Talk:Dan Ackman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dan Ackman article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Page was created by user "Danackman," and it's clearly autobiography, edited repeatedly over the last year by various sockpuppet logins.

Subject does not meet notability requirements; being a reporter is not generally accepted as grounds for notability, nor is simply winning a case as a lawyer. I see no evidence of "significant coverage" of the subject. Chor788 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article should be deleted. Unless there are some articles written about this person in widely read publications (and these are referenced), I don't see the notability requirement being satisfied at this time. Silverchemist 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

After nomination, an editor (another sockpuppet?) added a number of references. Aside from being several years old, they're also only evidence of a journalist being quoted in the context of OTHER stories. I see no evidence that this person was the actual subject of a story, or is notable in his own right. If he's notable, than every person who's ever been quoted in a newspaper or appeared on local TV must be. Chor788 21:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This autobiography garnered little attention until October 7, 2007 when 24.29.142.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) added a comment (among others) that Ackman was fired for cause from Forbes in 2005. (Ackman did abruptly stop contributing to Forbes on June 30, 2005 [1]). This edit was reverted by Jcvillage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Chor788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) then tagged the article for deletion. Law1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 216.73.148.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 68.81.125.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) immediately began adding references to articles by Dan Ackman. These are all single-purpose accounts.05:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Although some people use single purpose accounts for malevalent purposes, this is one of the better articles I've seen on Wikipedia. It does not contain original research that pushing a biased point of view, which is very common. Instead, it contains many links to outside sources - a feature of a good Wikipedia article. Mpublius 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty much barely important, but it is important. There is new, concise information about things other than the person himself. It may be self-congradulatory, but at least it references articles and it gives a broader picture to things. I've seen worse. Rhetth 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This diff gives one the impression that an anonymous individual wanted to strike out at Dan Ackman. Such information should be deleted on sight for being unverified. If the information could be verified then that would be another case entirely. On the other matter, it's a well-sourced article and should not be deleted in any case. patsw 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is listed on RfC. If the question is whether the page should be deleted, it should be listed on AfD instead. In my opinion, even though the article is well-sourced, the notability of the subject is extremely questionable - at first glance, I might be inclined to !vote delete. --Hyperbole 07:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)