Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Scott Sadofsky


 * 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 of the debate was - kept

Jason Scott Sadofsky
Vanity. System admins and creators of unreleased independent films are not notable. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 *  Delete  (agree with RaD Man) --jpgordon{gab} 19:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeek. Blush. Not paying sufficient attention. Keep. --jpgordon{gab} 20:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons clear in the text of the article. For people just tuning in, RaD Man is trying to be funny by listing this article. That is, he knows Jason Scott is notable, and he also has indicated that he doesn't think notability is a fair criteria for keeping or deleting articles, but he has listed it anyway (to spite the VfD process?). RaD Man, please, save everybody some time, and remove this bad-faith VfD listing.  ~leif &#9786; HELO 19:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow. It says a lot for what obviously keepable stuff is nominated on VFD that I didn't even notice this.  Interesting that Jpgordon actually voted to delete without even reading the article.  anthony 警告 15:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that, Leif. That said, the user jscott sure hasn't made a good impression.  Real life and Wikipedia are different, though, and we really ought to not fight our battles from the real world on Wikipedia ("Oh my gosh! How can you think my favorite product isn't notable?!" or "Oh my gosh! I hate those people, so I want that awful article gone!").  Geogre 22:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Clean up, and remove his attitude towards wikipedia. People's personal feelings on websites are not encyclopedic unless they actually take legal action because of them. And Rad Man is sort of right, actually, being a system admin or creating an unreleased independent film doesn't make one notable in itself. -R. fiend 00:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that the wikipedia paragraph should go. I removed it shortly after it was added, but was reverted. My attempt at discussion on the talk page appears to be unanswered. Removed it again. &mdash; David Remahl 00:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Extremely delete. The website is notable. The guy who made it isn't. Stirring up the locals might give you a certain notoriety but it doesn't make you "notable", otherwise we'd have a page on User:Wik and another on Anthony. The president of the digital-age Louvre was notable; the trash collector of nerds' chatter clubs is not. Dr Zen 00:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Joke or not, I don't see that he is notable.  If it is for textfiles.com, we already have an article on that.  His documentary hasn't come out yet, and other than that, he has been a speaker at conferences alongside some big names.  He did, however, write The 3D Lemmings Companion.  -- WOT 17:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Borderline notable (1450 Google hits on "Jason Scott" textfiles) but notable enough. Regardless of what we may think of Jason Scott Sadofsky. After all, we have articles about (how can I avoid Godwin's Law) Saddam Hussein. Since the nominator, [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] not only voted "strong keep" on textfiles.com&mdash; see discussion&mdash;but berated the person who listed it, I have to believe that he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. ExplorerCDT 05:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should vote keep on the article I created. "Notable", based on evidence in the article. &mdash; David Remahl 06:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not establish notability by itself; figure has little cultural/historical relevance from what I can tell (started a website, made an unreleased film, got sued?). --Fastfission 13:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Extremely keep - notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Mostly delete - Tεx  τ  urε  21:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This figure is notable. Yuckfoo 23:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * weak keep, from the above discussion, I detect some notability. You don't have to be Saddam Hussein to deservae a WP article :) dab 21:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Appears to be marginally notable, and when in doubt, it's a bad idea to delete. --Goobergunch|? 06:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It astounds me you're even debating this; I co-founded Wikipedia! --Jscott 22:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Mostly keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly more notable so than some teen pop 'celebrities'. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|George\talk ]] 22:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * To clear up any ambiguities (if there were any to begin with), my vote is to delete as well. Jason Scott cannot be saved.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sysadmin, filmmaker, DEF CON speaker, called a martyr by the Boston Globe. anthony 警告 15:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with textfiles.com.
 * Above comment left unsigned at 22:31, 1 Dec 2004 by Remes. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that--just a bit sloppy. Remes 14:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Tmh 23:07, 2 Dec 2004 (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.