Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Dorman

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 of the debate was speedy delete (A6/A7). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Louis Dorman

Character assassination; claims of fraud but no reference to conviction; references are to forum posts Gtoomey 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep it seems to be a fine article there is nothing wrong with it leave it for a while and see what happens--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm glad everyone can see who he really is! Unsigned comment by 83.113.110.243
He is a wel known fraud.213.37.206.116 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Though the article quotes "forum posts", the "Forum Posts" contain the links and actual discussions that were taking place between Mr. Dorman and the online community which he deceived for his own personal monetary gain. Once exposed as a fraud he continued to post altered pics in an attempt to maintain credibility. The BB.com forums have over 100,000 registered members, many of which take the advice and buy the supplements of the "Fitness Experts". Mr. Dorman deserves to have his name posted up here as a warning against future schemes he may concoct. SM
  • Keep Louis Dorman is wellknown in the bodybuilding community for his blatant use of doctored images for his own commercial enterprise. The claims made in the article clearly link to discussion on the Bodybuilding.com board. In addition, Louis Dorman himself admitted to doctoring pictures -- "highlighting and cropped" -- in the following post: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=9912993&postcount=223. These are cardinal sins in the bodybuilding community. As a result of his infamy for it, this page exists. 24.79.43.137 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He Lied...That's a fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.158.237.63 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep He is a well known photoshop scam artist who is smoke screening consumers for self profit. 24.60.206.121 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a liar and a fraud and photoshop exptert who edited the mainframe of his pictures72.72.99.201 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep He is a fraud! Keep this article. Unsigned comment by User: 72.240.117.113
  • Keep he lied to gain money and fame. keep this page to warn people he may try to trick in the future 24.26.109.63 20:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep while his fat loss is impressive, it has been proven that he doctored photos of himself. 70.180.85.95 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This man's blatant lies deserve to be viewed by the public. Without the proper knowledge, many may be misled by his fraudulent advice and information. 24.247.250.245 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep he is a fraud.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.230.7.12 (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: AfD now properly listed. — TheKMantalk 21:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I think that even IF GToomey were correct in his statement, it still isn't grounds for AfD. There are alternatives to deletion. reyalp 70.180.85.95 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately, however, the only person guilty of "character assassination" is Louis Dorman himself. As the article's citations show, he is thoroughly guilty of what the article accuses him of. In fact, it was even accompanied by a public admission, which I attempted to discuss with Gtoomey in his talk page. Unfortunately, there was no response -- only an AfD listing. 24.79.43.137 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol, they're using a forum as references for this page? Speedy delete as a blatant attack page, without prejudice to the recreation of the article since he seems somewhat notable in the bodybuilding community. BTW this is some of the most vigilant meatpuppetry I have ever seen in an AfD. It seems that no matter how much we slap that warning up there, everyone still thinks that this is a ballot box. Aplomado talk 21:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In the bodybuilding community, Louis Dorman is guilty of what is tantamount to fraud. He admitted to his own doctoring of photos and exploited them for his commercial game. His ads were featured in nationally printed, well-known bodybuilding and entertainment magazines including (but not limited to): FHM, Muscle and Fitness, MensJournal, Menshealth, Maxim,and Flex. [1] in addition, as you can see -- the bodybuilding community congregates largely online, and on message boards -- and Dorman happened to be exposed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs)
That's all fine and good, but message boards are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. Aplomado talk 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, he was a prominent and noteworthy webziner on Bodybuilding.com (forums aside) and was also featured in full-paged advertisements in major magazines. His advertisements were published. As such, he remains noteworthy to the hundreds of thousands in the Bodybuilding community and this alone merits his article. In fact, he maintains a commercial enterprise in spite of this all. 24.79.43.137 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree with allowing the recreation of the article if notability can be established, but in its current state it needs to be deleted. Aplomado talk 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Ballot stuffing notwithstanding, it fails both WP:ATTACK and WP:BIO. BoojiBoy 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedily if possible. This doesn't even pretend not to be an attack page, and even were it to become neutral, the guy just isn't that notable. GassyGuy 21:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dorman was notable enough to have full paged advertisements in major magazines Bodybuilding and entertainment and profit from a commercial enterprise for it. BodyBuilding.com alone has over 300,000 members. Most importantly, Louis Dorman was a prominent web-ziner in this community. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.43.137 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. I completely agree with BoojiBoy- if we complete rewrote the article, this person wouldn't have nearly enough notability to pass WP:BIO. "Louis Dorman" gets only 595 total and 114 unique Google hits, and since all of them are from weightlifting sites, it's obvious he has no widespread importance. -- Kicking222 21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated, Dorman was featured in full-paged advertisements in major magazines. He has forums of hundreds of thousands of people speaking about him. And he was a prominent web-ziner in the community. He is certainly noteworthy enough -- perhaps not to you, but certainly to many others. 24.79.43.137 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, protect against recreation, as it's obvious that if (when) this article is deleted, there are plenty of anons willing to post the same info again. -- Kicking222 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even if he deceived an entire website and its forum it doesn't make him notable unless he's been in the news. There's no reference to news articles. It appears the users of the forum want to create this page to "Name and Shame" him. Sorry, but he needs to have done more than that to deserve an article here.--Andeh 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    Possibly merge with bodybuilding.com.--Andeh 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that. The information presented is more relevant to BB.com than to the general public. -reyalp 70.180.85.95 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If it is to be merged, it must be completely re-written to conform with NPOV and cite sources more accurately.--Andeh 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How is that? As per WP:BIO, Dorman has been featured in popular culture publications, and they have been listed above. In fact, the sheer notoriety and name-recognition in the bodybuilding community led to a substantial cult following. He was one of the most popular contributors on BB.com. The message board alone is in the top-100 on the internet. 24.79.43.137 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to find sources more notable than just a forum to proove notability.--Andeh 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Here is a Louis Dorman advertisement/article from Flex Magazine, a major muscle magazine that you can pick up yourself. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_3_23/ai_n13653770 24.79.43.137 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) is this enough for qualification under WP:BIO? He has his own advertisements in magazines, his own commercial enterprise, his own (now defunct) cult following. What else? 24.79.43.137 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep read the damn forum posts...the facts are all there...every single bit of this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.198.60 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete If it's not true, it's an attack page and libel. If it is true, it's non-notable. Lying on forums is not something that one gets an article in an encyclopedia for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Louis Dorman has been featured in fullpaged advertisements in major magazines. Here is one of his published advertisements from FLEX Magazine: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_3_23/ai_n13653770. 24.79.43.137 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but thats an advertisement. If it were a cover story, that might be different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keephe is a liar and a fraud, and people have the RIGHT to know hes a fraud before he makes more money on his fake transformation 69.158.182.57 22:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as vanity article and/or attack page ... why is this even on AFD? By the way, to the IP users joining us this evening, you may want to read the message above. This is not a vote and spamming the discussion without offering any reasons for a keep isn't going to change anything. Please see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines for guidelines on what constitutes a vanity article vs a notable individual on Wikipedia. BigDT 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I decided to go ahead and be WP:BOLD and tag it for a speedy. This is patently silly. WP is not a place to carry out message board debates. BigDT 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ...What did I just see? Delete, per WP:NOT, and WP:BIO. Yanksox 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First off, everything presented in the wiki is true. It showed an original photo, it showed an altered photo, it said that Louis went to school for digital editing....it doesn't say *he* did it. It lets people make their own judgement, based on facts. As for not being relevant or important enough, that's crap. Fitness/health is a billion dollar industry and this guy was one of the most well respected 'success stories' ever. Countless people looked up to him; people have a right to know the truth. There is no reason for this not to be on wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.177.193 (talk • contribs) .
I agree. I've also provided links showing that he was published. FLEX wasn't the only magazine to feature him. He was also in an assortment of other ones... including non-fitness related mags like FHM and MAXIM. 24.79.43.137 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Keep" He is noteable for anyone interested in the field, and I don't see any inaccuracies. Sumguy2
Again, agreed. Unfortunately for some here, anything Bodybuilding-related is obscure and not of great relevance. For the hundreds of thousands that are interested -- this is highly relevant material. Especially since I have provided evidence showing the use of his advertisements in major magazines. Dorman's doctoring will surely be the subject of discussion at fitness expos in the near future. 24.79.43.137 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If it is of such great relevance to the bodybuilding community, why aren't there any articles in such bodybuilding magazines about the controversy? Aplomado talk 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Watch this space. 24.79.43.137 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've posted a {{db-attack}} as well. This is nonsense. BoojiBoy 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
We have three speedy tags and an AfD tag, this is getting out of hand. Personally, I think the AfD should run it's course, since "notability" is there and it's not a complete full frontal deprecation of the subject. Yanksox 23:50, 13 June 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.