind either way. Yeesh. -Silence 09:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • But that would only lead to yet another deletion debate, so we'd need to create an article about Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Brian Chase (hoaxer) controversy controversy, and everyone can see where that leads - Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Brian Chase (hoaxer) controversy controversy controversy! And as for where that leads... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I was waiting for someone to make that joke. Dammit, I should've been bold! --MeekSaffron (Jaffa,Tree!) 20:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Unsigned and anonymous votes (a small selection of the total)
  • Keep A vote for keeping it. :)
  • Keep Keep it, it shows honesty and the ability to learn for wikipedia. TimmBauten 12.12.2005, 18:50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.98.242 (talk • contribs) 17:48, December 12, 2005
  • Keep Keep it for the people who'll read wikipedia in 500 years!
  • KEEP Keep it, as a warning for all in the future, that even a hoax can be damageable and disrespectfull. This also shows the flaws of Wikipedia and should be remembered as one of the firsts (if so.) Monday, 12.12.2005 17:32
  • Keep Keep this article as a self-corrective to Wikipedia and warning to future hoaxers. Wikipedia cannot claim to be a reliable source of information unless it opens itself up to self-scrutiny. Kemet 12 Dec 2005
  • Keep. It is significant enough to reference in John Seigenthaler's biography. Should that reference be deleted as well?
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark as a hoax, or preferably put into a hoax Wiki entry. This has become a part of Wikipedia History and needs to be preserved in a way that acknowledges that fact.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I went here to look up info on the guy as soon as I saw the report. This has historical context for the wiki project.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He messed with Wikipedia, he deserves his infamy. "Revenge is a dish best served cold".
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's interesting to read.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.