Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vigdor Schreibman

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) 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigdor Schreibman

Who? What? 9000 google hits, mostly related to some webdesign mailing lists. Non-notable/vanity. Timecop 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Google and DogPile are good at what they do but browsing my website at FINS GLOBAL INFORMATION AGE LIBRARY will go right to the heart of this discussion. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnicapital (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not a place to advertise your horrible site. --Timecop 13:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There is significant discussion about who Vigdor is, for people who are just getting started, and questions about what I do in the land of bloggers. A visit to my website is the most authoritative way to answer those inquiries rather than the all-inclusive attacks and "horror" stories that one sees from the largely uninformed censors who inhabit this domain. I am not a person who is especially sensitive to the quality of the technology over the quality of the content but I did make a quick check on my code for the FINS website using TIDY, my favorite authority. They report 0-errors! with a negligible number of warnings, despite the alarming report by the "Timecop" authority. --Vigdor 10:01, 26 December 2005 {UTC}

• Strong keep. This guy was a pathbreaker well before Drudge and is a figure in the internet revolution. Suggest the nom read the NY Times profile from 1996. Vanity? Sounds more like jealousy to me. -- JJay 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - If it's jealousy on Timecop's part, why is someone breaking 3RR to plop this tripe into the Blog article? Reeks of vanity to me. Thesquire 04:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thesquire works hard at his job, I'll give him or her credit for this. He enjoys vandalizing my article on blogs, with page blanking, then posts warnings to me and fanciful "Comments" here and there demanding that users join his masquerade. It looks like the latest career move for the "mind guards" that use every form of coercion to get their way. In a society that is locked in gridlock of complex and conflicting ideas, the technique of coercion that is known as "Groupthink" is working overtime. Wikipedia is the made-to-order site for this destructive cabal. Reworking the meaning of the world guided by the standard of "Neutrality"! Organization of knowledge and approximation of a "world encyclopedia" have flourished since ancient Greek and Roman times. This new venture based on the standards of "Neutrality" is going nowhere. Knowledge organization requires, above all, engagement of the striving human spirit. To say that all we can be is what we are, which is what you get with the direction of "Neutral" ideas is a breakthrough to nowhere. The net result is a war of censorship, something that died a natural death in the Dark Ages, reborn in the 21st century at Wikipedia. Vigdor 11:27, 26 December 2005 {UTC}

• Comment: lowering my vote to Keep for the time being as the claim of vanity is starting to become material on this page. -- JJay 09:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have no idea what motivates stupid behaviour or vanity. What matters is the issue at hand- the article raises a relevant historical question, particularly considering that this is an internet encyclopedia. The references I added to the article confirm that Schreibman started an Internet news service and was denied press credentials in Washington. His case may be one of the early precursors in the ongoing confrontation between the old and new medias. -- JJay 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I have never engaged in page blanking, so I frankly do not know what Vigdor is talking about. Also, I would remind him of the Wikipedia policy of No Personal Attacks: a line which I think he's definitely crossed.. I personally know little about the very early history of blogging myself, hence my reluctance to make an actual vote on this article, but I do not appreciate attacks upon my character. That he's resorted to making these false accusations against me rather than argue his own case only points to the weakness of his position. Thesquire 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe, but you could have avoided the reeks of vanity comment above as well. Every statement here seems to call for a reaction that quickly spins out of control. If the nom had mentioned that there was an edit war at blog, I would have understood the real motivation for this nom and not remarked on what I perceived as jealousy. Anyway, I do find some of the delete votes from new users/infrequent editors a bit strange. -- JJay 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, 130 unique Google hits. I looked up the NYT article but you have to pay for it, but if this guy were so important, there would be more than one article in all of NYT for the last 20 years. Attacking the nominator is never appropriate. And if this article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, how do you count unique Google hits? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Google his name, click on the last page of results, and it'll say that only the relevant results are shown. The rest aren't very useful in determining notability. - Bobet 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and never recreate -- Femmina 03:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Notable for first blog (even if individual blogs aren't notable). Endomion 03:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't a first blog. Nobody heard of this dude or his blog until the article appeared a week ago and someone started spamming half of it into Blog.

• Delete. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic. The article author is also violating 3RR trying to paste that whole thing into Blog. Flyboy Will 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• It more or less all checks out based on the references I dug up. -- JJay 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Agreed it is a bad article but the content needs stay. Clean-up recommended. SorryGuy 03:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This man does sound notable. I had no idea the first blog was written out of the University of Maryland -- my school! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Sounds notable enough to me. User:VanillaX
• Strong Delete - Disgusting vanity page. Wikipedia does not need spam such as this on it. I urge all voters keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. Jmax- 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC) User's third contribution -- JJay 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Completley non-notable. NPOV and unencyclopedic mess.Cptchipjew 06:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Cptchipjew. Reyk 11:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm neutral on notability, but... horrible article, vanity, POV, delusions of grandeur. I particularly dislike the revisionist history aspect: just because the author wants some of that sweet "first blog" action doesn't make it true. This is an argument that could happen on the talk page, except that the vanity of the author may make it impossible. I also note that very little of the article is actually about the subject, mostly being about his sites. (That 9000 google hits is actually 132 unique hits, by the way.) And what Zoe said, don't bite the nom. §rodii 15:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Rodii. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and rodii. Ifnord 16:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nauseating vanity. Subject appears to get fewer unique Google hits than I do! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Per JJay ComputerJoe 22:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nuff said TheRingess 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 01:21, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Whenever I hear the word "blog", I reach for my Delete. Well, not really, but this article and the drama surrounding this discussion is not welcome. --Agamemnon2 07:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy is interesting enough to have his own page. He does not, however, qualify for his own paragraph in the "Blog" article. There is a link in the "See also" section. That should suffice. If the Wikipedia contributor "Vigdor" is the man himself, then vanity is at play. In any case, Vigdor and his fans should not keep changing the "Blog" article.User:Anthony717. 27 December 2005.
• Delete - This doesn't belong here at all. --Caddberry 07:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC) User's first contribution -- JJay 08:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity etc. Only mentions of being the creator of the first blog seem to be from his own writings. - Bobet 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if he genuinely is the creator of the first blog and this can be verified; otherwise, Delete per above. --GNAA Staos 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not the "first blog"! This is an attempt to rewrite history so that V.S. can be the first in a category that wasn't invented yet. But as the article itself documents, there were periodically updated internet presences before there was a web, and there were sites, such as the NCSA What's New page, that had daily updates before Schreibman. While he no doubt had an early internet presence, you will not find any source substantiating that claim except his own. (It's really hard to keep my annoyance over what's happening in the Blog article from spilling over here.) rodii 22:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

((User Rodii makes a relevant inquiry, which certainly should be explored. In a genuine dialogue the first stage of idea generation requires that "Every person matters, so it is necessary to protect the autonomy and authentifity of each observer." In the second stage of idea synthesis, a model of influence and importance of each idea can be produced with the support of computer methodology such as Nominal Group Technique (NGT) or Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). The approach followed in Wikipedia is very destructive, inviting vicious attacks by opposing partisans. No sane and reasonable person would call this a "collaborative system." The facts that I have stated about my experience in Internet-based news are accurate. The documents that I have cited are true and accurate. My entire library is open to public inspection. You will see, for example, the first edition of the Federal Information News Syndicate: in the directory on News Columns, the first article on "Participatory Democracy in the Information Age," which FINS published on January 11, 1993. The search engines may not pick this up because the text of my early reports were not HTML. I am pursuaded that my claim of being the first "blog" is valid, albiet open to challenge, based in large part on my experience at the Periodical Press Gallery of the U.S. Congress during the period from 1993-1996. During those years no one at that venue had the least clue what Internet-based news reporting was. In fact, when I started reported via Internet, the Manager of the Gallery, David Holmes, held a meeting with his colleagues to consider terminating my Press Pass; they were all terribly concerned about what I was doing, which they thought must be illegal. These are all seasoned Journalists, completely mystified by the whole idea of Internet-based news. My news column was clearly a first among that leadership group! There certainlly were others using the Internet, many Universities, including, of course, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), but it would surprise me to learn that they thought of themselves as a "blog"! User:Vigdor 4:13, 28 December 2005 {UTC} User:Vigdor does not exist, this comment was by anon user 141.156.19.61 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - This is not your blog. This is an AfD page. You bloggers never learn. -- Femmina 09:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, one of the major points being made right now in Talk:Blog is that Vigdor is not a blogger. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if those seven newspaper mentions are genuine. Those would constitute enough notability by my low standards. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Now included above is a link to an image of The Washington Post story where critics can examine the top treatment given to the public service of Fins Information Age Library in August 1994. This article also conveys information about numerous Government Documents "Gophers" but does not include the NCSA site that brother Rodii mentioned as a possible contender for "1st Blogger" credit.[User:Vigdor]{UTC}

• Keep: I have rewritten much of the article. Because of his legal struggles in Puerto Rico and his shunning by the congressional press, he is important enough to have his own article. He should not feature in the blog article, however. He didn't do anything truly original in blogging and he has never played well with others. Because of his vain efforts to vandalize the blog article, his contributions to Wikipedia should be viewed in terms of how those contributions can rightly be interpreted by others, whether or not that is in Schreibman's interest.

User:Anthony717. {UTC}

• Comment: There is a difference of opinion about who is vandalizing whom. The "rewriting" that User Anthony refers to was not to correct any inaccuracy or prejudiuce but simply to continue a mad attack and smear mode of Wikipedia consensus building. While I am perfectly willing to abide by a consensus decision to delete my blog article and my bio I find it unethical and unacceptable to have an avowed enemy "rewrite" my work without my consent. Anthony is perfectly free to write up in his own article all of his criticism of my work. That will help distinguish what is intended. [User:Vigdor] User:Vigdor does not exist, this comment was by anon user 138.88.187.100 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (1) He isn't an "avowed" enemy--at least, I have seen no such avowals. Can you point to any? (2) There is no reason to take him as an enemy at all: assume good faith. (3) It isn't your work--when you contribute to Wikipedia you give up ownership of your work; it is the community's to modify and improve. That you may not consider some other editor's changes an improvement is an issue to be worked out through discussion and a consensus process. The mindless reverts you've been doing--which, incidentally, have been wiping out the good work of other editors that has nothing to do with this dispute--are damaging to that process; try taking part instead. At the very least, try to learn how this project works; in particular, try reading this. The people you imagine to be your "enemies" have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, not some animus toward you. What are your motives? rodii 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:I now have a fairly good idea of how this project works. It is a project derived from the mode of Groupthink governed by the values of slease, attack, and smear. Will this mode of association for the "World Encyclopedia" be sustained? A little consultation with the outsiders should tell us something about this question. [User:Vigdor] 09:00, 29 December 2005 {UTC}

• Delete [Not noteworthy and obvious vanity] -- Aigis 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable -- Hosterweis 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, covered in the New York Times etc, making him someone users would want to be able to look up. Kappa 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - 1 NYT article does not make you notable. Renata3 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity on a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a blog (in particular, AfD is not a blog). I'm closing this, as it's been days and the "deletes" double the "keeps". I haven't protected the page against recreation, but I strongly advise Vigdor not to recreate it or edit it, since it's generally considered not a good practice to do that. Yes, even if Jimbo did it. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:44, 2 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.