Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Fiorelli


 * 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 Speedy deleted. After a careful review of this article and its history, I find that it contains substantial material in violation of WP:BLP and WP:BIO and that there is no acceptable version that can be reverted to. The conclusion that the article should be deleted rather than stubbed is fortified by the fact that the subject's notability appears to be marginal in any event. Of particular concern to me was potential impact of the article content on the subject's minor children, who are victimized here by disputed and unsupported allegations and who clearly are not notable in their own right. Newyorkbrad 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

James Fiorelli

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Process listing per this removal of this incorrect listing. I abstain. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not one citation concerning his "accomplishments." If I want to read fiction, I will go to Borders Bookstore.
 * Delete Reads like an attack on the poor guy, because some news stories alleged that he had looked at dirty pictures. Not notable for anything else. • Lawrence Cohen  23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe only section that has facts is the "scandal" section. All else could be manufactured and is not verified.  This is not what the five pillars of WIKIPEDIA envisioned or expressed.  I would keep the "scandal" section.  Otherwise, "just this year."  "Graduated X of X" in a class.  Making sure to list where he attended undergraduate education but embarrassed by law school he attended (REGENTS LAW).   Nothing here is of note, beyond being a porn addict and a jerk to school teachers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not remotely notable. I deleted the entire "scandal" section. It still read very attacky. I mean, his kid looked at porn on a school computer? Does that really need to be in the article? Smashville 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per non-notability and possible COI. This is the only contribution of the article's author ThreeChopt, who, looking at it, was possibly a disgruntled ex-employee or angry constituent, given the undue weight of the "scandals". A hatchet job, nonetheless.--Sethacus 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'DELETENot a hatchet job. Rather, a huge scandal that every educator in Richmond is aware of and the only fact in the entire entry.   I reversed the deletion.  There is even the report cited to outline the computer activity (on his government owned and issued laptop).  What will this forum be with no name politicians citing unverifiable facts . . ... ..  What else, oh yes, I forgot that I graduated number 1 from MIT and today, I brushed my teeth and spoke to a kid on the street about how I landed on the moon with Buzz!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused...why reinsert the BLP vio of an article that's pretty clearly going to be deleted? Smashville 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me be more clear. The disparaging remarks are not sourced...the "references" both link to 404 pages. The linked PDF/picture file is so vague that it could be used as evidence to support a ton of assertions. A google search turns up nothing related to this. The fact that the info is disparaging and not sourced is a WP:BLP violation. Smashville 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replies first to Smashville. Why reinsert? Simple. Check this diff. "Fiorelli has a snowball's chance in hell to get re-elected"? To the IP, I fail to see how, in its original state, it wasn't a hatchet job. 2/3's of the article were on the "scandals". I also find it interesting the IP's first edit was to this AfD.Not usually a newb editor thing to do.--Sethacus 16:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replies'Regardless of who puts what where. The only verified fact is the scandal section.  See updated links.  I do not see where you fail to see the point.  His background (class ranks, job experience, etc.) is not verified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

the historical aspect of this article leads us to one conclusion the scandal portion is verified and accurate
 * Delete, as clear a WP:BLP violation as possible. Individual falls far below WP:BIO minimums and the article exists only to house the questionably sourced attack. Personally, I feel without the scandalous (and outlanding "national significance" claims), this is WP:CSD-eligible. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 10:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, what's left doesn't show notability. NawlinWiki 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, What is left is a) not notable 2) unverified 3) possibly not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is left does not show anything other than unverified facts about a historically unimportant goof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.113.57 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  15:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)  This entry should be left for the scandal part reads as historical fact.
 * KEEP
 * 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.