Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Rizzuto

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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paula Rizzuto

Previously speedy-deleted. The original article contained non-notable content and included a link to a blog created to discredit the subject. This new re-creation contains poor references. I'm assuming the original contributions were meant as an attack page. -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Please do not feed the troll".

• Delete -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is notable, the article as it stands is fuly sourced and hardly constitutes an attack page, quite the reverse. I was confused about which link was which but am happy to leave out the parody website if Longhair prefers. I don't know how to test the prominence of a user but certainly a Google search shows very many references to Rizzuto playing an active role in public life in Melbourne. Seems very notable to me. Have also improved the sources with links to newspaper articles and and other links. Seems to be pretty comprehensively sourced now. Longhair seems determined to delete the article and is now saying the sources are low quality without elaborating. The sources all seem pretty good to me. StephenBengHo 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The original article by User:Stephenho contained reference to this link, which the above author calls parody [1]. Troll alert!-- Longhair 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. She's just an ordinary failed political candidate (to a local council, no less), who seems to have earned the obsession of some random guy (as evidenced by his "parody site"). The "sources" consist of a news story which she is not mentioned in at all, two blog articles, some minutes of a local council, and an alumni association entry which she appears to have written herself. There's practically no relevant Google hits about her, and I can't imagine this being of interest to anyone much else apart from its author. Ambi 09:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Yes as I said I was confused between two similar looking websites, either way I am happy for the parody one to be excluded if that's Wikipedia policy. StephenBengHo 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vote check I gather this is a democratic vote of some kind. Can someone of appropriate authority please check whether Longhair and Ambi are the same person operating from the same computer or something. I don't make any accusations but I do find it interesting that Ambi popped up so quickly. Is this sort of check possible to ensure this voting process is legitimate? StephenBengHo 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You did ask for peer review did you not? -- Longhair 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm, I'm a woman in Canberra, I believe he's a man in Geelong, and we're both Wikipedia administrators. But whatever. :) Ambi 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment if you're administrators all the more important that this check be conducted thoroughly and independently. StephenBengHo 10:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment -- I'm sure such checks are possible, but isn't your time better spent improving the article in question here, rather than to hunt us down? If Paula is notable, her article stays. It's that simple. Your time starts now. -- Longhair 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment As close to an admission as you'd hope to see. LOL. Vote early vote often. StephenBengHo 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment -- What next, a sockpuppet army? - Longhair 10:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a democratic vote. It's a discussion, albeit one where the number of people who appear to support one side or the other can affect the outcome. And User:Ambi, User:Longhair, User:Sarahe, etc. are all well-respected, long-time users. Pull your head in. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and surreptitious attack page evidenced by external link. Sarah Ewart 10:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote check Also this user should be checked too as all three votes are probably the same person. StephenBengHo 10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a woman from Melbourne, and I'm probably about five or more years older than Ambi. So no, we aren't all one person. Sarah Ewart 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • How do we go about requesting a check? I think would be proper in all the circumstances. StephenBengHo 10:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: See Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy, though I'm telling you outright, you're wasting your time. Check our edits, Longhair (talk · contribs), Ambi (talk · contribs) and Sarahe (talk · contribs). We're all quite prolific editors and contributors. You seriously think I can get that much work done? Thanks, but no. -- Longhair 10:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Do you work for Wikipedia? StephenBengHo 10:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment: No. Wikipedia works for me. That reminds me though, I'm taking leave from this debate, beginning now. -- Longhair 10:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Wikipedia works for you? I wondered who owned it. There you go. Thanks for making all of this possible. Good for you. StephenBengHo 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Pre-emptive Vote Check I am me, and to my knowledge, I am not anyone else. And I am also an administrator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Cabal Check There is no cabal. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Also... Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 'Unsuccessful candidate in local government election' says it all really - the article can be created if and when she does something worth including in the encyclopaedia. Natgoo 12:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think the lack of courtesy shown here to the subject matter of the article is disgraceful. Since when is being an unsuccessful candidate in something not noteworthy. I'm sure Wikipedia lists unsuccessful candidate Howard Dean. StephenBengHo 12:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Only until they're deleted :)~ . For a definition of disgraceful, review the content of the link you seem insistent to add to the article in question here. Pot. Kettle. Very black. Troll on. -- Longhair 12:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Howard Dean was the governor of Vermont for several years, and is now the chairman of the Democratic National Commitee, so he is far more notable than the subject of this article.--Sean|Black 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable for inclusion. --C S (Talk) 13:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The original (deleted) version of this article linked to User:StephenBengHo's attack site as if it were the subject's own website. That alone leads me to wonder why the hell we should want it here, well before we start to worry about such things as notability. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non Notable.Obina 14:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The guideline in question would be WP:BIO. pfctdayelise 14:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(Delete. Non-notable would-be local politician. Sling it in the untidyness bin. Anthony Appleyard 18:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral on the AfD, but StephenBengHo should be prevented from editing this article. Too much evidence of personal involvement here. rodii 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Keep' The subject is notable for inclusion. Just because she is left wing and from Australia doesn't make a difference. --Chazz88 23:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You'll notice, if you scroll up, that many of the people arguing for deletion (myself included) are left-wing and from Australia. This ain't a case of systemic bias. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is, however, a case of a troll. He or she votes extremely strong keep on everything, often on topics with 100% consensus to delete otherwise. Ambi 07:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject is none too notable, subtle attack page. Also, I'm fairly sure that I am same person as Mark and Longhair, despite the fact the Longhair welcomed me, and the fact that I live about a hemisphere away from Fuddlemark :).--Sean|Black 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Roisterer 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Unsuccessful candidate in local government elections" NO. - Randwicked 12:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC), who says check yo self before you wreck yo self.
  • Word. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently non-notable. The Howard Dean argument is laughable. By the way, I'm left-wing, Australian, and I'm no-one's sockpuppet. --Canley 04:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Agnte 05:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nomination. --Martyman-(talk) 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article. total yawn about non-notable. Adriantame 14:27, 4 January 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.