Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Valentino

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 KEEP. It clearly needs hammering by those observing the massive problems with it (who don't yet seem to have acted on those concerns) and a possible move. -Splash^talk 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Val Valentino

Since there is no way to prove "officially" (1) whether or not the Masked Magician ever changed his name to Val Valentino, this page should be deleted.

I would recommend restarting the Masked Magician page as opposed to creating a Leonard Monatono page, because the "magic community" only speculated that Lenny was the culprit -- they never had firm proof.

~)~

1) There is no way to prove this on the Internet, even through the background check sites. (2) I believe that such a verification must be done at the Los Angeles County Clerk's Office, but I also believe that the investigator would have to prove that sh/e is related to the subject that s/he is investigating. Therefore, none of us can ever verify the name change and the page stands for deletion.

1A) However, if the Masked Magician did change his name, odds are that his birth certificate was sealed, so no one could prove that the change did or did not occur, even if they were related.

2) Intelius, at least, says that there are no records for a "Leonard Monatono" (in whatever fashion you would want to spell it and using a wild card) anywhere in the United States. However, a complete background check for Val Valentino of Las Vegas, Nevada (where the Masked Magician is purported to be living) does not reveal whether or not a name change occurred, ever.

Daya 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest an article for deletion simply because there is one unverifiable source. The rest of the page concerning his life is well-written. Why remove an entire article simply because a name change can not be proven? There is no way to prove that there was or wasn't a name change. Why not just add something to the effect of "Valentino may have changed his name" rather than state, as a matter of fact, "he DID change his name?" It would be much simpler, and the NPOV tag that you disagree with so much would not have to be added. Jogabbeyjr 06:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Jogabbeyjr; assuming arguendo that the subject is notable and that the article is generally sourced, deletion does not seem at all appropriate where the content to which an editor objects (as unsourced) can be changed readily and without respect to 95 per cent of the article. Joe 06:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I wrote the article and I can honestly state that I cannot provide sources for 99% of the information I put in there. I've read too much about him in the last nine years to even begin to guess who wrote what. And even if I could, I doubt half of it could even be entered on a sworn affadavit! (And it does say right on the bottom of every editing box, content must be verifiable!) Daya 06:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Two more things on that note: 1) Yes, there's an official website, but the bio there is full of pompous, unverifiable B.S., so it's useless to our cause. 2) Am I the only user here who has used "may" in an article before and been chastised for printing speculation? The "may" solution is easy, but are you going to stand by and defend its usage when some other well-meaning editor comes by and deletes it because they feel it's "speculation"? Daya 07:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OMG, why are you going to delete a page because "There is no official proof?" GEEZE. Go look on any other Masked Magician sites, and it says it's Val. omg, whoever wants to delete this page obviously has too much time on his hands, and obviously has nothing better to do. You must have something against this owner, because that is RIDICULOUS. Who do u think you are? Some perfectionist? Jesus. Just keep the freaking page. It's RIGHT. If you honestly don't think it is, then you need to watch Live with Regis and KElly WHERE HE ACTUALLY SAID HIS NAME WAS VAL. omg, so you're not going to TAKE THE OWN GUYS WORD? UGH.--Kjf512 07:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• NB: This is user's fifth edit. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite. It is, at the moment, a copy and paste from the [IMDb Bio]. Bucketsofg 09:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If you dont like the page, then boldly edit it. Obina 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to Masked Magician or something to avoid the whole name thing or merge with the show's article. kotepho 16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with possible move to Valentino (magician). During the Masked Magician's pre-mask days, he performed as Valentino (not using a first name), so if he had warranted a Wikipedia article then, it would most likely have been called Valentino (magician). And in his final television special, he removed the mask and identified himself as Valentino. His birth name and/or current full legal name should be included in the article, but I don't see what they have to do with whether the article should exist or what its main title should be. --Metropolitan90 01:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with Valentino (magician) also. kotepho 02:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Jogabbeyjr and others above. MCB 05:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Daya plays catch-up

• KJF512 is actually on my side, but he was confused on who wanted the delete. :>
• The page appears to be a copy-and-paste from IMDb because I wrote both biographies, but with just a little change. I also wrote the bio on TV.com, but it appears completely different because it's quite subjective and rather early. (I wrote TV first, then made it objective for IMDb. Later, I wrote the one for Wiki afresh and have tried -- vainly -- to get IMDb and TV to change.)
• The inability to prove what precisely his name is is half the deletion question. (The other being that I cannot cite 99% of the information I put into this article, rendering it unverifiable.)
• I am in favor of resurrecting the Masked Magician page and tossing this one. (It was dumped in favor of this one by request of User:Dbenbenn in February.) Do we all agree that this is a good idea? (Maybe post "yes" or "keep: change to Masked Magician" so the answer is easy to find.)

Thanks! Daya 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• snip new vote that wasn't a new vote on the name.. or something I don't even know
• Comment: This "new vote" makes no sense. The votes are clear above, and do not need refactoring. Four of the five users listed above as "Position Unclear" explicitly voted keep; the fifth (Kyle, is clearly voting keep by implication of his comments. While I don't believe this is a bad-faith nomination, it appears to be by a user who is unfamiliar with both criteria for deletion and the AfD process. I would suggest that this be speedily closed (as keep, or at least no consensus), and the issues about sourcing, the name change, the article title, etc., be taken up on the article's talk page, and not here on AfD. MCB 05:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment MCB's proposed disposition of the article seems entirely correct. I think the "position unclear" imputed to the five users there enumerated is not with reference to the deletion question, but, instead, with reference to the new question as formulated by Daya; of course, as MCB well notes, the latter discussion is more appropriate on the article's talk page and is not particularly relevant to the deletion discussion. Joe 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand what this "new vote" is a vote on. Masked Magician is currently a redirect to this article. It should continue to be a redirect to whatever the eventual title of this article is. If there is unverifiable information in the article, take it out and leave whatever is verifiable. I agree with MCB and Joe otherwise. --Metropolitan90 05:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Daya is leaving Wiki and requests that if you choose to keep the page with the vote on it (which she now thinks is stupid), you please leave "Fallon17" in place of her name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DRyelle (talk • contribs) 17:31, March 26, 2006 (UTC)

I have not done this replacement as attributing her comments to a user that does not exist is just weird. kotepho 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Coment the refactored discussion was confusing and comments and votes were missing, I have done my best to undo it. Someone please doublecheck. kotepho 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with those who have said any unverifiable parts ought to be removed. If, as DRyelle repeatedly claims, 99% is unverifiable, the article should be taken back to a stub and rebuilt from there. But there is simply no reason to delete the entire article Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:11, 28 March 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.