Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Quinn (Actor)

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Remember, this is a discussion, not a vote. People don't get an automatic vote simply for showing up. Deathphoenix 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Quinn (Actor)

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

• Delete. Ongoing revert wars, Quinn is pissed, and no one should have to put up with this as a private person, regardless of public background. Sorry I got involved, but another student couldn't figure out how to do this page, so they IMed me. EW-Warrior 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question What is Quinn having to put up with? I see nothing objectionable on any of the edits, there is nothing demeaning nor can any of the material be construed as an attack. I'm very curious.TheRingess 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Answer It's bad enough the guy has to deal with IB teenagers on his ass all day long, does he really need a revert war? Yes, he is beloved by students (past and present), but the man didn't ask for this, doesn't want it, and has even taken down his own site -- davidquinn.com -- because his fool students don't want to allow him a life outside of the classroom (jumping all over his old message board, at least one DOS attack). Ringess, I don't understand your take in all of this. I think you are a little obsessed with reverting, judging from the history here. Olympic Flame 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Answer to Answer Please read Wikipedia's guidelines to citing sources, then we can talk further. BTW, you did not answer my question. Again I ask, what is so objectionable about the material on the article as it stood when I was editing it. Basically, there is nothing in the article that is not readily available on the internet. Believe me, I agree that the article should be deleted. Not for your reasons though. As I said, previous editors are claiming that the material they added is copyright. Keeping a spirit of good faith and respect for other people's opinions, I believe that on those grounds alone, it's reasonable to delete the article. As no copyright material, whatsoever, belongs on Wikipedia. Just let it go. TheRingess 08:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC) TheRingess 07:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I was a part of the revert wars and I agree that Quinn is a marginal public figure, at best.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs) .

• Strong Keep Quinn is notable enough as an actor to warrant inclusion in Encyclopedia. And edit wars are not enough to justify deletion. The problem seems to be that some of the original contributors to the article, did not understand Wikipedia's policies and made edits in good faith with material that they claim should not be edited by anyone but themselves, noting that Quinn himself does not wish the material edited. This is tantamount to claiming copyrights for the material included. Not understanding that no material on Wikipedia can be copyrighted and not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for nominating articles for deletion, they then took it upon themselves to try to preserve their material by automatically reverting any changes made. They did not understand that a better solution is exactly what we are doing here, discussing whether or not the material as is, should remain on Wikipedia. If the article does not survive, then the copyrighted material is safe, and if someone feels he is notable enough to warrant an article, they can always recreate with fresh non-copyrighted material.If it survives, well I think we all ought to sit down and have a cup of tea, to decide how best to write the article so that it does not use copyrighted material, yet remains an Encyclopedic article. TheRingess 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nobody owns Wikipedia articles. If a user is persistently reverting to avoid consensus, raise an RFC or use WP:AN/I. You don't get the choice as to whether you have a Wikipedia article about you or not. Stifle 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about requests for comments. I went ahead and created one. I should have done it before. TheRingess 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Decided to change my vote. It won't matter anyway. He deserves an honest, neutral bio article as much as any other actor, and as long as the material cites readily available, credible sources then it's a keeper. TheRingess 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The Ringess is right and owes me tea. I disagree that someone should rewrite this after it is deleted. Too many Quinn students with too much time = revert wars. Godmann 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Love the Edmonds Library on a Tuesday with friends. We all say delete, and aren't going to log in anymore about it. Let it go, Ringlady.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillChessCookie (talk • contribs) .
  • Actually, am a male. Does that make a difference? TheRingess 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Revert wars are no fun, especially when non-Quinn students like to mess with it after having been inspired by idiotic Quinn students. The discussion page now contains a bunch of undesirable, offensive content generated from the wars, and because TheRingess refuses to remove most of it, the entire article along with the discussion should be gone. Mr. Quinn can always create his own website, or I can help him create one (that obviously cannot be edited by the public). --67.183.56.51 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You make my point exactly (except the part where you classify fellow editors as idiotic). Wikipedia should never contain copyrightable material in any form. To say that no one should be allowed to edit an article, is the same as claiming copyright. As far as I can tell, looking at the article, it contains no obvious copyrighted material, with most of the material easily available from verifiable sources. TheRingess 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As a member of the revert war, I would like Quinn to go back to being anonymous, particularly because I like him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.166.79 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 February 2006 UTC

• Delete Please delete this article. Or at least clear the discussion page because it's a mess. Since "business partners and/or reporters actually LOOK at this site," Quinn wouldn't like it if they actually see a discussion page full of battling words. Unfortunately, TheRingess stubbornly doesn't want to clear the discussion page because talk pages "provide interesting perspectives." --GregoryKnapp 00:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Yes I am stubborn. I archived the material. One of the pillars of wikipedia is respect for each other and differing opinions. We should be very careful about what we say on talk pages and not just say whatever we want and then later try to hide our messes. Archiving is an accepted method for keeping discussion pages readable and is preferrable to simply deleting. Also the readability of an article's discussion page or lack thereof, is not sufficient grounds for deleting the article itself (if it were there would be a whole lot of articles in trouble).TheRingess 16:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KeepThis article should be deleted because it seems no one can agree on the material it presents. I wish it to be deleted, but the David Quinn follows Wikipedia's guidelines for noteworthy people to be on wikipedia. Because of that, this article should be remade by someone who knows what Quinn has done, and most importantly, MUST let other people edit the article, and not simply claim Quinn likes it the way it is. We should keep the article as long as people are allowed to edit the article, and that the information is not copywritten and is factual. Sonic3KMaster 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. WP revert wars don't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment no, they don't. But if you read the wikipedia guide to articles that are wikipedia-worthy, you'd know that David Quinn falls within the guidelines 168.99.166.2 01:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Come on, if the man doesn't want his article, let it go. I also agree with everyone else that the discussion page is full of stupid things. --TreyGreenawalt 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "if the man doesn't want his article, let it go" I disagree. ;) - Jersyko·talk 01:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete And enough of this conditional nonsense or else Ringess is going to repost her version of the Quinn entry after this one is deleted. Notable? Hello -- he formed one of Seattles first web companies and has turned it into a megasite. But let it go. This is the nuttiest wiki thread I have ever seen.... Olympic Flame 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Week keep, he seems to meet WP:BIO. A page being under edit wars or revert wars doesn't make it deletion-worthy, just protect it for a week. Stifle 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It has been protected for a week, and hasn't been reverted as much since then, except between TheRingess and a few of Quinn's self-proclaimed minions. Sonic3KMaster 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If you still find the content questionable, then why not delete it? How can you really trust anyone, even from the original source? What if Quinn said his page needs to be removed because of privacy issues? Is Wikipedia really crappy for destroying this man's reputation if somehow the undesired revision gets protected for a month? --RedGlobeWalkerHim 14:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me, that the point you bring up about privacy and reputation is one of the big reasons why the Wikipedia community places great emphasis on citing credible reliable sources. An encyclopedia should contain no information that isn't already in the public domain. Also, by respecting copyrights, disallowing original research, and establishing standards for notability and maintaining neutral points of view; the community further ensures that no one is slandered or libeled. TheRingess 08:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Really people. Has anyone ever seen this much madness that isn't about a political figure. Wikipedia isn't about revert wars, it's about significant content. Keeping this page is tantamount to declaring permanent revert war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.166.79 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 February 2006 UTC
  • Comment it is not true that it is tantamount to permanent war, we can reach concensus and respect each other's opinions. TheRingess 07:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Let me be clear, Ringess. By continuing your endless and pointless revisions, you have declared war on the growing number of Quinn students who think you are a nut. We will use every IP in the building, every IP in our area, and every machine in every college we attend. W-A-R. Leave our man alone until this delete is done.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment Do you truly believe this is preferable to having a discussion with me? TheRingess 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I've only seen a threat from someone on wikipedia once, 72.49.52.246 Has threatened me before. Notice that he has been blocked from wikipedia several times. We can find all of your sock puppets you make them and stop you from continually vandalizing wikipedia and threatening us. Sonic3KMaster 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment No, you can't. It is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia's premise. And, Sonic, I'm not threatening "you" or even "Ringess." We've asked that this page be deleted, and patiently await that deletion. While we wait, we will ensure that this material is correct. Not the Ringesses' version of correct, but ours. Thank you for your comments.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment As per your request, I have documented every single one of my changes. I have provided sources for the material in the article, I have provided dates, I have requested help from other editors in finding sources for some of the material, I apologized for reverting the material about the "40 under 40" award, I deleted the material about his roommates at a camp, because I could find no source for the material. I have added nothing that is pov and have made no attacks. One of the users of your ip address requested that I document any change I made, I did. I will continue to listen and respond with respect to any request you make. When I am wrong, I will apologize. I will not delete any more material on my talk page. I have requested more than once, help from fellow users. I have not, nor will I ever, make personal comments about anyone who disagrees with my edits. TheRingess 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think it somewhat important to note here that a number of contributors are claiming to know what Mr. Quinn thinks about the article. Yet no one has provided a source for his thoughts, and no one has stepped forward claiming to be him and expressin those thoughts. I think it would create a dangerous precedent if Wikipedia allowed people claiming to represent a person (who don't provide a verifiable source), to determine the fate of an article, based solely on their claims. But then again, I'm just a fellow editor, not even an admin, and it's important to understand that I in no way represent the MediaWiki foundation. The opinions I express are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Directors or their representatives. I only know, that if I were notable enough to warrant an article, I would not want someone else claiming they know me, to determine the fate of my article. Ce la vie. I'm just a little guy with a big TV. Furthermore, this comment was not intended as an attack on any user but more of an observation about the verifiability of conversations that not everyone is privy to.TheRingess 08:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Had a "multi-year stint as the host of 3-2-1 Contact" - so he was one of the lead characters of a very notable 1980s educational TV program. Also nominated for an Emmy, and is a Peabody Award-winner. Clearly notable and encyclopedic, and meets WP:BIO. FCYTravis 09:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE - Nuthouse
• Speedy keep the article as it is now, check and source facts and improve as necessary. If there are any revisions in the history which provide too many personal details, please point them out so that they can be deleted. The info that is presented now hardly goes beyond matters of public record, like the name, awards, public appearances and academic career. The legal threats are therefore entirely hollow, and I very much doubt that the actual David Quinn has made them. I'm assuming some of his students are running a little prank on him and us here. It would probably be better if they come clean before we contact Mr. Quinn and the techies at their uni to find out what's behind this. Zocky | picture popups 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; seems to be reasonably notable for his TV career, and has had enough of a public life that he can't just go and say "No, I'm just a private person now" and withdraw everything public. His legal threats are ridiculous and we shouldn't cave in to them. *Dan T.* 20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep; I came here fairly randomly. There seems no reason why this article should not exist just because the subject of the article wants it deleted. To make legal threats against Wikipedia editors apparently shows that this man has too much money and time himself (despite his comments about others), but he has been a public figure, and he doesn't have any rights over people writing about him unless they legally libel him. Remove anything that might be libellous, and he hasn't got a leg to stand on, no matter how good his law firm. In fact, it would now be dangerous to remove this article as it might set a precedent, and we might have people like David Irving and even Osama Bin Laden (OK, I'm not entirely serious) complaining about being listed and threatening legal action. He makes a lot of noise, of course, but it seems to be hot air, and as long as Wikipedia are happy to retain this article, it should remain. He has publically admitted that at least one version of the article is essentially correct, and that in itself would prevent legal action. Personally I don't have any interest in this entry, and I won't be watching this talkpage, but for Wikipedia to continue to exist in the form that it does, it should resist pointless bullying. ThomasL 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Thomas, but I think you've got it wrong. The version of the article that should stay is the bio that relates to the acting career (and frankly I don't think that THAT is even worthy). This isn't about a rich guy or about time: It is about a right to privacy. Just because one part of someone's life conforms to certain aspects of WP:BIO, doesn't give anyone the right about every other aspect. --67.160.17.29 00:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But some of the stuff you deleted was pertaining to your acting career, like the link to your IMDB entry. And none of it seemed to particularly relate to your private life; it was all reporting on publicly-known things like an award you received. The most "private" thing there was mentioning what school you currently teach at; I wouldn't object if that were removed if you think it violates your privacy (by getting lots of screaming fans to mob the school looking for you?), but it's already published on other sites, as linked in the article. I'm sure your great lawyers will advise you that you have no valid basis for any sort of complaint. *Dan T.* 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article as it stands at the moment seems gloriously unoffensive. Boring even. Certainly on the borderlines of notability. How about a redirect to 3-2-1 Contact? Physchim62 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have posted a reply to this message on my personal talk page, since this anonymous user publicly claims to have some sort of knowledge of what I do in my spare time, I felt it necessary to respond. I did not put it here, since most of what I had to say, was not relevant to this discussion. If you feel compelled to respond, I respectfully request that you do so on my discussion page. I will endeavor to respectfully respond to any questions/concerns you raise. Believe it or not, what started off as a minor effort to provide sources has now turned into a 2+ week affair.TheRingess 22:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any substantial reason to delete this article. Removing any unsourced information from the article and insuring that only information from legitimate publications is included should be enough to satisfy any privacy concerns. Gamaliel 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the person is notable, it doesn't matter that he doesn't want an article on himself here. Encyclopedias are not opt-in. This is not a vanity website where you can post only a positive biography or none at all, at your discretion. NoSeptember ^talk 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any substantial reason to delete this article. Removing any unsourced information from the article and insuring that only information from legitimate publications is included should be enough to satisfy any privacy concerns. WAS 4.250 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I spent the better part of the last month editing this to shreds. Quinn made me see the light today, and I want to apologize to him for harming the WIKIPEDIA community by trying to change his bio and for being an idiotic pest/jerk. I think that this bio represents him correctly. NOW, all that said, I agree with NoSeptember and WAS4.250: I don't think its about whether Quinn is happy with it that matters. I think that a whole bunch of people have jumped on the bandwagon of "he can't tell us what to do!" without looking at the actual issue: I don't think that Quinn's important enough for this entry. I can't seem to find other entries for people who were famous for a little while 20 years ago. So I vote to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Subject wants article to be deleted" is not, and never has been, a deletion criterion. If irrelevant, unverifiable, or non-notable information is being inserted into the article, then remove it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lets not set a precident here... as Crotalus says ... "subject wants deletion" doesnt fly here without some serious grounding.  ALKIVAR™ 09:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per FCYTravis. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to meet WP:BIO. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, more than notable enough as per established WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quinn Speaks

• DELETE: YOU ASKED, I'M ANSWERING I have been involved with online communities since 1991, and I deeply respect the premise of wikipedia. That said, I have to question why so many strangers (Ringess, FCYTravis, RedGlobe, Trey, OlympicFlame) would care at all about my biography or this entry. I would hope that there is a more valuable use of your lives than the endless reverting of this entry (or the many hours some of you appear to have spent researching and documenting elements of my life). Here's a shout-out to Ringess: You have too much time on your hands.

I returned from a brief trip to California this morning (BTW, the Image Awards are a lot of fun, and I urge you all to donate to the NAACP). I came back to school to get some paperwork done and found more than a few emails in my box. Most are from students, but at least one is from a resourceful wikipedian who very simply searched the Edmonds School District website for our directory, then sent me an email, directing me to this page. Anyone who wishes to email me may, of course, do this as well. You can even get my phone number from the directory and call and leave me a message. I'm happy to verify myself.

That said, I really could (mostly) care less about what you all are doing here. I didn't create this entry, I think that it is a complete waste of space, and I find the behavior of some of you to be completely anti-intellectual and downright childish. I don't suppose that anyone had my privacy rights in mind when they created the first Quinn entry, but now that I'm here, I think you should all just stop it. I'm voting for a delete, mostly because I think that you should all spend more time reading and seeing theatre.

The protected version of my entry is mostly correct, but I still fail to see why an entry for me exists in the first place. I am a private citizen, albeit one who once had a career on television and who has a career as an entrepreneur. My life is private, which is why davidquinn.com doesn't exist anymore. The biographical information that is found on my corporate sites exists for a simple reason: it answers basic questions for investors and media folks. If I wasn't required to put it up, I wouldn't have it up. My life is primarily dedicated to education. Anyone who has read my bio knows why: I made a promise to someone, and I'm keeping my side of the bargain.

If you want to continue to waste parts of your life on me or this entry, I cannot stop you. But rather than continue this wiki-farce, I urge you to delete this meaningless entry and concentrate your time and karmic energy making the world a better place to live in. Rather than spend all night reverting my bio, why don't you spend all night sending emails to political figures so they hear your voice? Or to relatives, so that they know that they are loved? Or how about just get in your car and go volunteer at a soup kitchen or an AIDS charity? I'm sure that you all have favorite causes. They need your help. Go.

Me? I'm "peace out" of here. Peace out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.17.29 (talk • contribs) 19:14, February 26, 2006

You should be aware of the No Legal Threats policy here. *Dan T.* 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

While this may be a wikipedia policy, it has no legal standing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.17.29 (talk • contribs) 21:28, February 26, 2006

The policy doesn't say "You can't sue WP editors". It says "Don't threaten to sue WP editors, or we'll ban you from editing WP." It doesn't require legal standing. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, this is EXACTLY why Ringess has been making sure only information verified is on the article, and nothing "self-verified" by the anonymous IP trying to raise havoc. I do not agree that the article should be deleted, you fall within the guidelines to have an article. We are doing our hardest to only have truthful information. I think some information still needs to be taken out of the article, too. Sonic3KMaster 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry David, I've desired for this article to be deleted a long time ago. You're right, I didn't want to be involved. I have better things to do, such as exercising instead. I think my points didn't help for the deletion of the article. If you wish, I will no longer intervene. --TreyGreenawalt 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just had a lovely phone chat with FCYTravis. He's really great, and explained much about various wiki policies that I knew nothing about. I had no idea that asserting my legal right to privacy would be considered a threat, so I've withdrawn those statements and I'll deal with JWales and the foundation's legal team on future matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.17.29 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 February 2006

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.