Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Eisenberg


 * 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. No prejudice against a NPOV, properly sourced recreation. Mr.Z-man 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ian Eisenberg

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As written, this article appears to exist purely to disparage one Ian Eisenberg. However, rewriting it would require reliable, independent sources, and I wasn't able to find any with a quick google search. Does this person meet the notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. If not I apologize. I am the subject of this article. It is writen by a ex shareholder of Zevia that is on a mission to harm the company. Almost the entire article is simply innacurate and defamatory. Feel free to contact me for more information ian@zevia.com
 * Delete. Current article focuses too much on the negative aspects of this person and if these are removed, there's nothing left that would warrant the article to exist to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. The page has been rewritten with reliable independent sources. Any fact can be determined via a google search (i.e. Ian Eisenberg FTC, Ian Eisenberg Blue Frog Mobile, Blue Frog Mobile Bankruptcy, Ian Eisenberg Zevia, Ian Eisenberg Ruth Parasol, NBC Dateline Joel and Ian Eisenberg)  There is no defamatory or innacurate information.  The truth is not dispraging. The article is not completely negative. Please advise. This article meets the requirements for notability.  Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openthedoorfornow (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)  — Openthedoorfornow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Question. There are no reliable independent sources listed on the article itself, and I didn't find any with a google search.  The article includes a court filing, which isn't useful for demonstrating notability, and a newspaper article that isn't about Eisenberg.  Could you add those specific magazine and newspaper articles that have been written about Eisenberg, either here or to the article itself? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Don't see any WP:RS. Don't see any notability. This is entirely negative and the only claim to notability is via notoriety via the negative part.  Dloh  cierekim  00:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources provided by Phil do not establish notability. One was a blog. There is not substantial coverage beyond one purported bad event. Once again, this is not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. It is only sufficient to bash the subject.  Dloh  cierekim  14:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, most of these are from local sources. Those that are not make only trivial mentions of the subject in passing. The encyclopedic significance of the subject does not outweigh the negative BLP aspects, which also do not carry sufficient non trivial coverage for an article.  Dloh  cierekim  14:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources available online, such as . Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP. This is mired in conflict of interest. It is apparent from his first version and his contributions that the author is an SPA using Wikipedia for an attack mission. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on second thoughts, I change my !vote to neutral. It is apparent that, , , and  are all SPAs who have come here to use Wikipedia as an arena to fight their battles, and all need to be aware of our policy on edits made by people with a conflict of interest; but if notability can be demonstrated from reliable sources, the constraints of WP:BLP are observed, and uninvolved editors keep an eye on the article, an acceptable article may be possible. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (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.