Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Guttman


 * 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 Delete - I ignored the Ip address and also one keep which had two edits. another is the author, and another is suspected of the being the article's subject.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Evan Guttman
Any claim to notability that this person has is solely due to the Stolen Sidekick ordeal; he is not famous enough outside of htat incident. The article should logically redirect to How NOT to steal a SideKick 2, which was deleted. If that incident isn't notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia, I feel that this person doesn't either. Hbdragon88 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Appears to be another means to create an article on the Sidekick 2 non-event. Agent 86 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Barely notable when it happened, completely non-notable now. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nathan Beach 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non notable individual in the fields of information technology and photography, and the Sidekick event was completely non notable as well. Calwatch 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I felt the sidekick 2 article was worth of at least a merge into internet vigilantism but this individual has no fame beyond a single fleeting incident. If that changes he can be added later. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I am confused. The StolenSidekick story was reported around the world, with the name Evan Guttman appearing in Newspaper headlines, radio, and TV. For 3 weeks straight there were 5-10 million hits a day on the website and even though the story is over, more than 100,000 hits still a day.  It was linked in over 400,000 websites.  Yet, Wikipedia deleted the page twice.  Now someone has created this page, and again it is being put up for deletion.  What does it take to "make" Wikipedia.  There is a page about the Dog Poop Girl.  That wasn't reported in US newspapers (let alone on the front pages of them), yet it has a page here.  The Star Wars Kid has a page...  The StolenSidekick saga too had people creating videos, flash games, and photoshops.  So, again...what does it take?  In the end, I will quote what someone wrote when the Dog Pool Girl page was up for deletion: "these are the kinds of entries that make wikipedia so much more than an encarta clone. Interesting, if not always tasteful, articles about EVERYTHING notable... not just one person's concept of "appropriate". Themindset 06:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)" - EvanWasHere16:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Worth keeping, the story is fresh, newsworthy and interesting. teaches people to be honest. JohnD508 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument against this article's notability has been sustained yet no valid reasoning has been presented in this light. That the value of the information being presented here can only be weighted in context is, in my opinion, not a legitimate argument because the nature of all information in this universe is that it can only be viewed in context--inside an infinite size system, all events are relative to each other. Ergo, the notability of first president George Washington exists only in context of a country called the United States of America, which in turn is only notable in context of a planet named Earth, and so on. Ultimately, a true encyclopedic endeavor would mandate the inclusion of all perceivable information without bias or regard for its "relevance," if only because relevance is subjective while reference sources ought to be objective. I am not saying that limitations of current technology and financial availability must not reasonably limit such an endeavor, but rather that an event which has been recognized by the international community could not have done so were it not "notable" in the eyes of a great many. This factor must be considered if Wikipedia is truly for the people, because it is the people that demand this information. --Connected 24x7 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What matters is WP:BIO. Specifically, one of the guidelines states: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)"  Guttman has only been mentioned in the context of a single day's news event - the Sidekick incident - and nothing more, and thus does not meet the notability guideline as set in WP:BIO. Hbdragon88 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * However, another guideline states that it is okay to have articles for "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," something Evan Guttman has, indeed, accomplished. And "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" Most certainly--the moral aspect behind the Stolen Sidekick issue transcends time as a core value of humanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connected 24x7 (talk • contribs) at 15:08, July 18, 2006.


 * Well, the second guideline that you pointed out is under the alternatives section, which has not necessarily gained widespread support. Also, why are you making such sweeping judgements over the predicted sentimental value of this incident?  One oculd argue that the P-P-P-Powerbook also teaches the similar morales, about honesty and what-not.  It is on Wikipedia because it was still memorable and well-known months after it had taken place.  I don't necessarily know if it's a de facto guideline or real, but it has been a general guideline that people only notable due to a single event are redirected into that event's article.  For instance, the owner of GameFAQs, CJayC, redirects to GameFAQs because he is not notable besides being the owner.  Patsy Ramsey, accused killer of her daughter, simply redirects into JonBenét Ramsey because she is not notable outside of her daughter's murder. Hbdragon88 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:BIO (as cited above). Subject is not notable outside one trivial incident. Scorpiondollprincess 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. There were actually now 3 news events that were reported.  One was the start of the website, the second was the arrest of the alleged thief and return of the Sidekick, and the third was the Ebay auction with portion to charity.  On top of that, it caused debate online and in the media on what is the right thing to do when you find someone else's property.  Maybe one of you can explain how the Dog Poop Girl fits in the WP:BIO  Actually, according to the guidelines of WP:BIO this entry qualitifes:

(Does TV, radio, and newspapers around the world count?) (Does it's own forum, IRC channel, 1,000-3,000 mails a day, and massive amounts of hits STILL a day count?) (well...that would be this page you are recommending for deletion) (see below) (because of the publicity associated with the website, there are talks of doing commercials ) (UTC)" - EvanWasHere10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
 * A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
 * An independent biography
 * Name recognition
 * Commercial endorsements
 * Comment I believe that the three events that you mentioned are still tied into one main event - the sidekick event. It still all points to the same thing. Hbdragon88 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are we to presume that User:EvanWasHere is the subject of the article? Due to your comments above, one might conclude that you are arguing for this article because of its publicity value. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - You could conclude whatever you wish.. I didn't use a anonymous name on here.  If you had read my site, you would have known that I have been turning down media interviews as I am done speaking about this story...  So I am not trying to create more publicity.  This page though, as it was made by one of my readers, I enjoy and appreciate.  If there was a page about you on Wikipedia, wouldn't you defend it too?  In the end, lets stick to the facts...  1.) There are other pages like this one on Wikipedia 2.) As stated above, this qualifies as WP:BIO 3.) Wasn't a single news event, but multiple.  EvanWasHere11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment All users, please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your name and the date and time. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It was a huge internet deal and the page got many, many hits. The creator deserves to be in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.171.208 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 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.