Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP Snowspinner 01:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar
The subject of the page now admits that he created the page, making it less questionably a vanity page. See this article for details. And note that I renominated the page not because I thought that the prior VfD debate wasn't useful, but that it would likely have been different had people known without a doubt that Mr. Farivar concocted his own page. Jason 19:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(Follow this link -- Votes for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (1st nomination) -- for the historical record of this page's first VfD debate.)

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes ( ~ ) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Votes from registered users

 * Keep -- Roughly 15,000 Google hits for exact phrase, and, imho, the persistent vandalism to this entry shows that author's work is getting noticed. Vanity is not sufficient grounds for deletion if entry is relevant/subject notable. Also, subsequent, critically analytical [if POV, and in need of neutralization] changes have been made to this article, showing interest from the non-vandal side of the fence too. This is an entry that apparently provokes strong feelings in some, and is in need of expansion / input from editors other than the author, not deletion. -- Adrian 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note. There aren't 15,000 entries. There are 317 unique hits, many of which are posts to blogs and sites like budding-romance.com. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * My only comments to this would be: (a) persistent vandalism of this particular entry is probably less reflective of its relevance and more reflective of the author's reference to it to garner attention. For example, the vandalism appears to be concentrated around the times of mention by the author on his weblog or in the column that prompted this relisting.  (b) While Wikipedia is great at the multiple author expansion/edit model, self-written bio pages like this are the best examples of the single-editor problem -- precious few others are in the position to contribute about a subject as narrow and unknown, and when they do (as in the current Metafilter adds/deletes), it's mass-deleted as vandalism rather than edited and tuned to remain neutral. Jason 19:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't agree with making one's own page, but he looks like a legit, fairly-widely published journalist to me. Friday 19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep --Vanity is not sufficient grounds for deletion. As discussed in the past vote, subject's writing credits seem to make him a legitimate figure, and this new debate about him seems to only increase the relevance of his entry. (and in reply to Cjr2q below, he created this page eight months before his article appeared -- that's hardly correlative. And when did glib encouragement of anything merit deletion of an article? Attack the page, not the person.) -- Jsnell 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is clearly a vanity page. Chronicling every single person who's ever written for some two-bit website is a project unto itself. There are a lot of google results for my name too. And for "Bill Jones." Doesn't mean anyone cares who we are. We have user pages for this sort of thing. --Leadingbrand 19:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Slate is a recognized media entity, as are most of the other publications Farivar has written for. "Cyrus Farivar" is a bit less common of a name than Bob Jones -- most of the 15,000 hits are Farivar's bylines and stories written for publication, and other information related to him. The number of people showing up here speak for themselves as to whether anyone cares about this topic.  Adrian 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Presence in this discussion can hardly be taken as an endorsement of the validity of the page in question. Mediareport 20:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly of interest to wikipedia users. Kappa 19:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy. In addition to vanity, subject is insufficently notable. Thousands of people write for significant publications and not all those people are encyclopedic. Gamaliel 19:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete The world is full of freelance journalists who could claim the same credentials as this guy, and none of them is notable --Dtcdthingy 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable --JPotter 19:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Agentsoo 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. shameful behavior indeed, but more relevantly, being a freelance writer does not make one notable. Brighterorange 20:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, merely one of myriad free-lancers who occasionally contribute to the web; self-authored self-promotion. The very model of the modern blog-whore, wikipedia-style. I agree with the suggestion that this would be an OK user page. --Rodii 20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Vanity page.  This is what the user page is for.  Brainwidth 20:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant vanity. Demiurge 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to his user page. Moriori 21:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Vanity page, as he states in his article that others should also create a wikipedia entry on themselves. --TIB (talk) 21:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to vanity page or add it to his user page. He admits on http://www.slate.com/id/2123673/ that it is a vanity page. It's a classic case. If he was truly notable, someone else would have created a page about him. - GregNorc  ( talk ) 21:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes! You're right! All notable subjects have pages already! Oh wait, no you're not! Snowspinner 21:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of a notable subject having to add themself to the wikipedia, maybe you can enlighten me. - GregNorc  ( talk ) 22:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, Snowspinner, you'd go so far as to decide that your opinion is more important than the outcome of a VfD, a full community process? You'd engage in behavior specifically meant to subvert the outcome of that community process?  However anyone thinks about the page in question, I think that your attitude speaks for itself. Jason 23:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No. I'd go so far as to declare the circumstances of a page's creation irrelevent for whether the current version should be deleted, and to ignore all votes involving "vanity" since the article has been edited by people who are not Farivar. Snowspinner 23:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's really surprising to me that a Wikipedia administrator would declare an intention to use their powers to oppose the results of community consensus. That's not what those powers are for, and this is inappropriate behavior for a sysop. --Grouse 23:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And VfD isn't for a small band of regulars to railroad articles to deletion with no reference to policy. So, you know, we're all in the doghouse. Snowspinner 23:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point of view but it certainly has no relevance to me, as I am not a VfD regular in any way. And you are the only one threatening to abuse your power as a sysop. --Grouse 00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * -- I've repeatedly and strongly supported my position in favor of this entry being kept, but I think Snowspinner needs to more clearly articulate his reasons. Out of respect for the community he serves, it would be appropriate to explain specific reasons for disregarding specific votes, or rationales. To his credit, he's done so somewhat, but I'd be uneasy about this article being kept, despite a majority opinion, without explanation -- ie, specific suspect accounts involved in the voting, votes not grounded in solid policy, etc. That said, I still support the whole not-deleting-this-entry thing. -- Adrian 03:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Here's my position. A journalist with notable publications writes an article on himself. Is this bad? Yes. Should we assume that he knows about our policies on vanity pages? No. Assume good faith. Don't bite the newbies. This is someone who is giving Wikipedia good press, and who probably made an honest mistake. Regardless of the original status of the article, it's been edited by many people who are not him now - that makes it not vanity anymore. It's just wrong to delete an article because of a genuine mistake of a user who is being a real ambassador of good faith and for whom a strong case for notability can be made. If I had started this article, saying he was a journalist with publications in Macworld, the New York Times, Wired, and Slate, there would be no objection. The issue is that people are pissy that he made a mistake. And even more pissy that he made his mistake publicly on Slate. That's not a reason to delete. Reasons to delete have to do with the content of an article. Too much of this discussion has to do with the article's creator. And those aren't valid votes. Snowspinner 04:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I have supported a person editing autobiographical pages in the past. But that guy was notable, and it was appropriate for him to have a Wikipedia page. Not so for this guy. But whether you have compelling reasons for ignoring each vote is irrelevant, because you have already made it clear that you will ignore the results of the community process, even before it is completed, and no matter how compelling the popular consensus is. This is the very definition of prejudice. --Grouse 08:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a quote from a previous VfD which also began as an autobiography: The biography proposed policy, which says in part "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia...Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Mr. Farivar meets this criteria I believe.  The article and VfD can be found at Jesse Liberty, a precedent exists for these situations.  Hall Monitor 22:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't changed at all since your Lum the Mad days, I see, Spin. BruceR 23:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep He does have a certain degree of fame on the Internet, and writes for a major company (MSN). However, the article's references to itself "....which led to a debate about the validity of this very page" should be removed. Aleron235 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So now every freelance writer who manages to place an article with a "major company" merits a Wikipedia page? That's madness.


 * Keep Despite having started the article himself, the author is a journalist, working for a fairly well-known publication, and is syndicated to various portals. I don't believe Wikipedia should drive journalists away. They do contribute lots of insightful content to existing articles.--Cioxx 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing but a vanity entry. Does not contribute to the world's knowledge or education. Blake8086 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, if for no other reason than to punish him for inciting others to create vanity pages. ThePedanticPrick 22:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Of little interest to anyone but the subject in question. Serves little purpose other than being a magnet for vandalism by people angered by his bragging over outing a hoax.VelocityJE 23:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Funny, I had written this entire vote before and now it's disappeared. I guess someone doesn't like other people's opinions. The entry is valid - it's not touting himself, has no bias, only lists a quick bio which is pretty full of valid media outlets. And as I said before, if Mr. Hankey or Washingtonienne can have an entry, so can Cyrus. Mrtourne 23:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mildly notable journalist. Besides, if we delete this the terrorists-- er, vandals-- win. --Tysto 23:20, 2005 August 1 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not really a good source of information and it should ebe a user page Topio 23:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and Userfy. This is appropriate for a user page, but not notable enough for inclusion as a regular page. And yes, I think Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo is far more notable than Mr. Farivar. Mr. Hankey is a cultural phenomenon who is probably known by millions. --Grouse 23:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Vanity page, and he smugly encourages others to do the same in his Slate article ("Why haven't you?") --Brett A. Thomas 00:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * So, are Wikipedia articles now to be deleted because their authors and/or subjects are "smug"? Jsnell 00:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, we are to delete vanity pages, as listed in the rules of engagement. I find it interesting, especially given your connection to Macworld, Mr. Snell, that you so vigorously defend the author. Although he is one of your employees, and I'm sure a good one that you respect, this does overstep the bounds. The New Zorker 01:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe my knowledge of Mr. Farivar disqualifies me from having an opinion. (And my user talk page makes it clear who I am and what my affiliations are.) In addition to being someone who has been dealing with Internet content since 1991, I am also the originating author of two Wikipedia articles and have contributed substantially to a handful of others; I am not a Wikipedia veteran by any standpoint, but I have come to appreciate Wikipedia and what it represents, as well as how it works (and in some cases, fails to work) as an information system. I believe I have a legitimate perspective to share; if you choose to disagree, that's what makes this a beautiful place to be. Jsnell 18:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Just because you might not of heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't notable. I mean, he's published... isn't that enough? But keep for reasons beyond just that. MShonle 01:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Lots and lots of people are published.  Publication alone can't be sufficient.


 * Keep; there are lots of annoying vanity pages that are, unfortunately, notable enough to keep. I quote from Vanity page:  "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is."  He is sufficiently important, so this is keepable. Antandrus  (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is rather disappointing that this article is protected from editing while on VfD, a bit of a catch 22.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * D - an assistant editor? please. Fawcett5 01:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see this person as a notable journalist, unless we're saying all journalists should have an entry. He doesn't seem to have written for any mainstream publication, and I haven't found any Google entries about him, which means there are no third-party sources. Also, his article says he's 25, so he's unlikely to be notable yet in terms of his profession (it's not impossible at that age, but it's unusual). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are only 317 unique hits, most of them to blogs and little known websites. Can anyone who has voted to keep produce a single article he's had published in a mainstream publication? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The page we're actually voting on includes a link to one of his several New York Times pieces. Jsnell 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That looks like one review on their technology page. Anything else? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems notable [i]enough[/i] to me. Verifiability is an issue, but I'm assuming good faith on this. -- Natalinasmpf 02:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Vanity plain and simple. Let this one through and thus begins the flud (sic). --dahamsta 03:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - if he becomes notable enough then someone else can write an article about him. Blackcats 03:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and Userfy - Vanity, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Popularity or notoriety must not be mistaken for notability. This sets an awful precedent. If every person with comparable achievements should see fit to make Wikipedia entries about themselves, then it serves to elevate the signal-to-noise ratio to uncomfortable levels. That he links to his own Wikipedia entry on the Slate article and incites others to do the same encourages this. This entry would best be relegated to a userpage. Journalism is about the articles, not the journalists, and at this point, Mr. Farivar's case for being notable or well-established is highly debatable. Delete, and let someone else start an entry about him as they see fit. To put it in another way: it just doesn't smell right. -- Lush 04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Lush. Pure vanity; junk the clown. --DoubleCross 05:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, a lot of less notable people have biographical blurbs in wikipedia. Just because he originally wrote it himself does not make it useless. I wish that many of the people with biographical articles that I have edited would come on and do a little fact checking and adding to their own entries. This is the power of wikipedia. --Darkfred 05:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, It's a useless vanity page and not worth the time and the effort that the constant vandalism it will be getting will waste. Urbanski 08:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep comment: this is legitimate journalist published in various notable media; 15,000 google hits; users would want to be able to look him up. Kappa 09:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's second vote in this vfd.
 * Oops. Kappa 18:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, 317 unique hits (be careful with the google test), vanity. Proto t c 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Unique hits" means nothing in my experience, certainly nothing "unique" about them. Kappa 10:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * '317 unique hits' means 317 different websites have his name on them, according to google (albeit most are just blogs), the figure of 15,000 includes multiple pages of single websites/blogs. Proto t c 11:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? Kappa 11:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Perhaps he didn't know the vanity policy.  Doesn't really matter, because this particular tempest in a teapot isn't exactly watergate.   Vonfraginoff 10:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable CDC   (talk)  11:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Move to Cyrus Farivar on wheels and embaress him with the stupid title. Willy McWheels 11:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is my first VfD. In fact, this discussion has been highly illuminating for me, teaching me much about Wikipedia and the process of creating, editing, and deleting entries.  The entry should be kept as a sort of "meta-entry" about what Wikipedia is, can be, and shouldn't be.  Because you have to keep the discussion about the VfD, you also have to keep the article to which it refers.  Although, in fairness, if you can both keep the article, and keep the links to it alive, and at the same time perform a redirect, then the article should be slid to the User Pages section.  Like it or not, the Slate article that tweaks Wikipedia is now a permanent part of the ether - people will be reading it and linking to it for years to come. Malangali  11:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - A vanity article if ever I saw it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I guess we need the self-agrandizers in the Wikipidia too. Michael L. Kaufman 15:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep -- It's evident that this article as important as Franz Melde, where Franz Melde was somewhat important in physics, Cyrus Farivar is somewhat important in a particular even regarding online forum scams.  At one point this may have been a vanity post, but now it's a part of history.  Werty8472


 * Keep. (Lengthy explanation below) --Jacobw 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a tool for reward or punishment. For a biography, the question isn't how annoying the subject is; it's whether the subject meets the generally agreed-upon Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. It is independently verifiable that Farivar has written for "periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Therefore, a biography of him merits inclusion, according to Wikipedia guidelines. (And, yes, I think it would actually be a good thing to have articles on every writer for the New York Times. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no shortage of space here. More information is better than less information.) That's why I vote keep--but for those who are unpersuaded, I point out another possible solution that was used in a previous situation.


 * When I joined Wikipedia, I am embarrassed to admit that I created an article about myself, because I met the criteria for inclusion. After becoming more familiar with Wikipedia standards, I came to understand that it was inappropriate for a user to judge his own notability. I therefore put the article I had created up for VFD. The consensus that emerged was that it would be deleted--but that a user who felt the information was worth preserving would recreate it from independently verifiable sources. This might seem like a rather roundabout approach, but I'd argue that it is reasonable compromise that is true to the spirit of Wikipedia. So... My vote (and first choice) is that this article be kept. My second choice would be that, if it is deleted, a user recreate it from independently verifiable sources.    Jacobw 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Author admits to having created this page. Andrew pmk 15:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, self-promotion. Just because "his writing has appeared" (how often?) in some notable papers doesn't make him a notable journalist. I see no particular achievement here, and no one except himself would have written an article about him. NoPuzzleStranger 16:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not Notable, User added 'facts' about himself that are in dispute. Also the circumstances around the creation are highly disruptive to Wikipedia, and encourage violation of policy. I admit I am of two minds as to whether or not sure this last part should be held against the article, but even without it, the first two points stand. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - If I can't have a vanity page, he can't either. --lesalle 17:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, borderline notable within his field. It is interesting to note that during the first go round on VfD there was nearly a unanimous consensus to keep.  Are some voting to delete solely on the grounds of vanity? Hall Monitor 17:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to a normal keep after reading the VfD discussion for Jesse Liberty. Hall Monitor 22:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. Dunc|&#9786; 17:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please even though the cabal is determined to remove it  Yuckfoo 18:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no Cabal


 * keep The guy is a newsreporter which is pretty well known for Slate. Are there anonymous / new users trying to delete this article? --ShaunMacPherson 18:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. Not notable. (By the way, this is my 1108th edit.) PRiis 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE the very definition of vanity --RN 23:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and userfy this would have been excellent stuff for Cyrus to have put in a user page of his own, and would have been just as findable when querying the wiki for his name. He isn't anywhere near notable enough to need an actual article of his own. --Jrssystemsnet 04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination misunderstands the circumstances that would warrant deletion of a vanity page. We discourage people from editing articles about themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean we destroy the content. --Michael Snow 04:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, very notable Internet personality.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * On what planet? Until this Wikipedia page popped up, I'm sure a lot of us here (Mr. Snell excluded) had never heard of Mr. Farivar. Putting up a Wikipedia entry on yourself to make yourself "notable" isn't exactly the way to go about doing it. I'm going to agree with the recommendation to userfy, as that seems to be the most graceful way to solve this problem - Mr. Farivar stays on Wikipedia in some fashion, and all the arguments used against it thus far would become irrelevent, as he's a user, not a "very notable Internet personality." The New Zorker 11:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * -- This article meets Wikipedia policy criteria for inclusion of biographical entries, which include several standards under which a subject may qualify as 'notable' -- Farivar meets enough of these standards for his entry to be valid. Votes to delete based solely on "this is vanity!" are not reflective of valid cause for deletion under WP policy, and may be disregarded unless amended to show objective reasoning recognized by existing WP policy. I note again that there's enough interest in this topic that it's highly probable that the community will polish and update it as time goes on, the lack of faith in the WP process shown by some notwithstanding. -- Adrian 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I first heard about Cyrus Farivar before even knowing he had made a Wikipedia article about himself. It was from a mailing list my former work colleague manages. He sent a link to Cyrus's blog, where he explained how he busted this "greenlighting" thing. There's no law saying no one should ever write a Wikipedia article about him/herself. Only you have to be someone that a Wikipedia article would be written about anyway.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 20:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete we shouldn't encourage vanity like that.  Grue  11:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * -- Nor should we discourage vanity by nuking relevant content out of a mistakenly strict interpretation of WP policy on 'vanity' pages, or dismiss the work of subsequent editors that have worked on the page by painting every word and every edit with the 'vanity' brush. -- Adrian 13:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * - If I were a cynical person, I might wonder if the frequency and number of comments from Mssrs. Lamo and Snell here and in the original VfD  talk defending C.F. arent more about other agendas, rather than a genuine discussion among Wiki members about the merits of self-posting one's own accompishments - regardless of the content value - but then, I am not such a cynical person... m1key 16:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * - I am glad you are not cynical. To correct you, however, I did not participate in the first VfD. There are multiple Jasons at work here. I'm user Jsnell, and the other Jason is not. Also, one of us voted to Keep, the other to Delete. I don't believe Mr. Lamo has even met Mr. Farivar. Jsnell 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Created as a non-notable vanity page. If this person is truly notable, or has gained notability simply due to the flap over his Wikipedia page, let somebody else create or recreate a new page. Polpo 14:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanity listing - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity. If this guy gets further press, I wouldn't object to someone coming along and writing a vanity-free non-recreation-of-original-content article on this guy. --Deathphoenix 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The current version is accurate, reasonably neutral, and summarizes his involvement in a briefly newsworthy even (the greenlighting hoax). While hardly a hugely important person, he is reasonably widely read reporter.  Certainly far less well known or significant people are in Wikipedia.  I loathe his decision to write himself up, but ultimately it should be the content that matters. Alan De Smet | Talk 13:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if he is important enough, creating his own page and editing it regularly is a no-no. Encouraging others to follow suit is asking for disaster. If we don't draw the line clearly on this one, it will be exceedingly difficult to draw the line on other vanity pages. BTW, I'd vote the same way if GW Bush created a page on himself. The notability doesn't matter, its how the content came to be. -Lommer | talk 18:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Criteria for inclusion have been established and it has been stated that this person meets those criteria (writes for periodicals with circulation of 5,000 or over). All other considerations (did the user create the article himself, is the user a nice guy, etc.) are irrelevant. That is what policies are for.


 * I am a little confused, howver, as his page says he is an intern at MacWorld and when I search for him on MacWorld all I get from them is that hew as an intern there.


 * [Disclaimer: I created my own article, and went through this same process; my objectivity can certainly be challenged]. Jliberty 17:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Votes from new users, IP addresses, and unsigned votes
Delete -- The guy had to hype his own page in a Slate article. Isn't this what blogs are for?


 * If someone had walked in off the street and written this entry about Farivar, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. As it is, we're contemplating disregarding his relevance because we don't like his conduct. I recognize, respect, and disagree with the original reasons for this Vfd, but some of the votes here smack of a desire to tear others down, not make Wikipedia better. To me, one of the fantastic things about Wikipedia has always been the potential for controversial entries to grow and evolve. This one won't be given a chance if deleted, and that's a shame. Also, I'm a bit concerned regarding the number of extremely new accounts participating in a VfD regarding a vandalism-prone entry. -- Adrian 20:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the "the number of extremely new accounts participating in a VfD regarding a vandalism-prone entry" is a reaction to Mr. Farivar's somewhat inaccurate Slate article. It reeks of masturbatory grandstanding at best, and is a bad practice of journalism at worst.


 * Agreed -- if I sat down with Farivar, interviewed him, and wrote a third-party bio page for him, it would no longer be a vanity page. Would he be reknown enough to keep a page on Wikipedia? Who knows, but clearly that is not what is motivating many people within this discussion. Jsnell 00:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * -- Have you sat down with Farivar, Jsnell? Just asking to make clear the only conflict of interest is the Macworld one and not a personal relationship.  Jaysus Chris 02:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: user's only edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You can believe anything you want. Whatever serves yourself, of course. Jsnell 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The author writes a vanity entry about himself, then writes an article about it to stir up a little notoriety. Not cool.  Also glibly encourages others to create their own vanity entries: "Yes, I added an entry on myself to Wikipedia. Why haven't you?"  --Cjr2q 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: user's only edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC) Note: user's only edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I'm voting delete for the same reasons as the two users above --karmafeed 19:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Joel de Bunchastu Delete, delete, delete. Self-promotion in such a blatant manner is in bad taste, as is his amazing exploits in [i]outing an internet hoax[/i].  He is truly an american hero. vote from User:69.174.57.96
 * Delete -- 1) He admits authorship and 2) it's not interesting. A "degree of Internet infamy" is like a Mickey keychain from Disneyland. Gramschmidt 19:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User's third edit.


 * Delete Original article not notable in the slightest; should've been user page. Current controversy not worth noting. Mediareport 19:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: user's second edit. Junkyard prince 19:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I see my name on Google all the time. I have occasionally been the subject of "internet controversy." I am a published journalist. I have the common decency not to create a Wikipedia page about myself. This opens the door to countless other "vanity pages" by would-be actors, writers, etc., and I see no benefit in having Cyrus Farivar on a list with H.L. Mencken. When Mr. Farivar writes something on the same level as Mr. Mencken, I will be the first to argue for his reinstatement. Hell, I'll even write his entry. Until then, he doesn't belong here. -- The New Zorker (note, no Wikipedia page) 209.113.141.74 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * note: user's IP is new, but the user himself wrote the original entries for All Along The Watchtower and Blind Willie McTell ages and ages ago. The user is also here referring to himself in the third person.
 * I have to ask: at what point is someone "Wikipedia-worthy?" And who decides that? Surely Mencken doesn't define the bottom limit. Does David Pogue? Does Steven Levy? Does Maureen Dowd? And what if that decision is influenced by the behavior of the author or the subject of the page, rather than his/her own merits? In addition, what if this wasn't a self-created page? Then the "vanity page" arguments have to turn into something else. Ego page? Nepotism page? Jsnell 21:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, you're right. It's unfair to put a "bar" down in terms of these sorts of arguments. If he didn't create the page himself, there would be less of a "delete this page" upswell. But the fact remains, David Pogue, Steven Levy and Maureen Dowd are all fairly well-known, or at least have a following of some sort. I see no Farivar Fan Club. If I create a page on Murray Chass, an author whose name I currently see on the front page of the New York Times website, does that grant him legitimacy? While I acknowledge Mencken is a poor bar to set, a bar does exist, and Mr. Farivar does not clear it. The New Zorker 21:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete.
 * Delete and move to his user page. He has admitted this entry was created for vanity and is urging others to do the same. If the authorship of this page had been known during the first VfD the outcome would likely have been different. Entry is non-notable self-promotion. 65.31.115.145 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC


 * Delete This is a vanity entry created to garner him personal attention by whoring it out with his new job at Macworld. He made sure everyone on Slate knew that he had a wikipedia entry, and is using Wikipedia as a way to stroke his ego and hopefully make himself more popular or valuable.  This is not helpful to the awesomeness of Wikipedia.


 * Thanks for the vote, invisible user. I don't really appreciate your mention of "whoring" in conjunction with "Macworld," but since your sentence is completely nonsensical I can't really question it directly. The Slate reference was a joke -- we professional writers, we makey with the jokey sometimes, see? I see what's going on here. Cyrus stepped on a landmine that was armed with the sanctimony of Wikipedians. And he is being punished (in various ways) for that. I'd like to believe that this article is being voted for/against deletion on its merits (or lack of same), but it's clear that some participants in this process are slagging on the spirit of Wikipedia while claiming to endorse its tenents. It's too bad, but very enlightening about the weaknesses in a system as strong as Wikipedia. Jsnell 23:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are welcome Mr. Snell. I am sorry that my entry was nonsensical and difficult for you to interpret.  However, this is a vanity entry designed for others to see and help increase his "fame."  I am not a writer, unfortunately I cannot phrase things as eloquently as you.  And I am not invisible, I am looking at my hands right now.  Wakka Wakka Wakka! I makey with the jokey! Note: Unsigned edit by Maiael -- Adrian 22:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Assuming no one deletes the paragraph fairly explaining the current situation (and allowing users who get to Wikipedia from his Slate piece or his blog to see that they shouldn't really create their own entry), there's no reason not to allow this. Jaysus Chris 00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First edit.
 * Actually, I think that if this page survives it must take note of the controversy it engendered -- including the concept of Vanity pages. (As the writer of the aforementioned paragraph, I thought I'd toss that in.) Jsnell 02:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This guy is unimportant and the article is mere vanity. 69.250.25.213 03:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC) 24.199.94.32 07:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep;Subject announcement of a Wikipedia page about himself will do more good for Wikipedia than harm. Might bring a large number of new readers to Wikipedia.  (This is the first time I've ever edited anything here.)  Furthermore, his role in outing the 'greenlighting' hoax will have done a lot in bringing to light the existence of 'hoax communities' like WookieFetish.  Finally, what's so bad about vanity pages? Is disk space not getting so cheap as to be free?  Won't vanity pages make people care more about Wikipedia?  If a person gets used to writing a page about themselves, that should introduce them to the process of Wikipedia and might get them to start editing other pages about subjects they care about.  All of this is a good thing, right? 63.197.5.4
 * Delete - I am in a position to know that Cyrus Farivar was one of the ringleaders in developing the "Greenlighting" hoax - the purpose was to see how far the traditional media could be hoaxed before Cyrus would "uncover" the hoax and be the hero. The whole "Greenlighting" hoax was designed in large part by him in order to get recognition for himself (his blog had been receiving very little traffic or attention). Unfortuately Cyrus jumped the gun and pulled the plug on the hoax before it really got going. Therefore since Cyrus was a conspirator in creating the hoax in the first place, this entry is only serving to perputate his self-grandeur. 209.225.104.124 02:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * -- Please cite your sources on this. I don't know the policy for comments on VfD pages off the top of my head, but this statement seems potentially libelous, as it basically accuses him of falsifying a story, unless supported by verifiable evidence. -- Adrian 03:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, To the question of whether Mr. Farivar is "important" enough to merit inclusion in the  Wikipedia, counting the number of Google hits is hardly the right measure to use unless you would argue that Jessica Simpson having twice as many hits as Isaac Newton fits your definition of importance.  I have to agree with the Fernand Braudels of the world who assert that the lives of peasants (translate: small time journalists) are just as significant as those of kings and emperors (translate: presidents and CEOS) in the shaping of the modern world, at least in aggregate, and thus should be included in any historical or contemporary account of it. --scottdwhite 11:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC) vote from User:68.8.79.126
 * Delete, Stupid vanity post, I bet all the google hits were from his Grandma.
 * Keep -- If it is not fiction, why delete it? Isn't having all this info here what Wikipedia was for?


 * Delete or at least keep up the more honest references to his dubious reporting skills re the "Greenlighting" thing, which seems his main claim to fame. And bragging about being on of the first reporters to write about Podcasting in Oct 04 seems equally dubious... Anyway, all-in-all he seems to just be trying to build up some personal propaganda and, well, that shouldn't be what Wikipedia is used for. - Mr. Knowles (Preceding comment by 213.7.176.105.)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.209.178 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 August 2005
 * Delete. Trouble, right here in Wiki City, Capital T and that rhymes with E and that stands for.... EGO. Having waded through all the comments, my nickels worth is that y'all either have Policies that everyone agrees to adhere to - or - suggestions that one can cherry pick deli-style. I have not RTFA on policies, but it seems to me that is what is germane here, not personality, popularity, relevance etc. Clearly, there are other ways to utilze the wiki-resources to announce oneself to the world, and while I do slightly tip my hat to C.F. for the brazen marketing, I also offer a slap upside the head for not following the posted TOS. Life is not a lockstep process, however every exception degrades the value and meaning of the concensus you have achieved. Tempest in a teapot? Yup. This should be an easy big D. - m1key m1key 14:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First edit.


 * Delete - Not Notable. I worked as a tech journalist -- can't see how he's 'notable' within his field. He's not a Mossberg, Pogue or Dvorak. This audience is obvious biased to be more aware than the general population of technology reporters and other tech personalities, yet the wide majority here obviously had not heard of him prior to the current discussion. His name has almost zero recognition, much less fame or respect. Leaving the entry contributes to dilution of the content base by inserting low-value, low-return data. Tom K. 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First edit.

"DELETE" Boring. Useless.
 * Delete The guy may be a newsreporter, but he created the entry for himself, trying to raise his own reputation/self importance.
 * Delete vanity. The author seems to be attempting to increase his notoriety by writing an article targeting a tech-savvy group, and then referencing to his own wikipedia entry in the article. Regardless of whether this brings 'positive press' to wikipedia (which I doubt, self-aggrandezment isn't exactly what this site is for), it's still a bald attempt to increase his own visibility. 128.146.232.239 20:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- As others have said, it's a pure vanity page.  What's worse, the subject admits that he created it for purposes of self-promotion, and urges others to do the same.  He regularly edits the page to make sure it stays flattering to him.  The Google hits on his name are likely the result of similar self-promotion, while the vandalism of the page is probably a reaction to it.  67.81.189.161 21:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The article was created to drive more traffic to the subject's blog, and is purely a vanity page.
 * KEEP This deletion petition was started by the people who tried to create the greenlighting hoax. They are putting it up for deletion out of spite that their plan failed. Cyrus is just the easiest target for them to lash out at. Besides the guy is a journalist and writes for a well known magazine. It seems to me that most people just don't like his attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnEnglish (talk • contribs) . First edit.
 * Whatever your opinion on the VfD, don't make up reasons. As you can see by the very first paragraph of this page, this "deletion petition" (VfD) was started by me, and I haven't a single thing to do with Greenlighting or any other faux trend.  The first time I heard about it was in reading Mr. Farivar's article, which brought me to his admission that he authored his own WP page, which struck me as Not The Way Wikipedia Does Things, which led to me starting the VfD.  Please don't make things up. Jason 00:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Or so you say... ;)
 * Keep "Keep -- Roughly 15,000 Google hits for exact phrase... -- Adrian 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC).  what more do you saddos need.  212.101.64.4 16:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Not notable. Bring back his entry when he is noted for something other than being a party pooper.  Wait, I think I just contradicted myself.  He's not even a notable party pooper.Fgarriel 14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Pure vanity, nobody knows who he is. 66.24.4.236 00:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete His most notable claim to fame seems to be having created an autobiography on Wikipedia 83.76.216.60 05:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Although it started as a vanity page, the interest seems to be subtantial.  Further, the information appears to be accurate, and increases the total knowledge available on the Wikipedia. Gearyster 16:32, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.