Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah Frisch

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 was no consensus, defaulting to keep but subject to conditions. The article has reliable sources, but inline citations appear to be pointing to blogs. Unless credibility of these blogs are properly established, they must be removed and replaced by the news reports as listed in the article as per WP:BLP. If the editors fail to fulfill this requirement after a reasonable period, please feel free to nominate it for deletion again (rather than running the risk). - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah Frisch

This article seems to have been created simply to embarass its subject, who is non-notable. SkipSmith 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for people to slug out their petty online battles. SkipSmith 04:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD A6. Danny Lilithborne 04:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's famous! Newspapers (not just blogs) have written articles about her. --Eastmain 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Then how about removing all the blogs and personal websites cited as sources in the article and replacing them with more reliable sources? I see the potential for notability but will avidly disregard anything blog related. 205.157.110.11 10:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per SkipSmith. MER-C 08:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Uncle G repaired the article. People who voted to delete should therefore reconsider their votes. --Eastmain 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as it is now the article seems OK. And she certainly seems to be notable. BTLizard

*Delete, even after repair. Fails the so-called "100-year test". --Aaron 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete - Upgrading my vote in light of SkipSmith's post below. --Aaron 23:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Big brouhaha in blogland doesn't mean it's encyclopedic, and she clearly fails the Proftest (adjunct and all). Newsbank search yields some scraps. ~ trialsanderrors 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The repair seems to consist of adding a few links to local newspaper articles to the list of blogs involved in the squabble. Local news coverage doesn't make something notable. A google search on "Deborah Frisch" returns primarily political blogs attacking her. This article is just an attack by one political blogger against another, and should be deleted. Update: I see part of the repair job was to remove the categories "Abuse," "Aggression," and "Computer Crimes" from the article. I'm more convinced than ever this is a smear job, and should be deleted. SkipSmith 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for bloggers to snipe further at each other. Edison 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A6. Barring that, maintaining as Delete. --Dennisthe2 17:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per A6 (Attack-page). Otherwise, maintain as delete --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This page cannot be classified as an attack page just because it includes Frisch's internet activities. And it does meet notability standards. We have many, many pages on Slashdot trolling. Frisch's trolling/cyberstalking is much more significant, because it represents perhaps the most intense internet dispute to date and affected very well-known blogs. Frisch, as a university prof., is a public figure, and as a blogger she has volutarily subjected herself to the limelight. Allon Fambrizzi 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
The most intense internet dispute to date? Very well-known blogs? Do you have any reliable sources for these claims? SkipSmith 06:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A6. Attack page created by single purpose account. The article gives its purpose away with its final sentence: "Frisch's behavior has made her one of the most notorious trolls in the blogosphere, to the point where an entire community has sprung up in order to catalogue her outbursts." Wikipedia is not a battleground. Resolute 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cleanup so it doesn't look like an attack page. Sufficiently covered. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Revise and resubmit This article is about me. I do not want to make changes to the wikipedia entry myself but would be happy to provide corrections and additions if someone emails me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriordumot (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per newspaper coverage. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete disparaging article. Ohconfucius 02:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Which of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion are you referring to? Do you mean "Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."? This seems to be sourced pretty well, 5 newspaper articles, and it seems the Wikipedia article covers their substance unemotionally and without bias. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to mass media coverage, but definitely remove anything sourced from a blog. Yamaguchi先生 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with warning about blog citations; blogs are not proper sources. Allon Fambrizzi 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
  • Keep - definitely noteworthy - if for nothing else than being an example of the extent to which blog-battles can descend. Ronnotel 23:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A6 attack page. Protect from recreation too. Crockspot 22:57, 24 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.