Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Jen

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; defaulting to keep. -- Jonel | Speak 07:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mark Jen
Delete Famous for writing a blog and being fired for it... please.... Bloghate 03:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Blog or Google. Mark Jen is not the only person who has a lost a job as a result of what s/he put on his/her blog, so you might want to have a section of the Blog article relating to "perils of blogging in a work situation where the rules are not clearly stated" or something like that. In the meantime, keep the stub as is.
 * User:Bloghate's crusade notwithstanding, this guy's really only notable for being a moron. Delete, although I wouldn't oppose a merge somewhere; say, into Blog, where this could be used as an example of the perils of blogging about your employer. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  03:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this one. Merge would be harmless. -- BD2412 talk 04:52, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * Keep or find somewhere to merge.  While Mark Jen may or may not be notable, the event certainly was.  Blog doesn't really deal with the legal issues that have been being raised in the blogosphere, such as Apple Computer suing a Harvard undergraduate who runs a popular Mac information website for disclosing details about unreleased Apple products.  Those issues need to be covered here some place. DS1953 05:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. I don't mind a mention about the legal issues of blogging in Blog, but this guy isn't really notable for his own article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This guy is notable. I learned about him recently when he was interviewed in a NPR program. I can't remember the exact program (need to check it out), but believe it was a country-wide (i.e. USA) program (could be Talk of the Nation, but not 100% sure). From what I heard, he is a very sensible guy and sound nice. He wrote his blog in his private time to keep in touch with family and friends, and Google was too harsh to fire him for that. Google didn't accuse him of acting in bad-faith or making false statement, the corporation just don't like an employee "talking". This raise a number of issues regarding employee's rights, blogging and whistle blowers (They are not "morons" and I strongly object the use of this word by A&#1080;D&#1103;01DTALKEMAIL). I'm not a contributor of the article nor related to Mark Jen in any way; just someone concerned about civil rights. I apologize for not providing specific details, but please research and reconsider, thanks. -- Vsion 09:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If he said he "wrote his blog in his private time to keep in touch with family and friends" on that show, then he misrepresented himself to quite a large degree. He revealed information about unreleased products and financial issues at Google. Perhaps calling him a moron was a bit harsh, but publishing this sort of information on the Web within weeks of being hired without thinking about the potential consequences is a bit naïve, to say the least. His case has almost nothing to do with civil rights or whistleblowing. I have researched and considered this – I read all about it when it hit Slashdot – and took a look at his blog again before casting my vote above. The guy is not notable outside of the context of this flap with Google. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  12:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per the above. Legal issues are interesting, this person is not. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as forgettable. --Scimitar 14:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Blog. When I first read about Mark Jen, his was just one of five examples of people fired for similar blogging missteps. He is not an archetype for this kind of idiocy and therefore does not merit his own article. –DeweyQ 16:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. If no appropriate place can be found to merge then delete. People get fired every day for all sorts of things. This is only slightly out of the ordinary. -R. fiend 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (or very, very weak merge) unless we're going to start having articles for everyone who's ever been fired for doing something dumb. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Blog or Google. The event was notable. --ElfWord 11:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This is clearly an attempt to raise the popularity of his blog and hence earn more revenue through Google's Adsense program! Strong Candidate for Delete! Ram 11:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name.  Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge either into Google or Blog. Should there be a section on bloggers who have been fired in Wikipedia? (I'm thinking of Dooce, Washingtonienne or Queen of the Sky ) --TNLNYC 22:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep' this please he seems notable Yuckfoo 22:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .