Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James N. Sears


 * 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'm disregarding what seems to be random blather from random people from the Internet and focusing on the arguments that are made in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Except for JeffyP's opinion, all of these conclude that the article has severe WP:BLP and WP:SPAM problems and that the subject does not appear to be notable at any rate.  Sandstein  11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

James N. Sears

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a steaming pile of WP:BLP violations. There are loads of references and external links, but none of the amounts to a reliable source, and the person does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:N or WP:BIO. All references are either to blogish-type stuff, youtube, or this person's own websites. Indeed, the entire article reads like an attack page against this person, using their own websites and a few blog entries as the sole sources for it. This has really got to go. Jayron  32  20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My name is Shawn. I am Dimitri The Lover's manager.  I am in a conflict of interest, so I am relying on senior Wiki staff to deal with this matter.  We were not concerned about the lies strewn through this Wiki entry when the hit volumes were low, however, when traffic to it started to accelerate I had to make the necessary edits.  EVERY SINGLE EDIT HAS BEEN SOURCED.

As for whether or not Dimitri The Lover deserves to be in wikipedia, I would rather have his entry REMOVED ALL TOGETHER than have it packed with bullshit lies. For example, there is a dead link to a Toronto Star article which is used as a reference for a lot of derogatory statements. I left it alone. Dimitri is very, very notable and worthy of an entry because ...

1. His voicemails messages to Olga (whether you beleive they are viral marketing or not) are one of the most popular viral videos of all time 2. He is a notorious member of the sedution community, which has its own wiki 3. He was voted #2 supervillain in the country in 2008 4. He was the key star in the documentary "The Great Intoxication" 5. If you Google, in quotes, "Dimitri The Lover", look how many hits you get 6. It was noted that radio and TV stations reported point #1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs)  — 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. I would say this is almost in G10 territory. In any case, it's probably at least a BLP violation. Besides the two paragraphs of "background", the article is pretty much about what the guy's done and how it got him into legal and ethical trouble. He appears to be your run-of-the-mill "Look at me, my voice is on Youtube and now I think I'm famous!" person. He's not notable, and indeed most of the sources in the article are unreliable. And how do any of the above 6 points make him notable anyway? Xenon54 / talk / 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete At the VERY VERY VERY least this is against WP:NPOV and should be edited as such, but as Xenon pointed out, this article has more things against its rap sheet. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Look. We expect Brad Goodman's IMDB page to be updated within the next week to read "Dimitri The Lover movie".  If you go to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0329021/ you can see that he was a key producer for Borat, Religulous, and Bruno.  I suggest that we put the page on the backburner for now.  I will email when Brad's IMDB is updated so that you have PROOF that the movie is in production and the voicemails were staged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs)  — 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - obvious G10 issues and BLP; the manager wants us to help him publicize this sleazeball, so G12 is coming into it as well (I just wasted fifteen minutes of my life weeding out some of the external links and other SEO crap from the article). Just kill it on one or both of those grounds, or let somebody who cares monitor it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, calling Dimitri The Lover a "sleazeball" makes you unqualified to deal with this matter because you obviously have bias. That's the problem.  He pulls people's strings and they react the way you do.  That's why I suggested just locking the article down.  I just got off the phone with him, and he has advised that if you cannot maintain a balanced integrity in the article, with both good and bad points about him, then you are to take it down immediately.
 * Furthermore, we will concede the paragraph about the voicemails being viral marketing for the film FOR NOW if you lock down the article to prevent vandalism in ITS PRESENT STATE. You give us 10 days to come back to the table with proof that a Hollywood film about Dimitri The Lover is being produced by Brad Goodman.  The request to updated the IMDB was just submitted and they say it takes "up to 2 weeks".  Once we come back with proof, we add a section about the film and the voicemails being viral marketing then we protect it again with only editors being able to make changes.
 * Orangemike is entitled to call the subject a "sleazeball". This is an open forum, designed to gauge the community's opinion. He can't do it in the article, but here it's perfectly acceptable, as far as I know.
 * I did not say that Orangemike wasn't allowed to express his opinions about Dimitri in this forum. Rather, I said that his opinions made him unqualified to edit the article.
 * You don't seem to get that articles cannot be "locked down" to a preferred version. Only in cases of extreme and repeated vandalism will editing be disabled. Usually, it's only disabled for anonymous editors, but sometimes is extended to all editors. In any case, the version that is displayed is the latest "good" version.
 * You say that he will soon become an actor - that's great, but it is a lot harder to be a notable actor. A notable actor has to appear in several well-known films or have a "cult following" (to be determined by reliable sources). I just don't see how notability can be established in the near future. Xenon54 / talk / 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you seem to be a reasonable person. Why don't YOU look after the article?  The version up right now is fine.  Everything is sourced and it is balanced and neutral, with both derogatory stuff from his past, and positive stuff from the present.  Parts that are even slightly open to interpretation say "Sears claims".  I'll even allow the parts with the dead link to the Toronto Sun article to stay up.  Just give me 10 days to PROVE that Dimitri is worthy of maintaining his Wiki entry. As for the "actor" part, that's not true.  The film is ABOUT HIM.  There is no acting.  It is a documentary about him by a notable producer because he found Dimitri The Lover a notable subject.


 * Delete - Issues with NPOV, possibly G10 and G12. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Dimitri/James is not a "notable" person usign the criteria we use on Wikipedia, and is unlikely to become so in the near future. As for protecting this article should it be kept, unless there is persistent vandalism then that will not happen - and even if it does, generally (as pointed out elsewhere) that stops unregistered editors from editing. It's good that you are declaring your COI here, but that does not give you any more rights over this article than any other editor has - you don't own the article. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not asserting any "special rights". I offered full disclosure about who I was.  I asked the wiki community to humbly ensure that the article was neutral, fair, and unbiased.  When I edited it a while ago, it was a total hit piece.  Now it is at least balanced.  As for notability, undisputed knowledge of the film will be out shortly, so that point will be moot.  We are merely asking for some time lattitude, which is far more efficient that killing the article then having to build it up from scratch again.


 * If in the future he meets the notability guidelines, you can request that an admin undelete the page, which would save you having to write from scratch. But we should not keep an article in anticipation of notability. Also, the BLP/G10 concerns raised here would still need to be resolved. ∙  AJCham  (talk)  22:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL : I guess this would be an interesting case- can you make someone notable by a series of unrelated events of local/passing note ( that in this case seem to be unified by sex). Assuming you could get primary sources that substantiate the claims, are there enough secondary sources to show anyone already cares about the events or person? The issue here is not to moralize but determine notability and encyclopedic value. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Views of Wiki page from September 1st to 24th:
 * Dimitri The Lover, 16,291, http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/James_N._Sears
 * Larry Sanger, Wiki co-founder, 8,367, http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Larry_Sanger
 * I say if Dimitri goes, Larry goes!
 * These types of arguments are never valid in AfD discussions. Larry is much more notable than Dimitri can ever hope to be, what with being the cofounder of Wikipedia and all. Xenon54 / talk / 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know that I would necessarily say "ever be" - it might be that in the future Dimitri will actually do something that is universally counted as being useful and notable - however, I would certainly agree that Larry will be much more notable than Dimitri for the foreseeable future! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - As far as I can tell, this guy is only known for one viral recording (creepy answerphone message). Everything else is either from his own website or his appearance in a record of "Discipline Committee Decisions". Therefore, I think WP:BLP1E applies. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Don't give this guy any more airtime. What a loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.136.230 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 September 2009


 * I was directed to this discussion thread from a blog. I kept an open mind.  Personally, as a female, I find Dimitri The "Lover" vile.  However, I am studying library sciences, so I am able to keep an open mind regarding notability from an encyclopedic perspective. What disturbed me most was that on doing research by going back to the edit history of his page I noticed that when it was heavily biased against him--basically a hit piece--Wikipedia accepted his notability and defended the article's insertion in the database. Those discussions are duly noted in the discussion thread for the article.  However, the moment his manager edited it to include some of his "positive" contributions to balance it out and make it neutral (all fully sourced), you quickly move to delete the article because the "sleazeball" (as Organge Mike refers to him) is painted in a neutral light and no longer mocked.  Also, the paragraph that caused the delete/undelete war between Dimitri's manager and another individual was only faulty in mentioning the Borat/Bruno people being involved, which has not yet been confirmed from the looks of it (which is why Shawn the manager asked for 10 days).  Word of the Hollywood film being the reason for the viral marketing voicemails is duly reported in the Progressive Advertiser site as CONFIRMED THROUGH CONTACT WITH THE PRODUCTION COMPANY.  Why shouldn't I beleive the web site for a company that reports news from the advertising industry?  Why must I wait for the New York Times to report the story?  The paragraph regarding the viral marketing campaign should have stayed.  I think Dimitri is scum, but he is NOTABLE SCUM.  He is notable for making a career out of misogyny and homophobia.  He is notable for using those voicemails for viral marketing purposes.  I searched Google for "Jimmy Wales" in quotes and got 640,000 hits.  I search for "Dimitri The Lover" and got 1,180,000 hits.  For a laugh, I typed in "Dimitri The Loser" and Google corrected me.  If you search for "Dimitri The Stud" (the voicemails) you get 967,000 hits.  I will lose all respect for your "encyclopedia's" objectivity if this article about this sorry excuse for a human being is deleted due to your own biases.  Shame on the lot of you!208.113.46.52 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC) — 208.113.46.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I guess I would point out some issues with encyclopedic content and an arguably unrelated content of getting at the truth or merit. Encyclopedic content here needs to have some non-frivolous notability - this tends to be a bit subjective with the qualification of "reliable sources." I get 10k+ hits on my name just from mirrors or petty posts I've made on various lists ( "how do I turn my computer on") but I'm not sure that 100 years from now people will care about me and my travails and I'm not even sure an attorney would have any reason to care about this ( unless I said I was trying to do something illegal or bad vis-a-vis his client ). On the other topic, you need to examine data and claims without immediate regard to implications for you or your biases. Untestable adjectives ( can someone be shown to be "vile" or not?) and various "phobias" in particular ( a phobia or real fear may not be determinable but risks can be stated ) often just detract from things of substance. Often, various cultural trends run counter to constantly looking for things which do no affirm your own biases but that is the essence of various forms of progress- If you catch that show on CNBC about the mortgage crisis they guy who really profited from it is constantly doubting and checking his conclusion but presumably he wants to believe it once invested. It is only through proactive searching for things you don't want that you can be confident of anything. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of your points are valid, but based on Wikipedia's own criteria for notability, even if strictly applied, "Dimitri The Lover" still qualifies for notability and inclusion in your database. I spent the last hour analyzing both the general notability criteria and the notability criteria for individuals.  Even with every phrase in your notability criteria interpreted as biased as possible against Dimitri's inclusion, he still qualifies under enough criteria to squeak in.  You people are NOT being OBJECTIVE.  He is NOTABLE by your OWN CRITERIA.  Furthermore, it is my humble opinion that if notability is in doubt, you are better to err on the side of inclusion in order to make the information available to the public.  Also, the hit volumes to his article mentioned above are important.  They may not go toward proving notability, but they do defend keeping the article up as a public service to those individuals searching Wikipedia for information on "Dimitri the Lover".  There are enough people searching your encylopedia for information on him to in essence create self-fulfilling criteria to keep the article up.  Anyway way you slice it, the article should stay.208.113.46.52 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC) — 208.113.46.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm not really arguing against you but I'm not sure I ever found the sources that struck me as reliable covereage of, another subjective qualifier, significant coverage of his life. I guess you could merge the relevant parts into other articles if in doubt- docs who lost license due to sexual misconduct, churches based on sexual activities, etc. If you just want page views, put terms like "Erin Andrews" on each page, raw counts like this aren't always in keeping with various other objectives and it isn't hard to get page views with any sex associated terms. I would especially agree with keeping the doubtful pages and never expected to want to delete anything when I first got here. I guess if you look at it from exclusion criteria- hoax, frivolous or nonsense, advertising, threatening, objectionably illegal, etc- and it can pass all of those I'd be inclined to vote keep. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To use your own point, most doctors who lose their license due to sexual misconduct do not found churches based on sexual activities, and most churches based on sexual activities are not founded by doctors that have lost their medical license for sexual misconduct. The story here is the man. He is both a lightening rod for controversy and the creator of much to be scorned, but not maligned. The "sex cult", professional controversy, "seduction guru" work, "medical-legal" work, #2 standing after Prime Minister Harper as a supervillain, creation of likely the most popular viral voicemails of all time, etc., all have one element in common--Dimitri.  He is the common bond for all of them, making him notable.  Individually, some of these elements are notable, but when the man as a whole is considered, he caused all of these events/entities to be created.  Enough said.  I stand by NOT DELETING the article.208.113.46.52 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC) — 208.113.46.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Could you possibly quote specific parts of the notability policy (general, and for individuals)? Which WP:RELIABLE_SOURCES could be used to prove his notability? As for keeping the article as a "public service" - that is not Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Hits on other sites are not an indication of notability, as you point out. Hits on this article are also not an indication of notability - especially if those hits are the result of canvassing outside of Wikipedia, which I would guess they are. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * DELETE ON ETHICAL GROUNDSPlease visit the YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/HushUpDoc. I have been warning the general public in Toronto about Dr. James Sears' illegal activities and sordid sexual history for over a year.  I participated in creating the Wiki article on him.  I check up on this article every so often to confirm that his criminal history has not been edited out by his publicity people.  I was disturbed to see that the article is now more "neutral", giving him de facto legitimacy.  Furthermore, the fact that he has a movie coming out disturbs me greatly in that he may become a household name and spread his homophobic message of hate to the world. Every so often I see him parading around the city of Toronto being approached by fellow misogynists like some sort of a psychopathic rock star.  I once mustered up the nerve to approach him and tell him how disgusting he was.  I agree with the library scientist that he is notable enough on several grounds to be included in Wikipedia (like Hitler or Saddam Hussein); no one that can read and comprehend English can argue with that.  TECHNICALLY DIMITRI QUALIFIES FOR AN ENTRY.  However, from an ETHICAL perspective, to thwart his misogynistic rise to power, the entry must be deleted.  I let the entry slide for over a year because it was slanted toward his disturbing past and acted more as a warning to any potential seduction students, lovers, or medical-legal clients.  But now, it is too "balanced", humanizes him way too much, and must be deleted.  I know that the other individuals that have referred to him above derogatorily know that he is NOTABLE ENOUGH for inclusion in Wikipedia but for the WRONG REASONS.  I am confident that in their hearts they want to stop this man as much as I.  Wikipedia, please do the right thing and delete this scummy excuse for a human being!209.202.78.3 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I think this article should be deleted for the reasons I gave above, I would disagree with your comment. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge I always speak honestly and call a spade a spade, Steven. You don't seem to want to for fear of coming across as biased.  I've lost a tad of respect for you.  This whole facade of article deletion for some elusive technical reason is bullshit.  You're censoring ... not that there's anything wrong with that because I agree with what you are doing wholeheartedly.  At least I'm expressing the reason for what we are doing overtly, providing a web site dedicated to stopping this man, and advancing my reasons for doing so as a feminist and survivor of abuse.  I hate people that mince words.  The fact that neither you nor the other men objecting to this entry right now were anywhere to be found a year ago was because, like me, you agreed with the entry existing because it hindered Dimitri's agenda.  Now that it advances his agenda of hate, it must be deleted.  Anyway ... wink, wink, nudge, nudge ... as long as in the end it is deleted, thereby advancing my goal of stopping this man, I am happy! 209.202.78.3 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop assigning motives to people's behaviour. One of our core guidelines for editors is to assume that other editors are just trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Personally, I had no idea the article existed until this week. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have every right to "assign motives". I have every right to judge you.  Those are my opinions based on the tone of people participating in this discussion.  I want Dimitri deleted from Wikipedia because he's a scumbag.  I am being honest about my motives and yes, I am accusing you of NOT BEING HONEST ABOUT YOURS.  Accept my opinion.  Live with it.209.202.78.3 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL-SOAPBOXING?: I had a more a-la-pointe comment arachived on another board for less soapboxing than that. While 209.202.78.3 may not be soapboxing in the sense of adbancing a position, he is advancing a personal attack of questionable factual content and moralizing. Demonizing and memorializing don't server a purpose- even if you don't like the guy, the scholarly attitude may be something like "know your enemy" unless you have ever found ignorance or deception to be an asset. If you make a factual documentary on the topic, other people are able to decide or do original research. Go to the holocaust museum some time or watch any movies in Hitler, I doubt it they will take the tone you have suggested. PC-phobias, "misogynistic rise to power" are themselves value judgments and concerns about implications or the article and not its topic Indeed he may state various attitudes that have certain unfaborable implications towards others but we are not hear to determine if his fears have merit or not or add unhelpful adjectives. On a personal note that may be helpful, your attitude has prevented solving problems in many fields for a long time and personally this is why I like considering encyclopedia entries- being able to first look honestly at information, determine what it says and doesn't without regard for how it effects you personally is the first step in doing anything worthwhile. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the "soapboxing" is secondary to the fact that I am expressing my opinion that this wiki entry should be deleted. Secondly, nobody here is doubting that the "information" contained in Dimitri The "Lover's" Wikipedia is accurate.  Rather, we are all collaborating in order to ensure that it is not disseminated any further to the general public from this medium.  My motives may be very different than yours as to WHY the entry should be deleted, but in the end, we have a common goal.  I am being HONEST and CANDID in saying that Dimitri is indeed notable and the information appears to be reasonably sourced and accurate, but that his entry must be deleted for ETHICAL REASONS.  Stop attacking my motives and let's agree to disagree.209.202.78.3 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, expressing opinions is fine with me and indeed can help the article but not everyone is receptive to that- expressing or disclosing motives is important and I do that myself when I happen to think about it but usually it is disclosure and not intended to draw support ( " I admit I don't like the whos down in whoville") .Normally soapboxing is using the forum to advance some position that may not be related to the article ("US out of Iraq") but the extent of irrelevant moralizing seems more to be more relvant to prosecuting some agenda either against the politically uncorrect, bad doctors, or sham religions or just this person- and I'm not attrtibuting motives just explaining likely conclusions one could draw from the text. I'm generally neutral- I guess if you took all the coverage of the person that extended beyond local interest you could write an article about him so notability may be possible. The article in any case should include all relevant verifiable facts with no attempt to promote any conclusion beyond that which already exists elsewhere. I'd imagine you are sincere if I had to read your mind or speculate on motives, but that's quite of topic. I'm really not sure what wikipedia objective or large social or scholarly objective you hope to achieve by suppressing this any more than the holocaust deniers think they are doing something useful. On my soapbox, bad bio's help remind us what more people would probably look like if they came out of the closet and that information would let everyone formulate more reasonable and sustainable policies and attitudes . There, how's that for moralizing? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep First off, too many people here are arguing that the article should be removed for ethical reasons. Wikipedia does not and should not take a stance on the ethics of an article.  Wikipedia is compendium of note worthy information.  So all votes that are based on the ethical argument should be void.  This notwithstanding, I would argue that he is most definitely note worth at this point, as there has been mainstream national news about him, significant YouTube traffic to his "voice message" (which I will grant in and of itself does not indicate notoriety), he has been featured in the documentary The Great Intoxication.  He may be greatly disliked, but that doesn't affect his notability. JeffyP (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (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.