Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rosner

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. Prematurely closed per Mangojuice below, and also as a potentially dangerous hoax that might be used to support an investment scam (I've seen similar cases). The dyslexic puppets have all been blocked, too.

Any law enforcement personnel that need to view this article's contents can click here to contact me, or they can contact any other administrator. Sandstein 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Rosner

Robert Rosner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod; listing here after prod tag was re-added by Oscarthecat. Prod reason was "No sources and unverifiable." I am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Do not remove this artivle evidence has been put on this article anx it threfore is perfectly coherent. Trust me I know the person personally. Sincerley Yours —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Rosner Family (talk • contribs).
  • I think this article is perfectly adequate and the information is verifiable and the sources are presnet. Yet i trully beleive that this article should be kept just like Wikipedia does for millions of others . I am in perfec understanding with this article and I wish it stays

Lets give this article a try without any Warning and lets see how it does??? Oscarthecat i trully beleive this article is coherent. Give it a try take out the Warning......

I like this article reallyUser:Wkikfamilyboy

  • Article must stay, its info is correct and Well said User:Jackieboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikifamilyboy (talk • contribs). — Wikifamilyboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • It's a no from me - in that it contravenes basic Wikipedia stuff - being an article about the author's father Georgethe23rd 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and discount meatpuppetry This is not a vote. There is a decided lack of reliable or verifiable sources, and an admitted conflict of interest. It is not good practice for one to write an article about one's own father. 'I know the person personally' is not an acceptable argument. DarkAudit 16:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as being not particularly notable (imagine the headline "Man in Makes Lots of Money Shock" hmmm.) and the conflict of interest so comically displayed above. tomasz. 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; Google search does not turn up much by way of notability or verifiable sources; puppetfest; COI. --MCB 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Claim of net worth not supported - not on Forbes' list of billionaires; puts credibility of article in doubt. Lack of reliable sources. Clarityfiend 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I think Forbes' is more reliable than Merril Lynch personally. Are the puppets reported? Whsitchy 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Listed the puppets at the sock reporting page, should be taken care of. Whsitchy 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merril Lynch is the worlds most powerful private bank with Capgimini..Sorry ot say but yes it is more reliable than forbes as it has a gvtmental aspect and number accesability

but hey if you want to delete it delete it but you know that we could keep this page whilst taking out the info that bothers people no? — 82.120.235.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • The Merrill Lynch "reference" does not make any mention of Rosner that I can see. Clarityfiend 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Certain COI, non-verifiable content, shameful meat puppetry - all together certain delete. Bigdaddy1981 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yahoo! search comes up with an astrophysicist instead of this guy. Add suspected hoax to the list. Whsitchy 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this article, and for your personal info it happens that two people have the same name,the fact that robert rosner exist and is the founder of vestar is not debatable just go on the site he is right there,now the fact that merril lynch doesnt publish his name is normal because he is a private,for sure the info is valid!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.141.80 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment He does exist but... all the top hits on Google as well turn up the astrophysicist. Adding Vestar to the search field comes up with less than 500. Whsitchy 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since you admit the Merrill Lynch (interesting that you misspell it the same way as the article) reference doesn't mention him, why is it even included? Clarityfiend 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete as corrected by Whstchy. this is a variant on our problem with little known languages, where we can't evaluate the importance of publications unless they're in English. --we in general are not familiar with the standards and the sources and what makes for notability in the business world. As a working standard, I'd consider using something easy to determine and quantifiable, such as the $1 billion threshold. DGG 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There's no proof of having $1 billion though. That's the thing. --Whsitchy 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, he is not on the Forbes list referenced. He may be in the ML report, but we'd need a quote from it from someone who has access. DGG 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merril Lynch is spelt this way and it is correctly spelt in the article.. But how many times are we going to say it . Delete this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.235.67 (talk • contribs)
  • "Hello fellow webmasters, i hear there seems to be an issue with the Merril Lynch report. Well luckely for you , I work in the Merril Lynch paris office and I know as a fact the presence of Mr Rosner if you would like me too i could send a PDF page which we could post on this page which states his presence on the Merril Lynch report would that help. I dont personally know rosner but I know that he owns this private equity firm and that he is on this report and that he does live in Paris. All I know is that their is no lie on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BobyMerril (talk • contribs).
  • Note: as "BobyMerril" has recently recreated the page on the company Rosner works for, again copying most of the text from the Vestar website, and the above is patently unbelievable, I have blocked him as an abusive sockpuppet. I find it really odd that this guy is supposed to be a billionaire and yet his article is being supported almost exclusively by new accounts that can't spell. If there aren't any keep comments from established users by the end of today, I'm going to delete this as a hoax and per WP:SNOW. Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 30 May 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.