Anti-social Media with Judd Bagley Exposing User-Generated Discontent

The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 13:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Classic example of an article in violation of WP:VAIN. Most of the article appears to be sourced from the "official" website and blog of the article's subject. Also, strong evidence exists that the three editors who consistently edit and monitor the article are sock puppets for the article's subject himself. Furthermore, any public but negative information about the subject that is added to the text, no matter how well cited, is quickly deleted by one of the three main editors of the article. Three strong clues that the article's subject is using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Advocate deletion based on Conflict of Interest criteria under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Cla68 07:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, definitely self promotion. - jlao ⁰⁴ 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion. How about banning of the three editors? - jlao ⁰⁴ 11:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See [1]. Agreed that sockpuppets have been a seri'us, continuing problem with this article and continued vigilance is required.--Mantanmoreland 09:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment a possible Checkuser request might be needed. T Rex | talk 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weakest Keep. Clearly has serious conflict of interest issues and needs substantial weeding (the quotes section seems particularly extraneous); as it stands, the article verges on spam. All this makes deletion tempting. However, the subject himself appears to meet basic notability criteria, and were it possible to craft a neutral, brief, independently sourced article, it might be kept (and kept watch on). Robertissimo 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, although there is strong evidence that either Gary Weiss, or a devoted disciple, has been editing the page. Fred Bauder 13:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Note. I didn't propose deletion based on notability. I proposed it based on conflict of interest, which, if I read the guidelines correctly can be basis for deletion, apart from notability. Cla68 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are correct. Gary Weiss may have created the article and edited it, but he is notable, as is his work. Fred Bauder 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for curiosity, I can't find where on the conflict of interest page it says that it's a reason for deletion... I may have missed something though. My understanding is that conflict of interest can (not necessarily always will) often cause problems with NPOV, verifiability, people thinking something's notable when it's not, etc. For now I Abstain.Edward Wakelin 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:COI doesn't say that, it says the exact opposite. It has been heavily refactored in recent days, but the whole trend is that deletions are under standard policies, and there is no guideline about leveraging conflicts of interest into deletions. Charles Matthews 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the guidelines do clearly state that Conflict of Interest is grounds for deletion. At Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the table titled "Problem articles where deletion may be needed," in the first box under the "Problem with page" column, it lists Conflict of Interest with the solution of: "Use Proposed deletion or List on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)". Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, I believe we should b' voting here on whether the article meets the conflict of interest criteria for deletion, not notability. Cla68 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What that page indicates is that AfD is the procedural route. There are no 'conflict of interest' criteria for deletion, because what should be decided at AfD is if it is in WP's interest to have such an article, not whether it serves someone else's interests also. So for a product, the decision is not whether the article is an advertisement (e.g. in violation of NPOV), but whether the product is worth an article. Charles Matthews 09:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Comment - If we can remove the bias then the article should be kept per the notability factor. I'm all for banning the primary editors as jlao suggests and giving the article a chance to come around. -bobby 14:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[comments by sockpuppet of banned User:WordBomb removed.]

Comment The above sage dissertion on "abusive sockpuppetry" is the eighth contribution of a new editor whose sole interest is denigrating the subject of this article. [2] The very fact that we have this AfD, and that it provides a forum for an obvious sockpuppet of User:WordBomb like this one, is a real disgrace and blot on Wikipedia.--Mantanmoreland 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure this is a case for AfD as WP:VAIN isn't really a deletion reason. Many editors seem to feel the subject meets WP:BIO. This really seems to me to be a content dispute. If there are editors that are engaging in abusive editing (and I have not looked into this in enough detail that I'm accusing anyone of that here) then they should be reported to the Admin noticeboard, particularly if they have a past history with ArbCom. This is a case for Admins or ArbCom to determine if a block or ban is warrented, not a deletion of an article on a person who apparently meets WP:BIO. That is treating the symptom, not the disease.--Isotope23 18:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Robertissimo and Fred Bauder. Conflicts o' interest do not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable, but it does mean that close monitoring of the article is needed. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He is notable, and his works are available and in circulation amongst a large readership, so yes, he is notable. SunStar Net 22:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. The article isn't nominated for deletion on the issue of notability, but on Conflict of Interest. We should be voting on whether the article should be deleted based on that criteria, not notability. Cla68 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:COI, "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." EDIT: But looking at the criteria for deletion, "conflict of interest" appears to be given as a reason. That's rather inconsistent. Edward Wakelin 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see a valid reason to delete. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes this is a "classic example." It is a classic example of an attack page in the guise of an AfD, and I think it is a little shocking that this AfD has not already been deleted. This is the continuation of a harassment campaign against Weiss, myself and specific admins that has been waged on and off-Wiki by sock/meatpuppets of User:WordBomb, on various venues off-Wiki, including anti-Wiki websites. Among the targets is this article, which has been semiprotected to prevent vandalism.

The claims of sockpuppetry by three unnamed editors (presumably myself and the two other editors who disagreed with Cla68 over the last 24 hrs.) are outrageous lies. So is the WP:VAIN assertion, which is rubbish, which is made in a link, now deleted, from a cockamamie anonymous website obviously maintained by banned editor and notorious troll User:WordBomb, who has been harassing myself and other editors via multiple sockpuppets as can be seen from his user page. I urge interested editors to view the actual edit history of this article, which is notable for its relative inactivity in recent weeks and for the utter lack of substance to Cla68's claims. --Mantanmoreland 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[comments by sockpuppet of banned User:WordBomb removed.]

I would like to get that confirmation as well directly from Mantanmoreland himself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep, although I am sure the page will remain biased as long as the high level protection of this page remains. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Self-promoter? Okay, sure. Notable subject? Undoubtedly. Clean it up, monitor it closely. Problem solved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but the sockpuppet issue needs to be investigated. Everyking 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The issue has been investigated and a block issued. [3]--Mantanmoreland 09:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Humus sapiens . Amoruso 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Per Everyking's concern about the "sockpuppet issue." That was introduced into this Afd by the nominator himself, Cla68, who said above, "Also, strong evidence exists that the three editors who consistently edit and monitor the article are sock puppets for the article's subject himself." I let that pass for a couple of days, because I had no reason to believe he meant me, and I know I'm not a sock. But then I began to wonder -- I had asked Cla68 a question about his edits of this article, on his talk page, shortly before he started in on this "three socks" stuff. So in the absence of any list of three names from him, I thought it would do no harm to ask him to clarify the matter. Am I one of the alleged socks?

If you go to Cla68's talk page you can see the result. I asked, he evaded the question. I asked again, he evaded again. He will neither rule me in nor out as one of his alleged "three socks." I bring it up here because this may show something about what a firm grasp he does or doesn't have on the "sockpuppet issue." --Christofurio 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not accusing Christofurio of being a sockpuppet. Cla68 06:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So your statement about "strong evidence" referred to three other names? Could you provide them or are we to continue to guess? --Christofurio 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per SunStar above. --Christofurio 16:27, 1 Nove'ber 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain though dramatic clean-up certainly seems to be required. Given the notability, a delete may be inadvisable, but the current writing, especially the Barron's plug (my, my, they actually like one of their own?) and the quotes section, make this article an abysmal example of information reporting. It looks more like a piece of resume puffery. The subject may be "notable" but the article does an extremely poor job of NPOV reporting on the subject. However, the Delete campaign, itself, seems fishy given the rather obvious notability of the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.6.44.160 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per nom --SandyDancer 02:11, 4 November 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.