Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Mandelbaum

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Xyrael / 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Mandelbaum

nonsense page, libel LordBothwell 20:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC) — LordBothwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to both sides: The positions of nominator LordBothwell and article author Twotacos are now more than clear. Let's see what the rest of the community has to say. NawlinWiki 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're very transparent, as the only article that you've edited in your entire user history is Brian Mandelbaum's page. Brian, please do not edit the article. Self-promotion is against Wiki rules. I will now remove the deletion clause. Twotacos 20:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly edit. The page itself is not nonsense; it's a coherent article, with sources, about a contestant on The Apprentice with other TV appearances. The nominator is probably referring to the section that cites two blogs for the proposition that Mandelbaum was rejected from a fraternity. That section should arguably be removed, but it doesn't mean the entire article should be deleted. Note: nom is User:LordBothwell's first Wikipedia edit. NawlinWiki 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UT
• Delete up until last night this page said that Brian was a member of the gay/lesbian community and attended Gay/Lesbian events, this information was originally put into the wiki by TwoTacos and is baseless and untrue. LordBothwell 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response You are correct that User:Twotacos created the article on August 4, and that it originally had the gay/lesbian references in it. Those references are now gone, along with the fraternity section. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work -- information that is incorrect should be edited or deleted. Unless Mr. Mandelbaum himself is not notable, or the information about him is not verifiable, though, the article itself should be kept. NawlinWiki 20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep LordBothwell can not make baseless claims about the sexual orientation of one Brian Mandelbaum. Suggest adding more information to this wiki entry. Also suggest that LordBothwell (aka. Brian Mandelbaum) resist self-editing his wiki article as it is clearly against the rules. Ash`lnx 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Brian Mandelbaum, as a gameshow contestant who lost, is not notable. LordBothwell 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have already added your support for deletion above, so your second one won't be counted. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep-- Admittedly the Quinnipac stuff needs real references to reputable sources, or more corroboration, but otherwise the article is factual, with references. The article's subject is a notable person (see article talk page for my comments about that). --six.oh.six 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article describes a notable person (repeat appearances on a major network television station) as is indicated by a moderately sized following (both based on television appearances and through internet articles based on the television appearances). Information relevant to those topics should, at minimum, be kept in wikipedia. Regarding the controversial section, is it not enough that the material is categorized in the article as being controversial? Articles such as Richard Simmons' have statements describing allegations of him being gay but no proper citations (and a simple google search for relevant articles results in links pointing back at that wikipedia entry) but it is clearly marked that they are allegations and not fact. Stating that the allegations are fact is wrong, but it should be documented that the allegations exist and have been made. Iluvitar 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Its an article about a guy from the Apprentice. Why erase it? Funkaoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.246.64 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Funkaoshi has zero Wikipedia edits. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, apparently the anon User:72.136.246.64 faked a username. You don't usually see AFDs with single-purpose accounts on both sides of the debate. NawlinWiki 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Brian continues to edit the article and either impersonated an NBC executive (likely) or actually got an NBC executive to call me and tell me to cease and desist reverting the changes about Q. University... It's become impossible for me to keep up the reverting for his editing of his own page, and thus I'd ask for it to be deleted instead. jobeus 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Quinnipac stuff should not be on the page as per the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy since the references are too skimpy. No one's forcing you to keep reverting to them. Just let them drop, and someone else can put them back if they feel strongly about it and have proper references. --six.oh.six 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article contains an assertion of notability, but not to WP:BIO levels. GRBerry 03:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Accusations fly! If this is what the total efforts of wiki editors (and apparently the subject himself) can do to assert notablity, we should delete. The subject was not notable prior to appearing on the Apprentice, his appearances (repeat or otherwise) do not confer notability, unless perhaps if he/she is the winner, and even then it would depend on what he/she did afterwards. The subject does not seem to have done anything particularly notable SINCE the show and should be deleted per WP:BIO. His other TV appearance(s) referred to all happened prior to The Apprentice. Helping to "orchestrate a massive overhaul of the 70 year old company" is what executives as part of their job, and if that makes him notable, then I deserve a wiki entry too. Ohconfucius 04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Um... there are numerous contestants, from numerous popular television reality shows which nobody seems to have a problem with having a wikipedia entry. What makes Brian any different? Also, WP:BIO clearly states they are guidelines; not rules. Being the youngest citizen panelist on the ABC hit talk show Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher seems rather notable... since he was the youngest! Just because you dont take an interest in knowing the biography of a reality television star, does not make it unworthy of a wiki entry. Ash`lnx 06:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Due to Brian Mandelbaum's immature stature and his inability to reason - he has threatened me and others with legal action - I propose that he does not deserve a Wiki article at all. Twotacos 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, your position is only going to get counted once, no matter how many Delete votes you post. NawlinWiki 00:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm well aware. I edited my previous vote from a Keep to a Delete. My position is recorded here ONCE, and it's a Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twotacos (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 August 2006
• Keep. This person seems notable and the information seems verifiable. --Myles Long 13:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, the article needs more information on his participation in The Apprentice, as that is what he is notable for. bbx 14:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this looks like bad faith the article is about a notable person and verifiable too Yuckfoo 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I think that appearing on a reality-TV show doesn't make one notable to Wikipedia's standards. Flying Jazz 02:09, 2 September 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.