Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bergstein


 * 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. This is not a case of BLP1E, and there is no clear consensus behind the complete deletion of this article based on GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 09:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

David Bergstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD, original reasoning was "Subject exists, but does not appear to be particularly notable for his work.", I agree with the sentiment but the subject is an edge case so I'm bringing it here to at least gain consensus on if he passes GNG. tutterMouse (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Subject does not appear particularly notable for the content which is the subject of his article. I am able to find sources, but they are all dealing with a messy lawsuit the subject is involved with. This raises the specter of WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E about messy details about this particular suit (not sure which way the fan is pointing that the shit is hitting).Based on the content in the sources, I feel quite sure we would be regularly bumping up against WP:BLP possibly WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PSEUDO constantly.  Here are a few of the sources I found discussing the suit.     Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * weak keep Per busterD way below with 3 RS. he meets GNG, but barely. Will have to keep vigilant to avoid the gossip rags from being used and bring in WP:BLP violations Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * delete The lead tries to establish notability by association. The lack of sourcing for the subjects production career is telling.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This article was brought to the attention of AN and BLPN by an IP linked to the lawsuit - in other words, a party to the lawsuit has asked us to delete this article. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly that IP may have nefarious motives. But if the subject does not meet our BLP and GNG policies then that is the end of the line. We don't ignore our policy just because the person who pointed it out may have non-wiki-motivations. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but we do ignore the consequences of doing things that enable, encourage and reward people who exploit Wikipedia for their own purposes.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And we have another new editor, this time with an account, who has made 3 edits in article space - all deleting material from this article, and one at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. His business affairs and litigation have been ongoing and in the news for at least 5 years, which transcends any rules about him being notable for a single event: a lot of coverage is from 2013, but there's coverage on 2011 legal woes, a 2010 Daily Beast article, 2008 troubles, and info from Bloomberg. This article has been hacked about a lot, but it was longer and more informative and could be restored. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * delete I have just started editing and this is the first subject I have started working on, so I am working real hard to earn respect and do the right thing, after researching David Bergstein for last 3 hours on every public forum, I only come up with law suits and negative press, there is not a single independent article that shows how David Bergstein has done the facts his article claimed, for instance the article claimed he is a experienced Investment banker with over 3b in deals, there is no public source that can validate that claim, it looks like a PR firm has been hired to clean up the image and a positive article with self-proclaiming facts is the only positive article in the public space. Wiki has not become a platform for advertisement, this article should be deleted immediately, I say this after a very through research. Even the movies claimed in the list, when you click on those movies Wiki have negative news associated to David Bergstein for example click on the film “Nailed” in his list and follow the news reference under “Nailed” --Nlfestival (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG very easily. WP:BLP1E does not apply, as the coverage is reasonably spread out. 2010 article 2011 article 2012 article. Deleting this would remove encyclopedic information that is covered by sources. He belongs here, plain and simple.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can somebody remind me why the Hollywood Reporter is a good source to use on BLPs? I thought it was at the level of The Sun or the Daily Mirror. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Most of the claims made in the wiki article are unsubstantiated and can not be verified through any public source.Wiki article is the only positive article on him and hence like his advertisement platform. Gregg1234 (talk)
 * So we fix it. If Joseph Smith's article read "Joseph Smith was known as an entertainer, and was one of the best selling rapper-turned-politicians of all time" we wouldn't delete it because there were no sources for that sentence.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * delete I agree with Nlfestival. This guy is a nobody and the investment banking claims are not only false, but completely random and unsupported by any facts whatsoever. His press always seems to be negative when you conduct real research. We want to preserve Wikipedia's reputation for legitimacy and credibility, which means deleting this article. Remember: it's not about the quantity of articles, it's the quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmag20 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The single purpose accounts - look at them all. Anyway, your sources don't have to portray the subject in a positive light for the subject to warrant a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, no criminals would ever warrant a page.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not seeing the point. Regardless of the light, the article is INACCURATE. I would be fine with this if it was backed by anything, but it is completely unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharmag20 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So we fix it. Articles are not deleted because of their current flaws.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The only external references cited are IMDB which is a self-created profile and hence not a credible source for information or facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg1234 (talk • contribs)
 * You, my friend, have already voted.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I have !voted delete, the socking is quite obvious here, and I am tempted to reverse my vote purely because I hating people WP:GAMEing the system. Such action would be completely non-prejudicial to an immediate renomination on the merits (or lack of) imo though. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I challenged the PROD. I have no opinion about notability, I just wanted this one studied and handled here rather than shunted off to PROD since there was significant non-standard pressure being exerted for deletion at AN/I. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree the recent information we can reasonably gather on the BLP subject is mostly negative, we don't normally shy away from article subjects merely because they appear to have managed money poorly. In fact, the subject's apparent (but repeated and reliably sourced) fiscal failures have drawn press far surpassing the WP:GNG bar. While IMDB can't be regarded as an RS, it does reproduce several Hollywood Reporter articles which confirm the subject has producer or executive producer credits on several major projects, including a Lumet-directed film and a Mamet-directed film. Hollywood Reporter also documents Bergstein's involvement with purchases of Franchise Pictures, ThinkFilm, Capitol Film and Intermedia's U.K. divisions. The Bloomberg profile linked above is neutral and meets IRS. The RS Daily Beast article linked above is entirely about the subject and his business activities. This work needs expansion, sourcing and normal editing, in order to PREVENT the page from being a coatrack. But deleting the page merely because found sources don't have much good to say about him doesn't serve the pedia or the subject. Finally, like User:Gaijin42, I'm concerned about this IP and SPA push to delete the page, though this didn't figure into my weighing WP:V and WP:GNG. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Bergstein has certainly been around the block a few times and he certainly receives coverage in news sources, but most of them seem to be at the "gossip" / "Hollywood chit-chat" end - there's nothing substantial in high quality broadsheet style sources, which a BLP really needs. The best I can find is This LA Times blog, and the Reuters and book source that Colapeninsula found. That's just about enough to clear the barrier. (Oh, and I've just GA reviewed Jeffrey Dahmer so don't talk to me about "you can't have an article if it's all negative"...) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - I agree with Ritchie333, if JD could have a wiki page then negative personalities should not be a reason to delete the page, the debate is moving in the right direction and thank you Ritchie333 for making that clearer with your comments and I think last few comment s from Taylor Trescott also said “lets fix it”. My assessment was the way the initial profile was written was in stark contrast to what is publicly available on this person; this would be if someone made a new JD profile and absolutely did not mention anything about his negative side, but wrote facts that cannot be substantiated and very showing him as a very successful positive personality. We have to be very careful of paid PR profiles being created for the sole purpose of image fixing and since wiki gets a higher hit on any search engine, a inaccurate profile can be very misleading. I do not believe in writing negative on anyone, hence my recommendation in its current form is delete as it is not accurate depiction of this person by any means. Ritchie333 lot of respect to you for all the work on wiki, love you humor section and special comment on “lol” my feeling is mutual. --Nlfestival (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - Further to my previous comment, I strongly disagree with -Colapeninsula and Taylor Trescott that this subject article on David Bergstein passes or meets  WP:GNG, far from truth, or I am missing something, here is the definition from  WP:GNG  “Notability requires verifiable evidence”  the article claimed facts that cannot be verified, they contained facts that are in stark contrast with what can be verified, hence the article does not meet or pass WP:GNG, my recommendation is deletion of the article or further yet my strong recommendation is with Ritchie333 to portray the right image from what we can verify in the public domain with good sources, even the book source that Colapeninsula found  ( only one passing reference on a failure of David Bergstein) is also negative. So if we keep this article someone has to do the justice of portraying the right profile of this living person, and like I said I do not like to write negative about anyone, and moreover there is nothing interesting here other than “a person running a Ponzi scheme and taking businesses bankrupt leading to 100’s of law suits with dirty media fights”, that’s what the article would look like, my recommendation deletion. --Nlfestival (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article really has no bearing on the notability of the subject. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article is based on IMDB info which is paid advertisement and hence this page needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg1234 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - I have 20 years' experience in the film business but am a first time user to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I am not following protocol (and please correct me). I will certainly try to avoid unsupported statements.  In my experience, the film industry is built on past "credits", which in turn leads to a competition for these attributes that is easily gamed, perverted or otherwise manipulated.  In the corporate world, I like this to "title inflation" ("Chief Revenue Officer" or "Senior Executive Vice President"), but in the movie world, what I observe is more of a fist fight to amass credits, deserved or not.  Bear in mind whoever brings together the funds can grab a credit for themself and call themselves King of Filmdom if they like. As I understand the Wiki mission, it is not to take sides, but to allow a balanced presentation from multiple sources and thus there is an added jeopardy to adopting film world references and claims without a reasonable level of diligence or support.  In the case of DB, there appears to be zero objective support for the commercial and film-oriented successes claimed and ample evidence of misdirecton.  For instance, the reference to "working with directors such as.....Taylor Hackford" is misleading.  The single collaboration in that case was "Love Ranch", a film about the first legalized brothel in Nevada.  The film ran out of funds under DB's direction and had to be completed with emergency funds with its lender. The foreclosure documents laying this out are now public record.  The description cited made it sound as if Taylor Hackford would throw his arms around DB, but clearly that's not the case.  To give a broader example, it is undisputed that all five of DB's film companies were placed into involuntary bankruptcy in March of 2010 by a group of over 20 creditors, including all three major Hollywood talent guilds (all of whom are still owed money).  At a minimum, Wiki should not give the impression that Bergstein is an active and/or celebrated figure.  The bankruptcy cases are still pending, but that kind of litigation can drag on for years. It is undisputed that ALL of his film companies were dragged into that bankruptcy nearly four years ago and have yet to emerge. The judicial record shows when the orders for relief were entered against each of the companies - ie these are not pending, they are live bankrutpcies, yet to reorganize or otherwise resolve.  Over 300 proofs of claim were filed ie 300 separate sworn statements of those claiming to be owed money by the bankrupt entities. It can't be consistent with the Wiki mission to allow the principal of these companies to sweep those facts under the rug.  It may well be that the cases are so complex that devoting any space to it would require such an involved discussion, that the better path is not to give this attention because doing so too easily plays into the "soapbox" strategy or, to use the word I saw others use (and which I like better) - "coat rack". RedFeltPen (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything you said is unsupported. What is your connection to the Bergstein case and what led you to create an account and make this edit on this obscure and impossible-to-find-for-any-new-user page ? Is there anything you can do to prevent people connected to the dispute coming here ? Exploiting Wikipedia, a charity, as part of a real world dispute can have real world consequences for the people who do it. The media loves stuff like this. Reputations of individuals and companies can be damaged, their business ethics can be questioned etc, so it's a spectacularly bad idea for people to bring off-wiki disputes here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have articles on Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Vasili Blokhin, Robert Bales, Peter Sutcliffe, Mark David Chapman and Timothy McVeigh. Not one of those is best known for anything that a reasonable human being would like to be known for, but they all have articles. "I don't like him!!!!" is not a valid reason to delete. If multiple, independent reliable sources repeatedly show over several years that Bergstein is "problematic", he may still have an article on that anyway. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with Ritchie333, David Bergstein with his past and present should be either not allowed partially or should be portrayed in true light and not misleading the reader. For example would a profile of Timothy McVeigh be allowed if it only referenced a self-created profile on IMDB and Variety and said Timothy McVeigh was named Starpoint Central High School's "most promising computer programmer and is a successful businessman and entrepreneur in computer science. That would be highly misleading and the public evidence exists that points to any profile of Timothy McVeigh cannot do justice to the reader if presented without his last crime being mentioned, otherwise the readers will be misled with partial information. My recommendation is delete  in current form, or a complete rewrite of the article with all the bankruptcies, complaints and ponzi schemes with public references available in form of new articles and court papers. To me, just reading some of the news articles on David Bergstein gave me an impression that the facts are very complex to understand and write. --Nlfestival (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "I 100% agree with Ritchie333" .... "my recommendation is delete" ... except I've voted keep. Nlfestival, although you've said you want to delete this, I think what you really mean is "blow it up and start over" which is a "Keep" vote. "Delete" in the context of AfD means "there should not be any article on this subject in any state, positive or negative, ever". Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Subject does not appear particularly notable for the content which is the subject of his article. Does not meet WP:GNG and  WP:BLP1E. --Olibb19 (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Olibb19 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * delete IMDB and Hollywood reporter are not reliable sources. None of the movies on his page give him credit. Someone posted Bloomberg link which led to directory listing which is easy for anyone to get listed there. Joe R (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Joer jamaica (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hollywood Reporter is used in many FAs so it probably is reliable.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 14:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hollywood Reporter can certainly be considered a reliable source for movie credits. It's a professional journal covering the movie business. L.A. Times (not a blog), Daily Beast, and Reuters put this subject well past the GNG bar. The subject is verifiable, notable for major involvement with major projects, and covered by a wide range of reliable sources which are diverse, independent of the subject, and have been covering the subject since 2004. BusterD (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

David Bergstein has self-claimed his number one skills is deal making and claims 30 years of work in investment banking through his company called Cyrano Group, and we all can look into the public domain and say he is not a notable or even remotely recognized personality in deal making neither is the firm where he is a partner at this point Cyrano Group, so he does not establish himself as a notable personality and he should not be on Wiki for in Investment banking or Deal making, the other thing David Bergstein has done in his life is make movies, He is associated with as many movies as many law suits and press is out there who are claiming he misappropriated funds in a Ponzi scheme with film making as a front, He is not a notable personality in film making, in fact no one probably wants to be in or finance any films that he would put his name on, what he did in last 6 years under the names of films is now clearly in the public domain, whether he is the real culprit or not let a judge decide that but he does not establish himself cleanly in the film world, final conclusion David Bergstein does not appear to be particularly notable for his work or particularly notable for the content which is the subject of his article, Does not meet  WP:GNG in any of the areas., which is why my initial vote was delete

The existence of a Scribd account called nlfestival that has published several documents related to the dispute with Bergstein, including a transcription of a taped conversation, indicates that you have almost certainly been less than forthcoming about your connection to this subject and any potential conflict of interest. Please stop commenting until you are in full compliance with WP:COI. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * COMMENTIf you Google David Bergstein, the only positive article that does not talk about the Ponzi schemes and the litigations with the debtors but instead shows him in positive light is Wikipedia, I am baffled with Sean Holy land, instead of being able to show why his article should either be deleted or fixed to include this complete image he has a problem with me, read all my comments, I have been very objective in my comments, I do not judge people by first time or second time, similarly it is a well-known fact that a lot of wiki editors take money to promote people on the site, when you Google David Bergstein, the results make Wikipedia look like a bought up advertisement site which is showing a false picture of David Bergstein. This would be like Jeffrey Dahmer hired Sean Holyand and he made the profile Jeffrey Dahmer was a great cook. That’s it and then Sean fights illogically to keep that profile and cannot even admit if he wants to keep the profile he should add all the killings Jeffrey Dahmer did. Yes I uploaded a lot of documents on Sribd, they are all public documents from court filings, I have nothing to do with David Bergstein, but have a lot to do with wiki site being used to promote falsely a scam artist like David Bergstein, if you Google David Bergstein and go as far back as you want all the way to when he filed his personal bankruptcy in 1980’s only negative news exists about him, why is wiki the only public space which has no mention of all the court cases, no mentions of all the people he has defrauded, and mentions him as a successful entrepreneur. Does My Sean have an answer to that, I am sure all that have not been objective here one way or another the story will come out how David Bergstein has desperately hired PR firms and who then have seasoned wiki editors on payroll to make Wikipedia a platform to make David Bergstein look positive. The only one that has objectively commented so far is Ritchie333, I have commented before I am in favor of keeping his profile if we are ready to blow this page up and write a proper profile collecting all the publicly available articles. Anyone that is commenting this article should stay “as is” is not objective here, just Google this person. --Nlfestival (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you uploaded documents related to the case to Scribd on 21 September using your nlfestival account, the same day that you created this account, then did nothing until 19 October and haven't done anything with the documents. And your statement is "I have nothing to do with David Bergstein, but have a lot to do with wiki site being used to promote falsely a <BLP violation>". Righty dokey skip. All public documents from court filings you say. Which site did they come from ? My position is probably more easily understood if you consider that it is in fact entirely possible to not care in the slightest about Bergstein or any real world disputes involving him, but rather to care about things like the exploitation of a Wikipedia, a charity, to wage real world disputes and people not complying with WP:COI. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nofe to all the new editors Documents stores on Scribd, etc are not acceptable as sources, we only use official links. In any case, WP:PRIMARY covers things such as court filings. There are very few occasions when we would use court filings, if any, in an article, and certainly not a BLP. If a court filing hasn't had some significant discussion in the media, etc, then it is unlikely to be relevant, if it has we use the media sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * delete to get rid of all the BLP violations in the history of this page. It seems that it might be possible to create a viable article about this minor cog in the Hollywood scene, but actual reliable sources about the behind the scenes roles he participates in seem scarce - a fresh start would be required and closely watched during development. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like more a case for keep and revdel, not delete. And unless the entire article is a BLP violation (and if it was, it could be speedy deleted as an attack page), deleting and starting over could be a copyvio unless you really are planning to start all over again with no reference to anything prior. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Only purpose of this non-notable article is to attract disgruntled employees Shii (tock) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have some sour apples surrounding the article shouldn't be a reason to delete. I doubt he is non-notable due to the extensive source coverage. I'll have a go at expanding this article tomorrow.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 02:14, 26 October 2013 (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.