Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judd Bagley (2nd nomination)

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 Delete and redirect to overstock.com. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A good discussion, with many solid policy-related points. A central question is, do the evidence and views in the article and at AFD suggest he is, 1/ notable (WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS both state that brief mention does not necessarily mean notability), and 2/ if he is, is it primarily in relation to overstock.com (in which case redirect) or is he actually 3/ a notable figure independently and in his own right. Arguments for all 3 have been proposed. The second seems closest to a consensus and best supported by the evidence.

The antisocialmedia.com pages he set up were not run by overstock.com. Nonetheless it was set up by an executive of overstock, to counter critics of overstock, and widely reported in the context of overstock, to the extent that the CEO of overstock had to publicly comment on it. All the RS which are cited and provide headlines related to antisocialmedia cite this as an overstock matter ("overstock lashes out" , "overstock blames" etc). By all means he did so on his own initiative, but it's 100% overstock related.

Outside this (and despite views that he is borderline notable), little of substance has been shown that he is independently notable. The remaining facts relate to newspaper fill-in - they are facts about him, but reading the sources, the reason they are mentioned is usually background and "filler" on a media article on the guy. His main mention there is still usually his involvement in the controversy with antisocialmedia and overstock. There is little else he is independently notable for other than overstock and matters related to overstock, that has been presented at AFD. Being a spokesperson, and (to a questionable extent according to AFD skepticism??) being employed by Jeb Bush is bio background if he's notable, but probably not grounds for notability per se.

In addition there are other policy related concerns raised here - WP:NOT, WP:BIO (non notable for a biography, or lacking sources for one).

Despite comments that Bagley is involved in multiple unconnected scandals or sources of notability, there hasn't yet been evidence presented that he has enough evidence of individual notability (outside overstock) for an independent bio. Probably one day he will, but for now WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:BIO all seem to concur with the large number of "delete" or "merge and redirect" views tending to support this.

The extent of coverage in overstock.com is probably a little light, nonetheless it seems that this is where Judd Bagley ought to go.It probably requires a 2nd sentence, giving more details.

[edit] Judd Bagley

Judd Bagley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I don't think it's notable in the general sense of the word, rather than the Wikipedian sense of the word. Having read the article, I'm left saying... so what? I'm sure WP:BLP doesn't provide for the inclusion of personal info if it's irrelevant and uninteresting! Rambutan (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Bagley is involved in a financial scandal with coverage in the New York Post, New York Times, Bloomberg, and the HedgeWorld Daily. As his role in this scandal is distinct from Overstock.com's due to the apparent independence of his website, there is information on this subject that cannot usefully be merged in with other subjects. I also point out that nominating an article for deletion within two minutes of its posting is poor form in the extreme. Phil Sandifer 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • It would be poor form if this were the first deletion nomination, but it isn't. The same subject was deleted previously. It's poor form to surprise an editor who has no reason to think the subject will be controversial. That isn't the case here.Noroton 00:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure of that - if it's about an inappropriate subject, then why not nominate it? You'd nominate List of Europeans living in Mexico who have used left-handed scissors thirteen times in the space of one hour forty-seven minutes the moment you saw it!--Rambutan (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I'd speedy it. If it's a subject for as much debate as an AfD is going to give it, immediate nomination is poor form, particularly when it could be read as sour grapes against someone with whom you've had negative interactions. Phil Sandifer 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, would you describe them as negative?--Rambutan (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I think we can deal with this on its merits for now - David Gerard 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I was planning to from the start. Anyway, I like sour grapes, they taste good.--Rambutan (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and redirect to overstock.com, the main source of his present media notability - David Gerard 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I point out that a major aspect of this article - the antisocialmedia page - can't easily be added to the overstock.com article because there is no reliable source that indicates that the site is affiliated with overstock.com. While I share your (presumed) suspicions that there may be a connection somewhere, the information would likely be... controversial on the overstock page. Phil Sandifer 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This is true. What strikes me about your version of the Judd Bagley page (certainly better than the version that got a nomination first time around) is that it's his notoriety and attacks on perceived critics that are the focus of the reliable-sources coverage. It's rare that someone achieves such coverage for sheer nastiness without an actual indictment. But anyway - David Gerard 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I should add here that I recently blocked an overstock.com IP range Bagley appears to have been spamming and socking Wikipedia from, and that said blocking has received a bit of continuing blogosphere attention. I probably wouldn't have created an article on Judd Bagley myself, and he's of somewhat borderline notability IMO (that is, it's arguable both ways), but this AFD has enough attention we can see how things look in a week - David Gerard 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Further to opine: I personally wouldn't care if it's "keep" or "merge and redirect" - I think if people want to look up this Judd Bagley fellow, overstock.com is a fine place to send them. And that there isn't e.g. a third-party bio of Bagley to look up does count against the article's existence. But that he's arguably notable, even if it is only for his public odious behaviour. It's a tricky one, like any really good AFD. - David Gerard 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — a highly notable (notorious) figure who continues to receive significant mainstream attention ➥the Epopt 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Raul654 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect since notability is entirely dependent on his activities in conjunction with overstock.com. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per JzG. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Site is already dealt with in Overstock.com in adequate detail, so merge not necessary. Notability questionable at best. Please note that he was never a spokesman for Jeb Bush. See the numerous articles in Google News Archives citing him as spokesman for a Florida agency, and his Linked In profile makes no mention of speechwriting for Jeb. Thus Overstock bio cited, which hardly qualifies as a reliable source, is clearly wrong. --Samiharris 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that would probably be OR, though I've no particular objection to the whole claim being removed. Bagley is not even mentioned on Overstock.com, and so clearly some merge is necessary. Phil Sandifer 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Marginally notable, certainly well below the Daniel Brandt notability bar, which the community decided is not worthy of an article. Crum375 23:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think there are major differences here. Brandt was notable as a media figure and source for some things. Bagley is notable for something that is explicitly avowed to be separate from his company by both his company and him. The relevant content from Brandt had an obvious place to merge it. It's less clear that merging the antisocialmedia.net stuff to Overstock.com makes sense - or, at least, that it would clearly be NPOV to do so in any detail. Phil Sandifer 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You are correct that a merger would skew the Overstock article. You are incorrect that the operator of a non-notable corporate smear site deserves an article because his misdeeds have warranted a smattering of negative publicity. The "no corporate connection" claim, though obvious bunk, reduces still further the notability of this person.--Samiharris 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to say, I find this reasoning somewhat tortured. Surely a high-ranking employee of a company running a site to attack critics of the company is notable in some fashion, particularly when it gets major media coverage. That there is some controversy in including it in the company's article seems a good reason to split it - there's no harm in a split article, so long as its not a POV fork, which this isn't. Given your repeated slashing of the article under a (dubious) interpretation of WP:NPA, I feel obliged to ask, are you perhaps not spelling out some of your reasons for deletion in this debate? Phil Sandifer 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is notable, NY Times, NY Post, and Miami Herald. --MichaelLinnear 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Crum. Notability based entirely on running unofficial and non-notable website.--Mantanmoreland 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I was admonished in a recent WP:AN/I discussion to educate myself better about the struggle between Bagley/Overstock and Wikipedia, before commenting on any of the many tentacles of this struggle that keep popping up from under the carpet in issues of Wikipedia policy and content all over the place. So why delete an article that might help people get better informed on it? Anyway, this subject has had significant news coverage. *Dan T.* 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Being mentioned in one article by the NYT and one article by the NYPost might prove he's a jerk, but it doesn't prove he's important enough for a biography, and it certainly doesn't provide sufficient material for a biography about his life. It is impossible to write a neutral biography when all we know about him is stuff related to the Weiss/naked short selling/antisocialmedia crap. Merge and redirect to overstock.com would be acceptable but really this guy should not have a bio unless our goal is to prove to people who piss us off that we can piss back. Thatcher131 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge and redirect per Thatcher131. I couldn't have expressed it better myself. ElinorD (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; I don't believe he's a notable person in his own right. He probably warrants a mention in the Overstock article. It is amusing, and a clear sign that something other than mere evaluation of notability is at work here, that this article is faring much better in this debate than many things 10 or even 100 times more notable (and those are serious estimates--this is ridiculously minor compared to some stuff we routinely and often very wrongly delete). Everyking 03:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• merge and redirect . Notability is not independent of his association to overstock.com--Hu12 04:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge and redirect. How is this a fair biography? It reads like an attack piece. Could it be that he has angered some wikipedians? WAS 4.250 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to Phil Sandifer, he was working with the RS sources that he had. There is simply no material out there to create a biography showing the Nice Guy Judd Bagley because all the media coverage, without exception, has focused on Bagley the S.O.B. Indeed, he is purported to be notable for precisely that reason, that he runs a nasty website. If he were actually notable, this is precisely the article the available sources would dictate. However he ain't notable, so the article should be deleted.--Mantanmoreland 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We lack reliable sources for a biography on him; but we have reliable sources concerning him that might possibly be appropriate in another article. WAS 4.250 06:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. If a person's notability is related to the bad things he does, then a neutral biography will reflect that. While I respect your BLP concerns, I think this is strictly a question of notability, and that is a close question.--Mantanmoreland 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• *Keep' Neutral(for now) Keep - This person had received substantial media coverage (New York Times, Miami Herald, for example) and the article content is very referenced. --Oakshade 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Perhaps I jumped too soon on this. I would like to see something balanced in this article. --Oakshade 06:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Update: Sorry for the waffling, but this person is notable per our guidelines. I'm tired of slectively cherrypicking subclauses in guidelines and policies to find ways to delete topics we don't like. --Oakshade 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Subject has minimal notability....potential for the article to be NPOV is poor as we don't really have (and might have little opportunity to find) real life info about him that would make for a balanced NPOV presentation. I also see that linking to his attack blog is probably inevitable and unacceptable.--MONGO 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Thatcher and MONGO. Sarah 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete with the possibility of a redirect to Overstock.com. This individual's notability is solely derived from his position at Overstock.com.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Supposing that Mr. Bagley is primarily notable for his relationship to Overstock.com and that little biographical material is available (other than in press releases), it seems sensible to me merge any relevant content and redirect to Overstock.com. Maintaining an article which supposes to be a biography, yet is mostly an article relating his activities maintaining antisocialmedia.net, seems disingenuous at best and harmful to him at worst (considering that many Wikipedia pages are in the top ten Google searches). --Iamunknown 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to overstock.com, SqueakBox 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (see comment after David Gerard's, below) Delete and move any relevant information to Overstock.com. Maybe I misread the versions I've seen in the history, but I don't see any version that meets WP:BLP1E, and his newsworthiness seems related to a single "event" (or at least circumstance, which seems to amount to the same thing here):

  If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

  (Boldface in the original.) From what I can tell, all the sources are about his relationship Overstock.com. The article is essentially about an "event", not a person.Noroton 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • If people are likely to wonder about this "Judd Bagley" fellow they've heard about on teh intarweb, redirecting them to overstock.com IMO serves the reader better than a "no such article" link - David Gerard 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point, David Gerard. I've changed my !vote to merge/redirect.Noroton 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Phil Sandifer and MichaelLinnear. Tim Q. Wells 07:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No violation of WP:N or WP:BLP - insufficient reason to delete. Shalom ^Hello 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it is a violation of this policy. Current events, like most news, has a short shelf-life. This guy is simply not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Anyone who gets a thrill writing about him should go to Wikinews. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect to Overstock.com and protect RD. The person is not notable for a biographical article. See previous AfD, posted on the basis of failing WP:BIO, which continues to be the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge He doesn't seem otherwise notable and his actions clearly bear upon the circumstances of his employer. The notion that he shouldn't be mentioned at all is silly. Mangoe 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think a merger would be inadvisable. While I realize that some editors find this material fascinating and would like to put as much of it as possible in Overstock.com, doing so would dramatically skew that article in a negative direction. At present, Overstock.com is under two SEC investigations. These are far more important than the activities of Judd Bagley, and have received more media coverage. Yet they are mentioned in just two paragraphs, one for each probe. Overstock was also involved in a highly publicized subpoeanaing of reporters which went to page one of the New York Times. That is also mentioned in a restrained fashion. Bagley's activites are already mentioned in the article and are given appropriate weight in one neutral paragraph, the same as the SEC probe of the company. A merger adding more material would be inadvisable because of the principle of undue weight.--Samiharris 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He does not seem to be really notable, although maybe close to it. The article is mainly about how he does his job, not about him himself. Steve Dufour 02:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The vents referred to are actions of him, not actions of a company with which he has only a remote relationship/ BLP concerns should be dealt with by objective writing, not by discarding articles that are difficult to deal with. DGG (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He was spokesman for Florida state's Department of Business and Professional Regulation[1]. He is now involved in several separate controversial affairs, including the controversial website he runs and the controversial company for which he is Director of Communications. We've got plenty of well sourced information about this chap, sources including the New York Times, Motley Fool and Bloomberg News. This is a good subject for a Wikipedia article. --Tony Sidaway 10:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  I'll also note in passing that overstock.com claims that for part of his career Bagley was "speechwriter and press secretary for then-Governor of Florida Jeb Bush" [2]. Recall that Mr Bagley is listed of Director of Communications of that company, and I would presume (I hope correctly) that he would have editorial control over the contents of the company website, and certainly over the portions that describe his career. A person with his name makes the same claim here. --Tony Sidaway 10:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  Seems to have been a bit of resume inflation by Bagley, and I think it would be an error to repeat it in the project. Numerous reliable sources say he was a spokesman for a Florida Department. None have him working directly for Bush. Bagley's LinkedIn resume, which he wrote himself, says he was "Press Secretary / Speechwriter at State of Florida."[3]. The Deseret News [4] referred to him as "a former press secretary and speech writer in the administration of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush." That clears it up, I think. A bit of wiggle room in that he worked for the "administration" of Bush. (Good heavens! An exaggeration by Judd Bagley? Shocking! Shocking!) This is an internet company, so a director of communications would not run the website as that would mean running the business.--Samiharris 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  The Overstock.com website does seem to me to be a reliable source. The lack of corroborating sources seems, at best, original research. Phil Sandifer 14:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  Not original research at all to point out that numerous reliable sources, and Bagley himself, contradict what is on the cited page. There is, however, no dispute that he was a spokesman for that department. Numerous sources say that.--Samiharris 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • We've got plenty of well sourced information about this chap No, actually, we don't. We don't have plenty because in each and every one of the sources cited in the article, Bagley is a bit player. The New York Post mentions him in the last line of its short story; the Bloomberg article mentions his name once or twice; the New York Times mentions him in a few sentences; the Motley Fool Web article mentions him but, like all the rest of the sources, only as a bit player. Not one of these sources gives substantial coverage to the subject of the article, the usual criteria for the WP:BIO notability standard for people. All of the sources mention the subject in connection to his relationship to Overstock.com and they cover only that relationship which amounts to an event. Where are the articles about Judd Bagley that are not about this discrete, singular activity by him on behalf of Overstock.com? And the idea that a subject is noteworthy for being a speechwriter/spokesman for either a state agency or even the governor of a big state ... well, if it were noteworthy, show me the stories about him in even the Florida press. How does this article meet WP:BIO standards? Where's the compelling reason to get around "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"? Noroton 17:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but there's no way you get away with calling a departmental spokesman for a state agency as "a bit player". Maybe a second violinist, and it might not be encyclopedic if the fellow hadn't raised such a stink. But he has and it is. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Then perhaps you could point me to other Wikipedia articles on departmental spokesmen for state agencies. Raising a stink could certainly get you enough notability for a Wikipedia article, but only after you get significant coverage for it. Think about it: No newspaper, magazine or other reliable source has thought him worth enough coverage to publish substantial information on him. Even Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow and Tillamook Cheddar (dog) have been able to jump over the low fence of our notability standards. This guy isn't second fiddle, he's the fifth guy at the karaoke mike. Not notable. Noroton 01:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it just me or are some in favour of keeping this because they see a loophole to introduce links to badsites, while others are in favour of merging with Overstock.com because they see a loophole to keep the link out of that article for reasons related to WP:NPOV#UNDUE? On this AfD, it is even more important than usual that all comments be weighed only for their argumentative significance. No "per"s, please, this is not a vote. Everyone be ready to accept either outcome and really do your very very best to understand all involved aspects, which may include offsetting one's own bias on the issue and maybe even some self-reflection and a general reappraisal of your relationship to Wikipedia. —AldeBaer 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough for bio. --DHeyward 02:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- he's mentioned in "mainstream" media from time to time, true -- but I don't think that alone makes him notable. And there's nothing else here. --Christofurio 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and Gary Weiss. "Fifth guy at the karaoke mike"!! Love it, Noroton. I can't say what's notable, because I know nothing about naked shorting or Overstock or any of this crap and am content to keep it that way. What I do know is that the intra-Wikipedia COI situation surrounding these two figures is intricate and, at least at this point in Wikipedia's institutional maturation, intractable. Until that's sorted, it'd be best if we staid the hell away from this mutually obsessive pair, this ridiculous Punch & Judy show for the digital age.--G-Dett 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete (or possibly: redir to overstock-article). Lets face if: if it hadn´t been for his...eeh, "interaction" with certain wikipedians; most would have seen this article for what it is: an attack-piece. That he has been mentioned in certain main-steam media; so what? He has not been mentioned as often as a certain "Ryan Jordan"..and we no not have an article about him, do we? Please; lets not use Wikipedia as a vehicle for getting cheap revenge. Regards, Huldra 10:43, 10 September 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.