Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Stern

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 Delete per consensus. I'm not convinced that we should delete anything only because a LP says "please delete me", but this particular subject, even without the purported statement (that as far as I can tell is not verified, only assumed to be true), has borderline notability at best. Consensus here says delete with valid arguments above and beyond "I want my page gone", so delete it is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Stern

Richard Stern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Apparent Formatting Error at AfD suggests that another user attempted to nominate for deletion placing tag on their behalf Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Richard Stern, the subject of the article. I am requesting that the article be taken down for two reasons:

1. I am trying very hard to reduce my internet presence because I have career aspirations that would be impossible to meet with prospective employers referencing my wikipedia page; it has become a major hindrance to my personal and professional life and as such it is in my best interest to have it removed.

2. I am not a notable person. If I had any semblance of notability when the page was created, which was nowhere near universally agreed upon, it is long past. Further, the major basis for my article's creation - my youtube page at youtube.com/rickyste - has been removed. The article should be removed because in all honesty, no one cares about me, nor should they; I think you will find no one rushes here trying to save the page on its merits.

I plead with you to respect my wishes and conform to Wikipedia's own standards for article inclusion. Thank you. 64.245.33.164 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Broad coverage in RS including interviews in which the subject voluntarily particpated and notability is not temporary. Jim Miller (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I gave this careful consideration. I read every word of the article. I read Mr. Stern's comments here and on the BLP noticeboard. I even clicked over to Youtube to watch one of lazydork's dopey 3-minute videos about Rocky. He's a nice guy, but he's not notable in the strictest definition. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy gives wide latitude to administrators to delete pages that would otherwise be worth keeping. I think this is a perfect example of where such discretion needs to be used. Previous cases of living people who requested that their biographies be deleted convinced some of my colleagues to propose an opt-out procedure for people of borderline notability who want their biographies removed. I support the proposal, which is not policy, and I would apply it in this instance.
Let me discuss the notability of Richard Stern in some detail. He is not notable in general. He is an ordinary American man in his late 20s who wants to live an ordinary life. By good fortune, he found a hobby uploading comical videos to Youtube, and he became a YouTube celebrity. He is now condemned to have a biography about his YouTube videos for the rest of his life, a biography that will confine the fullness of his life into the few hours he spent making, uploading and discussing these comic videos. He voluntarily gave interviews to news organizations such as the Miami Herald, but even this does not make him a public figure in the same way that a politician is a public figure. Articles about YouTube celebrities wind up in the back pages of newpapers where nobody reads them. The notability of Mr. Stern is essentially limited to the online realm and has not irrevocably spread into the real world.
You may ask if I would also support deleting the biography of Funtwo, the South Korean guitarist famous for his hack of Pachelbel's canon, who gave an interview to the New York Times, if Funtwo requested the deletion. Yes, I would support that. Even though Funtwo's video is much more famous than lazydork's video, the fundamental principle remains in my mind that individual people are not inherently notable for being online celebrities, even if their celebrity status is covered by offline news sources. If we want to have articles on them based on reliable sources, that's fine. But the minute the subject of a biography posts here and asks to return to private life, saying that the publicity around his short-lived online persona is negatively affecting his career prospects, it's time to delete the biography and find something else to write about. Perhaps it's not fair to the people who spent hours adding references and refining the infobox, but we can't satisfy everyone, and if we must choose whom to satisfy, the BLP subject's wishes take priority. I feel strongly about this, and I would encourage the voters and the closing administrator to account for the unique BLP factors. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment And this is where I always disagree with this interpretation of the policy. According to this [1], Mr. Stern explcitly sought out notability, saying "It was offensive to me that I wasn't like, the biggest star in the YouTube world." We're not talking about a youthful indiscretion here either. This is a law school graduate who intentionally pushed himself into the limelight, sought out notability, and has now decided that he wants to put the genie back into the bottle. I know that the decision will not be the one I am arguing for, and we will have yet another lousy precedent of letting people resign from their established notability, but it is still wrong to delete an article that obviously meets WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:OR because of a so-far imagined "harm" that might someday, somehow violate WP:BLP. Jim Miller (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Subject is covered in a number of RS, therefore notable. QED ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Perhaps a small listing at List of YouTube celebrities instead? -- Qaddosh|talk|contribs 18:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Within the lead of WP:BLP is the statement: An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". At times like this a judgement has to be made. Certainly we'd never delete the article of a national politician or an international superstar on request. However we can ask these two questions. Is WP harmed if there's no article on Richard Stern? I'd say no. Is Richard Stern harmed by the existance of the WP article? He says yes. Therefore let us do no harm.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article is kept or merged, I suggest we rename the article, and remove all references to his real-life name from Wikipedia, to protect his privacy. --Rob (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with this as an alternative. His real name isn't the important feature of the article. --Faith (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - How do we know that the person alleging to be the subject is truly the subject? This goes beyond WP:AGF. If someone wanted another's article deleted that would be one way to go about it. Perhaps the subject is happy to have a bio here and is unaware of this discussion? I just went through this same thought process with Christopher Cuddy (User talk:Christophercuddy), who also says he wanted his article removed (and it likely could be removed). I think that if someone purports to be the subject of the article then they should contact the office (Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)) and provide proof after which the office can note that here. Since the subject's wishes can play a part in some situations I think it is important to know if we truly have the subject's wishes. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply The subject has contacted me about a BLP issue before and used the same Email address. His story about canceling his YouTube account checks out, as well. I have no doubt it's him. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ditto. Based on his editing history and his comment on my talk page, it's clear that no impostor would go to this length to fool the community. It's definitely genuine. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • If he e-mailed you from that account then cool. I'm not saying, just saying. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The subject is not that notable and much of the article does not pass BLP muster, in my opinion. We don't need an article on every person who gets 15 minutes of fame on YouTube.--agr (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't matter if the subject requesting is the subject or not, this is just YouTube 15 minutes of fame, long passed, agree with Reinhold completely. --Blechnic (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all reasons listed above --Faith (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I created this article and would defend it till doomsday, but the subject has made it clear he wants it gone. We can always bring it back. Call me crazy, but a record of the first breakthrough YouTube auteurs WILL have historical value. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak delete. I want to make it very clear that the "I want it deleted" bit doesn't sway me in the least. I don't agree with OPTOUT whatsoever. That said, the notability of the subject isn't particularly convincing; in the deletion-heavy environment of today, I don't think that this would successfully pass an AfD anyway, even without the opinion of the subject. He doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Celarnor Talk to me 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jim Miller. As notability is not temporary, I guess I'm rushing here to try to save the page on its merits. The sources are reasonably strong in asserting notability, and even the subject's desire for such notability. I do think that moving the article to the user name makes a lot of sense, though. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This bio needs some work. However, I don't think it should be deleted. The Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, and the Miami Herald, mentions on Wired.com and MSNBC.com, all spanning several months, all sources that are read and viewed by millions combined, how is that not notable? Notability is notability. Being notable does not mean that the person has to be important or famous. I don't see anything in the article that is defamatory so I fail to see how it would damage his reputation. His notability is not for an event it is for his actions, spanning a length of time, involving contemporary culture and youtube 'fame', for better or for worse, has been deemed, based on coverage and very reliable sources, an important part of contemporary culture. The newspapers are reliable sources and if his real name was mentioned in them I see no reason to remove his real name. This is not a case of basic human dignity because the article does not mock or disparage the subject directly or indirectly. Everything mentioned appears to be documented well. One could say that his actions will only be notable briefly and non-lasting, but since it is a part of popular culture it is very hard to tell what the futures holds especially since youtube celebrities, both past and present, tend to be mentioned on blogs and other resources often. The fact that people like Mr. Stern are embraced by contemporary culture and internet culture makes it noteworthy in my opinion. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment: The problem arises, with bios like this, when Wikipedia is the only thing keeping someone in a spotlight when their 15 minutes has passed. --Faith (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only temporary notability. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per 64.245.33.164, Shalom, Qaddosh, Cube lurker, Blechnic, agr, Faith, and Ichormosquito. — Athaenara ✉ 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep how can Wikipedia do any significant harm to someone when the information can be found readily in major news sources on any google search? DGG (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not a very good argument because searching for "Richard Stern" brings no contentious content except for Wikipedia in the first several pages of searching. --Faith (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is the exact point; without knowing 'lazydork', you'd only be searching for the man's name, and the only connection to this issue in the first several Google pages of hits would be Wikipedia! Therefore, we are holding the notability long after it has died down in Google hits. --Faith (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but "lazydork" gets a quarter of a million hits; and it brings up some quality Google News hits. To "do no harm" is my top priority; but if it weren't, I'd suggest we simply rename the article. Ichormosquito (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete His notability is marginal, meaning deletion is within BLP policy. Somehow civilization will endure without this page on Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm afraid I just don't see sufficient notability to merit an article. Also, in weighing the Encyclopedic value of the article against the subject's wishes, I believe that this subject's wishes carry more weight. The article does have the potential to harm the subject. Other web sources on the subject will eventually fall from view. Webpages come down. Copyrighted material falls behind pay walls. The ephemeral nature of the web will see much fall away. Wikipedia, we hope, will endure for considerably longer. Anyone who's tried to research on subjects who are falling out of the media knows how hard it can be to find information-- we are succeeding in becoming a free storehouse of all knowledge. Removing information about this particular subject will not seriously diminish that storehouse. In this instance, the greater good lies in acceding to the subject's request for deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment--change to "delete per Faith's comment above." Dlohcierekim 12:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and retitle article as Lazydork instead, but as a biographical article this is definitely notable. Perhaps removing the given name would be an acceptable compromise? (jarbarf) (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (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.