Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Shriber

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, not notable. May change in the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Shriber

Todd Shriber (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deletion nomination Ex-medium level politics professional (communications director i.e. press officer for a congressman) involved in minor scandal which got him fired. Scandal involved an attempt to hire hackers to change his college GPA - not illegal arms sales, leaking secrets to foreign powers, fixing elections, burying bodies in the desert etc etc etc. ~670 google hits, mainly blogs. Very limited press coverage[1]. . About 3 Factiva news database hits about this scandal (local newspapers/ AP newswire). The guy's career is probably ruined and he might face criminal charges, but his position and the scandal are too minor for sufficient encyclopedic notability in Wikipedia. This article was originally created by a single purpose account, User:Armednuclearterrorist (an inappropriate user name, but anyway), and I have some concern it was created as a schadenfreude article. No, I am not a secret GOP operative. Bwithh 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete: I agree w/ Bwithh -- Todd Schriber is non-notable. --lquilter 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete An amusing incident with squirrel photos and everything, but let's face it, this is a more or less ordinary person (if we had a prof test for politicians, this person would fail) involved in an incident that was essentially a storm in a teacup. Not everything vaguely newsworthy needs an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I say delete the article. I created it because it was hilarious to me. The full record of his deeds exist on www.attrition.org and google anyways. I think it's very fitting that this entry get deleted because it says not only did he ruin his life due to stupidity but that he's unimportant enough to not even spend 30k of disk memory on. Also, I didn't speak up when Jacqueline Passey was up for deletion and I *slept* with her so I can't defend this guy in any way shape or form. Armednuclearterrorist 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait This news just broke. Let's give it a week or two to see if it's a flash in the pan (which might well be the case) or becomes a larger story. To make a larger meta-point, the failure of integrity shown by this kind of conduct is instructive to future students and politicians. This is a classic example of academic dishonesty crossing over into the political world. clarka 28 December 2006 (as 208.65.181.109 (talk ยท contribs), at 14:18, December 28, 2006)

To make a larger meta-point, the failure of integrity shown by this kind of conduct is instructive to future students and politicians. but Wikipedia is not a [[WP:SOAPBOX}] Bwithh 15:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is at least as noteable as Goodwin, South Dakota, Lilla Edet Municipality, Ogeechee Technical College, Andy Frost, and hundreds of other articles which are not deemed fit for deletion. DrHydeous 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Well, that's the broadest application of the Pokemon defence fallacy I've ever seen. Even leaving that aside, 3 of your 4 examples aren't people. 2 of them are geographic locations at the level of town or higher - it is typically considered in afds that these are inherently encyclopedically notable. Though none of these 4 have ever actually been subject to an afd discussion, so they've never been deemed fit or unfit for deletion. As for the the single real life person article you use as an example, at least he's clearly a minor public/media figure by his own career choice (radio DJ). Plus Frost's article wasn't created out of schandenfreude. Shriber's was (as has been freely admitted by the creator), indicating WP:BLP issues. Bwithh 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Shriber is, just like the person my "Random article" clicks turned up, a minor public/media figure by his own career choice (press officer for a politician). DrHydeous 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Press officer is not a public figure at this level Bwithh 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete We do not keep non notable or unverifiable articles to see if they later become notable or verifiable. We delete them, and DRV or restart them if and when they become notable or verifiable. -- Vary | Talk 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this really only serves as an attack article on a person who would be non-notable except for one embarrassing incident. If he ever becomes notable I'm sure the story of his scandal will make it into the article but unless either the story has legs and becomes more significant or it gets picked up more widely and turns into a cause celebre I don't see any reason for retaining this. --Duke of Duchess Street 05:18, 31 December 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.