Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Serin

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 KEEP. Since nomination, the article has been somewhat rewritten to remove the attack tone. The article is certainly referenced. Is the person notable? I would say that being notorious is not the same as being notable, but that argument was not made. Most every commentor conceded his notability. Does the article violate WP:BLP? In my view it does not, being rigorously referenced. I did not even count the votes because of the many puppets, but base the close strictly on strength of argument, which falls to the Keep view in my opinion. Herostratus 13:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casey Serin

Casey Serin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Massive, well-referenced attack page. The history is filled with too many anon edits to accurately sort out, but in its current state this article is in dire violation of BLP. The sheer amount of personal details (more like documented stalking) disclosed makes this article a candidate for deletion and oversight intervention. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Note: nomination was based on this revision) (Note 2: article is possibly the result of a vendetta documented at www.exurbannation.blogspot.com - see afd talk) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

189.146.102.89 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC) *Keep. Casey Serin is famous. He has been on TV, the news. He has a blog. His case is relevant to society. It's not a vendetta - it's an accurate reflection of his actions. --— 189.146.102.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. *What, if any, part of this article seems to you to be incorrect? It is all well researched and most of the facts come from Casey Serin himself. If this is a vendetta, it is a vendetta that is being engineered by posting only the truth. Why protect? Is he suffering from battered blogger syndrome?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.162.29 (talk • contribs) — 70.106.162.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Agreed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.105.234 (talk • contribs) — 68.175.105.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Agree Manik Raina 09:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the facts can be verified from Serin's own blog. I don't think any set of facts would be terribly flattering towards him, but he has achieved quite a bit of notoriety, so he meets eligibility requirements for a Wiki article, and it shouldn't be deleted. 12.215.162.213 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — 12.215.162.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Personal blogs are not a reliable source. Serin's blog, in particular, provides only primary information and is bound to be biased. To attempt to manufacture notoriety by engineering an attack page is exactly the worst method of creating a Wikipedia article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.162.29 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Many of the facts in the article are verifiable via the linked public newspaper articles and linked public records. Photographic evidence exists for many of the ancillary facts (i.e. Jamba Juice, Macaroni Grill, The Murse, The Million Dollar Home). If there is a single statement in the article that you do not find credible, note it. You are making an argument to remove an article based on the fact that you don't find the content credible and have yet to point out a single part of it that is not credible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.162.29 (talk • contribs) — 70.106.162.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:70.106.162.29, please see Negative_proof. SkipSmith 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SkipSmith, please understand that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. A lack of evidence for the delete crowd does provide strength to the keep crowd. Snu164 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof actually falls on the guy making the unlikely claim. 129.186.205.84 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, a person has claimed that this article should be removed due to NPOV and Resource issues, and has not given specific examples. Snu164 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, this article is basically libel bait. Over the past two hours I've seen editors add and subtract personal information, baseless speculation, and random accusations. The tone of this article is nowhere near Wikipedia standards for neutrality. I don't much care if the content is credible, my concern is that this is a biography tailored for the sole reason of disparaging its subject. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for character assassination, and the massive involvement by various blogs is detrimental to building any sort of encyclopedic article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Serin is actually fairly well known among those discussing the housing bubble online. His blog has an Alexa ranking of 46,633, and has 130 pages linking in. I do agree that the page appears to violate WP:BLP and should be rewritten. SkipSmith 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As a Realtor, and having followed the Casey Serin story since early October, and doing a good amount of reasearch on public records regarding his transactions, I believe the Casey Serin article is fair, accurate and unbiased as of 20:22 PST USA on 03/15/2007. There is considerable interest in the Mainstream Media about the story of Casey Serin, and the legal ramifications of his real estate transactions. Removing this article would be a disservice to Wikipedia, considering all the work and research that has gone into its creation. It is not an attack page. Instead, it is a well-researched and documented page that is important, regarding current real estate lending practices in the USA.

• I see virtually no discussion of real estate lending practices in this article, but quite a bit of mudslinging. Saranary 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject person is notable. Considerable amount of external references are being quoted. Agree though that there are un-encyclopedic comments and personal attacks going on. --PeterMarkSmith 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or revise to be consistent with NPOV/BLP policies and protect from further edits. The page seems designed to humiliate and harass the subject. Since its inception, it has included offensive or insulting references to Serin's religion, nationality, marriage, family relationships, and appearance - none of which seem particularly relevant. I also question the repeated posting of his family members' names, photographs, and contact information. Saranary 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think an article on Casey Serin should exist, but to claim that the article in its current form is unbiased is laughable. Do neutral encyclopedia articles contain phrases like "Visitors to his blog are usually surprised at his smug comments, where it's obvious he doesn't believe he has done anything wrong, and that he deserves a lifestyle which includes several luxuries he can't afford to pay" and "Serin's personal eccentricities: his habitually unkempt haircut, his carrying a murse (which he refers to as his "man bag"), and his obsession with juicing"? Like I said, I believe an article on Casey Serin should exist, but only if it adheres to WP:BLP. SkipSmith 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Right now its little more than a liability. Serin's story is interesting, but not because of him as a person. Journalist coverage indeed used him as a "posterboy" to illustrate the volatile and absurd state of the real estate market. In a surprising (and not a little narcissistic) twist, Serin embraced this image, and created a blog. All of the negative comments, the structure, research, and defacement of his article are the result of this circus. There are hundreds of speculators who are in debt because of stupid business decision, singling Sarin out to illustrate the phenomenon is simply a poor basis for establishing a fair biography. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree there's nothing inherently notable about Serin, except that other people have decided to talk about him. I guess that makes him the Paris Hilton of real estate --- famous for being famous. But if people are talking about him, that makes him notable, even if by more objective standards he's not unusual. SkipSmith 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends, do claims of dubious notoriety trump the BLP/NPOV requirements of neutrality and doing no harm? Plenty of people were talking about Brian Peppers at one point, yet his article was little more than a freakshow. I'd rank Serin's claim of notability somewhere above Peppers' and quite a ways below Paris Hilton's. Hilton, at least, has a widely documented public image and a mainstream modelling/acting career. Serin has a series of technologically adept bloggers who actively maintain a clearly outlined smear campaign. I sure as hell wouldn't want to monitor this article for impropriety if it is kept, I'd go insane after a day's worth of back-and-forth edits! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear from the discussion at the Exurban Nation blog (linked in the afd-talk page) that there will be a concerted effort to continue adding information that contravenes BLP/NPOV policies for at least the near future. Saranary 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too --- I just went to Exurban Nation and read the comments section regarding this article. It looks like a bunch of people on both sides are intent on having a pissing match over here, so it might be worth protecting the page for a week or two until the kids get bored and go away. SkipSmith 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite per SkipSmith. Serin definitely notable, much of the info is verifiable and there are some quality sources cited. So I wouldn't toss the whole thing out. But that said, "unbiased" is about the last word I would use to describe this article. The fairness of tone section of WP:NPOV and WP:AWW. And even though many of the statements are sourced, certainly not all of them are. And some of it blatant opinion. If you're adding in to a biographical article a statement such as "many readers of such-and-such blog feel this certain way" about the subject, there's a pretty good chance that statement shouldn't be there. Mwelch 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Serin is a notable figure who has over 40,000 Google hits as of the present date. He has been featured in various magazines and other media, and is well-known among the real estate blogging community. The fact that he himself has been blogging about his financial debacle makes him even more notable. a49erfan 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)— A49erfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Agreed. The subject is relevant enough to warrant his own page though it might be wise to protect the article until the vandalstorm dies down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.10.135 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).— 70.174.10.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep and Protect Needs protected from libel and other content, but it is quite notable and seems mostly verified at present. Kopf1988 04:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete this garbage. None of it can be verified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.10.76 (talk • contribs) — 64.121.10.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Which substantial portion is unverified? Seems to me that the vast majority is well cited from either creditable newspapers or from Serin's words himself. Snu164 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)snu164 — Snu164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Have you watched the episode in question? It may very well contain every piece of this information (however unlikely that is) Kopf1988 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite. What episode of which show are you talking about? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Serin is a notable guy with even national paper USA Today mentioning him. I believe this article is a bit POV and needs to be NPOVise. We cannot doubt his notability and there are enough sources to establish his notability on Wikipedia. There is a need to remove the biased statements and we should adhere to WP:BLP and try to keep the article as neutral as possible. A complete rewrite is needed actually, to fix this NPOV problem. Terence 05:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The subject has been discussed in major media such as New York magazine and USA Today. However, many of the citations are from blogs, including the subject's own blog. The article should be cut down so as to contain only information attributable to reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Obviously notable. Current article is a mockery of NPOV though.--ZayZayEM 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not all nominations are a simple matter of notability. If the current article is a mockery, why shouldn't it be deleted according to the WP:CSD criterion on attack pages? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Because that's for when there's no acceptable version to which the article can be reverted. In this instance, not only could the article be reverted to its original (and much more tolerable) stub state, but there's actually some additional decent and sourced material in it now that could be used to expand it at least somewhat from that stub state in a way that would still be NPOV. Agreed with the previous suggestion, though, that given the current state of affairs the article may well need to be protected for a while. Mwelch 08:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  I still think that all the libelous material and personal accusations should be deleted from this article's history. After that, we'll still be left with a short stub about a random guy who made stupid decisions in real estate. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  Anetode makes a point here. If this is not a violation of any wikipedia policies, I support this move. Libellous material should be nuked if permissable.--ZayZayEM 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Casey himself wrote in his orginal blog regards putting all his info on the web, "I still really want it to be public. I don't know exactly why. Part of my just wants to be open and transparent with no regard for other people's feelings about it." He has been in USA Today twice, New York Magazine, NPR, San Fran Cronicle, Motley Fool, on and on. The guy lives on the web, and while he should not die on the web, his very public blog is a lonelygirl15 meets real estate bubble notable event. Much of the material seems amazing, but Casey blogs this stuff and publishes hundreds of replies. Biographies of living persons states: "The article should document . . . in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." DaveEnglish 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Information is traceable via public record and subject has become a figure of notoriety in Mainstream media. Despite the "personal vendetta" you have arbitrarily decided exists, you should do a better job of checking the facts for yourself before making a blanket decision to have the article deleted. It should certainly be edited to be more of a fact-based document as oppposed to a personal attack. However, the true and verifiable facts do not paint the subject in a positive light as a matter of course.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.236.18 (talk • contribs) — 74.72.236.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, but edit out certain parts* The entire story is pretty much verifiable, it is the tone that is the problem. Please note that this problem did not exist until Serin asked for it to be edited on his blog. Until then, it was very neutral and informative. Research into property deeds, foreclosure notices, and his media appearances is all verifiable, and represents a very current issue in America.--Jerichohill817 14:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)— Jerichohill817 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NPOV/BLP issues existed before Serin asked his readers to modify his entry, though. His blog post about the Wikipedia entry is dated 14 March 2007. Versions dated from February to 12 March have these issues as well. 129.186.205.84 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we edit it to neutrality. Considering that Serin is relatively famous and an very telling example of the subprime meltdown, which is a very hot and current topic in the US, the article should be kept. I dont have a problem editing it down to a more neutral tone, but much of what was on there prior was a stub entry, last I had seen it before this mess. In addition, we cant blame all the edits on exurban. Serin opened up his blog to unmoderated comments for a few hours once, and the vehement posted was NOTHING like we're seeing here. If it helps I would gladly add in the foreclosure notices with his name on them, or the courthouse docs.--Jerichohill817 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — Jerichohill817 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep, The article fundamentally matches basic facts. Perhaps some editing to a more neutral tone on personal element, but casey serin serves as a walking example

of the Trillion dollar real estate disaster. It is outrageous that people could get houses and mortgages on no more then their say so. While Serin is a fool, far more malevolent criminals used this same environment to strip billions in wealth from our society. To document how one fool could get over $2 Million in debt serves to show how weak the system is. It was harder to buy a car in 2005 then to buy a house." (Note: This entry does not have a signature, and may be the first half of the post by User:70.105.158.193 below. SkipSmith 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

• Keep. I vote to keep this Wiki entry. I speak not as a "hater", but as a fascinated observer. Casey is unusual. He is perhaps the most potent example of the self-revealing nature of young bloggers today, and he is also succinctly emblematic of the recently manifest real estate bubble and its various causes. All that is posted on his Wiki entry is true, as verified by Casey himself and interested third parties. He has made himself news, and the character flaws revealed by his transparent attempts at obfuscation add layers of further interest. The Casey Serin Wiki entry is a valuable, useful addition to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.158.193 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).— 70.105.158.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. Needs some revision on NPOV, but I believe a large portion of this problem is due to vandalism. I say protect for a week or so, then open to allow a non-biased edit to evolve. As for the accusation that it is unverifiable, it seems to me that it is well cited by creditable MSM and through the words of Serin himself.Snu164 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)snu164— Snu164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep; Serin has made himself a public figure through his media appearances and has developed some notoriety, particularly within the housing bubble blogs. I believe his story is significant enough, as an exemplar of property speculation, to merit inclusion. I'd note that article has actually *improved* in tone and reliability since Serin drew attention to it. Some mixed feelings though: there are NPOV problems, particularly within the Criticisms section; it does rely heavily on citations to Serin's own blog, not a reliable source for any statement not qualified with "Serin claims"; it will continue to be a target for vandalism given that both Serin and Exurban Nation have directed readers to it. --Jkew 17:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Keep". Again, Casey's story has been published in numerous major media outlets and is well known within the real-estate community. As for NOPV, I agree, it needs work in this area but when you have the subject providing information such as "Yes, I committed mortgage fraud." in an audio interview it is hard to not make the article seem as a bit biased against him when he has admitted on many occasions to have committed illegal acts and most people have built in negative feelings towards those who are un-remoseful about committing crimes and openly talk about it. While the article itself may be neutral, it, understandably, may feel un-neutral given that many people will find his actions and lack of remorse for those actions to be morally reprehensible and he has a distinct lack of any effort to rectify them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.236.92 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC). — 71.96.236.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Saying that it's difficult not to make the article biased because the authors will inevitably demand justice/retribution from the subject is not a good argument for keeping it, in my opinion. Quite the opposite. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for revenge fantasies. 129.186.205.84 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Nigel Swaby redirects to Casey Serin. Swaby is a supporter of Serin who has written about him several times on his blog. This redirect should be deleted; Swaby is not notorious in his own right, not is he closely enough associated with Serin to be synonymous with him. --Jkew 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find Nigel on the page. I assume this has been fixed. Snu164 03:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: There are a large number of edits here by IP addresses whose only contribution to Wikipedia is their post in this discussion. Does anyone know how to add the "this is not an election" template? SkipSmith 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• There seem to be a lot of single-purpose ips/accounts on this discussion... you should go through and tag them with {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}} per the template at the top of the discussion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done ... for now. SkipSmith 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. *THe Casey Serin Story is still evoling and the wiki should as well. The verifiable facts are sufficiently damning and unsubstantiated accusations should be redacted but a great disservice would be comitted if the article were to be removed just because the facts are so very distasteful. As a second point in favor of retention Casey Serin himself has sought the articles' expansion rather than requested its removal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.154.217 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC). — 75.84.154.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Restore. *Wiki has "jumped the shark" on this issue. The editors have removed reference to am incriminating video by the subject himself. Perhaps wiki would consider removing any pictures from the biographies of living artists as irellevant to their personal stories? The video documents. The editors need reconsider whether they are hiding behind neutrailty when in fact they are sanitizing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.154.217 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC). — 75.84.154.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Personally, I don't find this type of character, the type that wikipedia should be (even as a tertiary resource) granting notability to. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree it will take work to keep this one encyclopedic, but I suspect that is common of pages for persons with many detractors. I don't think it is Wikipedia that is "granting notability" to Serin. It is that with all the easy lending the media and the blogosphere are predisposed to put a face and a name to this phenomenon. Serin just came along to fit that bill and the bloggers and then the media picked up on it. I have been trying to make a case that we should ratchet down some of the personal content, but wasn't getting anyone backing me up and didn't want to get into an edit war. I think the discussion that needs to happen (where?) is what should be in- and out-of bounds for this article as a bio of a living person. If we can come to some consensus on the ground rules, it will make it easier to edit and police the page. As it is there are differing opinions about how much of his family's details are appropriate given his explicit request to keep them out of it. --Jake 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point about Serin becoming the face of the real estate meltdown. The biggest problem with this article in its current form is that many of its inflammatory assertions have been sourced to Serin's blog, Ramit's blog, the Exurban Nation blog, other real estate blogs, google caches and Usenet. All of these are considered unreliable sources, as per WP:ATTR, and cannot be used to support negative claims about a living person. Information gleaned from the news stories may be cited, of course. Saranary 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Because so much of the story comes out of IAFF we are in murky ground in WP:ATTR between "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" where "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Are there other blog-centric pages where this has been well hashed out for precedence? --Jake

• The only one I could find was Kaycee Nicole, a blogger who claimed to be a high school girl suffering from leukemia. It's not a great precedent, since her story turned out to be a hoax. The practical upshot is that the article is now based on a Wired article and a Snopes.com summary of the story, rather than quotes from the blog itself. Hope that helps. Saranary 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Jason Fortuny was deleted for attribution issues (blogs/craigslist). It's since been merged with Internet privacy. 129.186.205.84 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but with MAJOR rewrite. This article looks to be more mudslinging than anything else, with much reliance on blogs as sources. The guy appears to be notable (more properly, notorious), but this article is by no means NPOV. It looks more like a prosecutor building a case against the guy. Realkyhick 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Would you say that it is, primarily, an attack page? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a regular reader of Serin's blog and of Wikipedia (though rarely a contributor here), I would say the article accurately reflects the public persona Casey Serin has created for himself. He has built a popular blog by continually aggravating his readers, who in turn post sarcastic, hateful, and humorous responses which he allows through moderation. The article here is kind to him, compared to his own blog. 66.75.58.180 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Lee Reeves — User:66.75.58.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• So you're basically saying that Serin is a troll responsible for manufacturing his notoriety. The Wikipedia article is an indulgent response to the baiting, and it is neutral because it rightfully defames him as a self-important flim-flam artist. Are you sure you don't have Wikipedia confused with Encyclopedia Dramatica? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you've captured the Casey Serin story exactly. But in just five minutes I found Wikipedia articles on Derek Smart, Paris Hilton, Kato Kaelin, Linda Tripp, and Frenchie Davis, so I'm inclined to believe eliding the Encyclopedia Dramatica is going to be a big job.66.75.58.180 05:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — User:66.75.58.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Serin is no troll. His real estate dealings are very real. His notoriety stems from the fact that he has brazenly admitted to mortgage fraud, not just on his blog but to major media outlets as well, and has yet to face any consequences. People follow his story to see what will happen to him because many have committed the same offenses on a smaller scale. 205.212.74.143 05:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — User:205.212.74.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Casey Serin is not notable for his real estate dealings, but for being a minor Internet phenomenon, and that fame is based on the hatred he inspires. Serin himself appears to understand this: despite occasional misgivings, he continues to allow even the worst of the attacks once posted here on his moderated blog. A truly NPOV requires accurately documenting the notorious persona Serin himself has nutured.66.75.58.180 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Lee Reeves — User:66.75.58.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep/restore. This log is very accurate in itself and reliable content mostly suplied by Casey Serin himself in his own blog. While he may defend some of it now, that is only because his version is more biased than any normal person and wavers from day to day between taking responsibility and completely denying the facts as he [himself] stated them. This was his intention to cause so much havoc that Wiki would be utterly comfused and be forced to remove or seriously edit the page in a way that would completely omit the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.226.136.208 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC). — User:70.226.136.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. If he were just some guy who lost money on real estate, then there would be nothing to write. Casey Serin is notable not for his failed investments, but for the incredible level of detail he provides while talking about them. It's not just a blog; he has posted screenshots and scans of legal and financial documents that most people consider extremely private. The houses are relevant only to the extent that they make the exhibitionism interesting. If we have articles for porn stars, then it certainly makes sense to have one for him, for about the same reasons.

As far as what the article should say, and what references should be acceptable: this is a strange situation. Serin freely admits (on his blog, of course) to things that would be libelous if you accused someone of them. The anti-self-published guidelines on WP:BLP are written to prevent Wikipedia from propagating someone's self-promotion. They don't seem to mention what to do about self-defamation. 24.91.135.162 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Whether or not the current article is any good is irrelevant to question of whether an article should exist at all. Serin's name often comes up in real estate discussions without any explanation of who he is. People are just expected to know, and if they don't they may come here looking for information. They should find something, even if it's just a stub. 205.212.74.143 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — User:205.212.74.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. The original grounds for deletion are that this page is an attack page. Wikipedia defines an attack page: "A Wikipedia article, page or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page." (Wikipedia:Attack_page). This page was created as a factual, non-disparaging stub based on the USA Today article on Casey. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of an attack page, and the original grounds for deletion are invalid. --Billgordon1099 17:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm going to go with the poster above who notes that most of Serin's own entries are essentially self-defamatory. Serin admits to multiple acts of fraud, foolishness and self-delusion. Also, there are users who may appear to be single purpose IP's only due to the nature of the modern internet. My ISP uses DHCP, and resets the leases every 24 hours, plus, i wander between work, home and my mobile card, so i pop in and out of 3 Class A networks on a routine basis. Add in the fact, we are using NAT and it becomes very hard to predict what my IP is going to be. I don't login to Wikipedia, because, i want to be anonymous. I worked very hard just creating a table of entries of real estate deals done by Serin, and, i hate seeing it messed with. That table is essential to understanding what went on. YOu can see a slow movement, and then suddenly, a flurry of deals done as the cashback window was closing. Sadly, he blew much of his cash on a foolish house purchase in dallas. Which almost makes him an object of pathos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.166.151 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC).— 71.163.166.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The information in the table is almost completely unsourced. Dates and prices of sale are public records and should be able to be cited with reputable (non-blog) sources. Is there any reliable corroboration for the information from the W2 income/cash back columns - say, newspaper articles or television interviews? 129.186.205.84 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems interesting and notable. Nssdfdsfds 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While we will need to keep an eye on it this article should be retained. Serin has been quite widely covered in the media and his activities do illustrate the machinations that go on in housing markets all rouund the world. By choosing to publicise his own problems Serin has moved in to the public arena and a factual article about him is warranted. Lisiate 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll change my vote to Keep, but monitor closely for policy violations. While this article has been greatly improved since it went up for deletion, it's still primarily sourced from blogs and needs more attention. Several editors here and on the article's talk page argue that this is permissible because Serin's own words indict or condemn him; I disagree. Let Serin's words convict him on his own blog, and include only those facts which can be substantiated by reliable third-party sources in the article. Saranary 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• To expand, the article on Baron Munchausen does not uncritically accept his stories of his own adventures as fact. We need to keep the reliability of the narrator in mind here, especially as previous contributors to this article have suggested that Serin may exaggerate his financial woes or bait his audience for additional publicity. Saranary 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The guy has appeared in multiple media outlets. His blog receives several thousand visits a day according to sitemeter. The article is a definite "Keep". johndowning 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks like Casey Serin is going to be discussed on "ABC News, Suze Orman and PBS Money Track with Jack Gallagher" soon. Would be nice for such a public figure to have a Wikipedia entry. DaveEnglish 16:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. There may be a precedent in the AfD discussion for Jason Fortuny. The article had BLP issues similar to the version of Casey Serin that was nominated for deletion -- speculation on Fortuny's mental illness, gossip about his childhood and college career, and inclusion of personal details like contact information and family members' names. Like the current version of Casey Serin, it mostly used blogposts for sources. Jason Fortuny was initially deleted, and then merged with Internet privacy. 129.186.205.84 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Fortuny had admitted to a great number of embarrassing and possibly illegal activities in his own livejournal, and these were quoted in the Wikipedia article. Ultimately the consensus was that Fortuny's livejournal was not a reliable source.129.186.205.84 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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