Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No consensus. Rlevse 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Amir Massoud Tofangsazan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living individual. As noted in the article itself, the Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this person's life and we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at Requests for comment/Doc glasgow for related discussion. Newyorkbrad 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous nominations: Articles for deletion/Amir Tofangsazan, Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan


 * Keep - the separate sources from the Daily Mail, BBC News and Times Online constitute multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party independent sources per WP:BIO. Therefore, this individual is notable. I don't see how this could be construed as an attack page either; it's not the role of Wikipedia to make subjective judgments about what might have "seriously damaged a person's life" or whether events are "embarrassing". This article is an accurate and factual report, containing no libel, and is sourced to third-party reliable media sources. Walton monarchist89 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: sure it is sourced and neutral and ticks all our internal boxes. But, Wikipedia is now the largest reference work in the world, one of the top-ten websites and developing into a thoroughly powerful resource. With great power comes great responsibility - we can add to human misery - or benefit human knowledge. Once thing OTRS teaches me, is to remember that there is a real world out there - and we can hurt real people. Some of them just unfortunate non-entities. Ticking internal boxes isn't enough - we need to rise above that and look at the big picture. We don't need this cruft. We don't need to add to this chap's pain. If we delete a thousand articles like it, we'll be no weaker. Does humanity benefit by us taking charitable donations and using them to host sub-tabloid tittle-tattle? No. Let's rise above WP:ABC and WP:XYZ and all our little house rules and set our sights on being great. Does this article further that, even a little?--Docg 19:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - Wanting to "set our sights on being great" is not a justification for ignoring policy. The "little house rules" are, presumably, there for a reason - so they should apply equally to everyone and every article. There is no policy which says "Wikipedia has a social responsibility to do good for the world". It's a neutral encyclopedia that reports verifiable fact - that's what NPOV is all about. And as for calling it "sub-tabloid tittle-tattle" and "cruft", isn't that a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Notability is not based on Wikipedia editors' subjective judgements. I just don't see which policy you're referring to in arguing for deletion. Walton monarchist89 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm not pointing to any policy, I'm putting common-sense and basic humanity over the alphabet soup. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean we have to have it. I mean when we've no article on Apollonius The Athenian or the Argentine Basin - will we collapse without this? --Docg 21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're implicitly invoking WP:IAR in this case, which is fair enough (as it is, technically, a policy) but I'm not comfortable with it. Either that, or you're arguing that Wikipedia's notability policies themselves are wrong and should be changed; which is also fair enough, but the whole point of having rules is that they apply equally to every editor and every article. Please don't ignore the clear policy. Walton monarchist89 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doc. Sourcing does not equal notability.  Bastique 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, from WP:BIO: All subjects of Wikipedia articles should meet the central notability criterion for inclusion, summarized here: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works the source of which is independent of the person. This clearly applies in this case. Ergo, this person is notable. Walton monarchist89 20:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but from WP:BLP a/k/a WP:LIVING: "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Newyorkbrad 21:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that policy, but Wikipedia would not be the "primary vehicle" in this instance for the spread of such claims; the claims have already been spread extensively by the media, and all the statements in the article are sourced to various mainstream news reports (not all of which are from tabloids; one is from The Times, a reputable broadsheet, and one is from ITV News). Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Newyorkbrad and Doc. Useless junk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article is sourced and subject is notable due to multiple press articles. Wikipedia has lots of articles that the subjects may not wish existed but this is not a reason to delete them. --J2thawiki 21:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Brad and Doc. I'm particularly unimpressed that variations of the the word "alleged" occur five times in this article. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - The word "alleged" is only a bad thing in cases where it violates WP:WEASEL; that isn't the case with this article, as all the major statements are sourced to news reports from reliable mainstream sources. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is most certainly NOT an attack page. It is simply a record of a notable individual who has been involved in several events all of which have been reported by several manjor and respected news companies.  Whether or not this article is embarassing to the mentioned individual or not is not the issue.  It is not Wikipedia's job to ensure all articles project a favourable image of the subject.  This like most other pages is an accurate and truthful account of a notable individual's activities in the public spotlight.  Wikipedia is going in completely the wrong direction if we as Wikipedia users are expected to suppress the truth just because there may be a chance that it may embarass or offend someone.  Wikiepdia has been and will always be a vehicle of the truth.  --JosephLondon 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the only reason this guy could be seen as notable is because of the blog. It looks like the news items are about the blog. Thus, the guy is not notable, the blog is. We're just contributing to human suffering, not the sum of knowledge, with this one. I could see there being an acceptable article on the blog, hopefully with the guy's full name redacted. The blog is based on actions that the guy has never been convicted of, and is essentially an attack site. We shouldn't blithely repeat the blogger's possible libel. Mak (talk)  21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - That's not the case. The news articles are not just about the blog (e.g. Daily Mail).  This is a notable person, a search on Google or indeed any other search engine will produce copious results.  This is a major event in the internet and in time and should be most certainly documented. --JosephLondon 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking at WP:BIO, the (disputed) criteria is "[...] has been a primary subject of multiple [...]" (emphasis mine). Of the four sources I could read, only one of them has him as the focus; the other three focus on the alleged victim. Not only that, there's no reliable source saying he's actually the one who sold the laptop; he could be a innocent bystander (for instance, if he had sold the laptop to someone else, who then resold it to the alleged victim). I also find it interesting that all the sources are from around the same time (30-31 May 2006); this strongly suggests both merely had their 15 minutes of fame, and nobody will care much 100 years from now. --cesarb 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I've gone ahead and proposed the 15 minutes of fame test at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). --cesarb 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tough case considering that it is reasonably current and a living person.  I think every effort must be made to keep this as neutral as possible, but the verifiable coverage is there to necessarily keep this. &mdash;siro&chi;o 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought. Move this to a more neutral title.  For example, eBay and Blogger incident of May 2006 as it is truly the story that garnered the coverage. &mdash;siro&chi;o 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not censored. The article is noteable due to the coverage in the English press. The arguments to delete above amount to nothing more than censorship due to potential offence to the individual. There are plenty of newspaper articles on this subject beyond those referenced in the article, try googling, many of which have the subject as a primary focus, some UK papers even printed a photo of Amir. If you want to support User:Doc's view above you should be voting for a change to wikipedia policy, not just targeting one article. GameKeeper 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not censored. --Richard Daly 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the incident may be notable - though this seems more suited to Wikinews than here as a fairly minor news event - the people involved are not, and most certainly not judging by the sources cited. And yes, we do have certain moral responsibilities not to wreck people's lives when they have done us no harm. 15 minutes of fame, anyone? Moreschi Request a recording? 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Newyorkbrad, Doc G and Makemi plus common sense and basic decency. Absolutely trivial except to the parties concerned. As Cesarb says, this is "fifteen minutes of fame" stuff. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia, not a permanent repository for ephemeral tabloid gossip humiliating non-notable members of the public. --Folantin 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While the circumstances are embarrassing, they are of note and we can not be revisionist historians and simply erase the facts of an event due to how the still living subjects feel about it. Great care, however should be placed into the maintenance and growth of this article, perhaps a protect to prevent unregistered users from vandalizing it. --Ozgod 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are we really supposed to preserve page-filler like this for posterity just because it made a brief appearance in the tabloids on a slow news day? Does this mean we can now scour the newspaper archives from, say, the 1970s looking to resurrect long-dead disputes among non-notable people which caused a momentary media buzz, e.g. an argument over a garden fence which escalated with "hilarious" consequences. This kind of thing is meant to be forgotten - the media have their "fun" then they move on, leaving the subjects of their attention to go back into obscurity and repair their lives. But now it's apparently the duty of an online encyclopaedia to immortalise such storms in a teacup so some poor guy can be humiliated for the rest of his natural. Sad. --Folantin 09:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, The Times is not a tabloid. Neither is ITV News. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Strictly under WP:LIVING, this article unfortunately passes muster. However, I'll apply the proposed WP:NOTNEWS which is likely to gain consensus in a form that would support deleting this article. Even in the absence of WP:NOTNEWS, common sense indicates that we are not a directory of news stories, and if we have to cut off minor news stories this is a good place to start. The argument that the sources focus on the event, not the person, is also a good argument for not having an article at this title. Having said this, if this event happens to be discussed in an article describing its historical significance (if there is any), its significance to the study of Internet memes, etc., I don't think I would object to including the information in those kinds of contexts. Kla'quot 06:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:LIVING, though could use some trimming. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:28, 4 March 2007 (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.