Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mike Rossi


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Rossi is ultimately only known for the marathon, which is not even remotely enough to warrant having an article. There are also WP:BLP concerns since there is at least one person (as evidenced by the AfD talk page comment, which is now removed) that sees this article as a way to make WP:POINTY statements about their opinion as to whether or not Rossi was a cheater. Wikipedia is not a place to raise awareness or further a viewpoint, and I can't see where this would be anything other than detrimental to both Rossi and Wikipedia. Whether he is or isn't something is not the point. What is the point is whether or not he is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, which he is not. I'm salting this to prevent further recreation as well. I am also deleting the sandbox version, as I cannot see where this person would pass notability guidelines any time soon, also for BLP concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Mike Rossi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable person. There's this chatter about the letter, which is nothing but a momentary flash on the screen of the viewer, and the matter of the marathon qualification. If we count each of them as half an event, which is already giving it a lot of credit, then we still have a case of WP:BLP1E. Delete this. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Even if the subject is notable for more than one event, which is not evident based on the sources provided, the article should be speedily deleted as an attack page, as it appears to have been written primarily to disparage its subject and there is no good version to revert back to. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Full disclose, I just declined the G10 speedy on this. I also removed the most negative paragraphs and the questionable sourcing that went with them, and tried to make it a bit more neutral pending this discussion. One can still view the history to see earlier versions. I agree with the nom that this is a classic BIO1E case, and should be deleted. I also am concerned that absent close watching, the article might return to its earlier negative state. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would anyone be upset if I closed this early? The coverage for this is fairly minimal and I can't see this closing as anything other than a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of worried about this going back to an attack page as well, given that what is out there about this guy is somewhat negative in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Like Lankiveil, I think it's best just to let the process play out. Usually saves time in the long run. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, classic WP:ONEEVENT case. I have some sympathy for the idea of just closing early to stop it turning back into an attack page, but if you do that I worry about the whole case then getting tied up in rules lawyering, DRV, etc etc.  Better I think to keep an eye on it here for the next few days and let it close by the book, I think.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep More notable than BLP1E, but the anonymous allegations of cheating part is simply violative of WP:BLP. The "see also" stuff is intrinsically violative of WP:BLP as well. Collect (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)  BTW, protection would make sense here - this BLP was quite unbalanced for sure and I can understand the deletion proponents.  Collect (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment User:262jelle/sandbox should be placed at MfD as being a violation of WP:BLP in userspace, IMO. Collect (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tokyogirl79, please go for it, and delete that sandbox as well. Collect, while I respect their opinion, has reservations as well, and their point about the sandbox is well taken. If the person is notable (but I note that Collect presented no real argument...), this can be rewritten--the proper way. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the original creator of the article. I would like to point out that the subject is notable for being a famous DJ, for his viral letter and for his marathon cheating. In my opinion he is a notable person. Also I don't think this is an attack page, I have tried to write it as neutral as possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Ruiz isn't an attack page either. The allegations of cheating aren't anonymous at all, important people from the running community have offered the subject $100,000 to repeat his qualifying time. I am willing to add more references, if this is necessary. I understand there is a problem with my sandbox too, I have changed it. I should also add that this page has been vandalized several times by an anonymous user, probably the subject himself. I am also wondering why he has disappeared from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_course-cutting -262jelle
 * In case you did not read WP:BLP - we only use what reliable secondary sources state, and your personal opinion that the person is a cheater is, alas, not in that category as a source.  AFAICT, the article was remiss in not noting that the trip included visits to historical sites etc. which appears to be of not insignificant educational value.  Collect (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I used this article as one of the sources. Is it not reliable? As far as I am aware, the main purpose of the trip was running the Boston marathon.--262jelle (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear you did not read the bits about Rossi stating that the children saw historic sites in Boston then.  "LetsRun.com is primarily "message boards" and is very likely not to meet the stringent requirements of WP:RS such as a reputation for fact-checking etc.  It is run by the Johnson brothers,  and the article they cite states "The site eschews such traditional media conventions as aspiring to completely unbiased reporting, grappling with space limitations, and being forced to adopt a cautious storytelling approach for fear of insulting or alienating readers. ".  Collect (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact-checking was very thorough. Otherwise they wouldn't risk $100,000. A lot of statistical research has been done. He was the only participant who had no photographs on course. Check the article and this spreadsheet. --262jelle (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you ask at WP:RS/N if you think that makes this a "reliable source" for a contentious claim in a BLP. I fear you might suffer a disappointment on that noticeboard, though. Collect (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you to read the LetsRun article and decide if it is reliable or not. There is very strong statistical evidence. I see no difference with the Rosie Ruiz Wikipedia article. And there are a lot of other sources who have reported this story: Phillymag, The Morning Call, NBC, Runner's World etc.--262jelle (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 262jelle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC) >


 * You mean like "Questions about his performance in last year's Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon have led the directors of the race to institute new verification protocols, even though they have essentially absolved the Montgomery County man of allegations that he cheated so he could qualify for the prestigious Boston Marathon."?  I fear you misweigh the meaning of "reliable source" here.  Wikipedia is not here to "prove someone was a cheat" - we are here to stick to conservatively written biographies of notable persons.  Rossi is not notable for his race times (in fact, the "race" had nothing to do with the school letter, AFAICT) - he is notable for his DJ history and the "student unexcused absence" letter and rejoinder.  Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My original article mentioned that he wasn't disqualified. However, it is not true that he was "absolved" (see the statement of the race director). Can we agree that he is notable for "alleged" cheating? I am willing to rewrite the article in this sense, like the Kip Litton reference in this article.--262jelle (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is precisely why WP:BLP1E is the proper way to analyze this subject. Runner's World is certainly a reliable source in this context. NBC Philadelphia should be as well. And the case can be made that the Daily Mail fact checks as well. All of these sources focus on the race controversy in the context of the letter. This is the event that make the subject notable, and it clearly is of the "flash in the pan" variety. The article warrants deletion on this ground.Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:41, 12 August 2015
 * Why should this article be deleted, and not the Rosie Ruiz one? She is notable only for one event, while Mike Rossi is notable for other things and the evidence against him is even stronger. --262jelle (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sheez, the old "what about this article from the ten million articles that we have". It's not relevant, but thank you, I'll drop everything and have a look. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It may well be another case of 1E, but have you seen the coverage for it? New York Times, Spokesman Review, Toledo Blade, all the Boston papers. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it. It thought it was relevant because it was also about an (alleged) marathon cheater and the evidence in this case is much stronger. This case got quite some coverage as well, albeit not from the NYT. I don't agree this is a "flash in the pan", because this story is receiving media attention for many months, since his viral letter. --262jelle (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Letsrun.com Was deleted per Articles_for_deletion/Letsrun.com as not being notable.  Collect (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear case of BLP1E. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "marathon cheat" trash is BLP1E, and that allegation should not be placed on Wikipedia in any article. The rest, alas, is sufficiently notable per Wikipedia guidelines as his dance program was notable,  and our notability requirements for entertainers of that type are not insurmountable. Collect (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)!
 * Trash? Please, watch this video. I also don't understand why you removed his reference in the Marathon course-cutting article. His case is clearly an example of "Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results".--262jelle (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice (and salt) ("keep" is struck out due to the apparent nature of the intent of this article).  The intent of the writer to make this abut an "evil person" is sufficiently clear, that the fact the person does meet notability requirements is outweighed by the seeming misuse of Wikipedia to promote what an editor knows to be the truth here.  Sorry. Collect (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my intent. I don't even know the subject, he might be a great person. I edited the article, in a very neutral way. I only stated facts and used the word "alleged". I also used other sources than LetsRun. Let me know what you think about it.--262jelle (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Intents" and "results" may vary. Collect (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article includes positive things as well. I have written about his work, his famous letter, his nomination as Dad of the Year etc. I don't think the result is the portrayal of an "evil person", but a balanced, neutral, unbiased biography of a interesting notable person who is alleged to have committed one error in his life. --262jelle (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails notability for all the myriad reasons stated by previous editors. It appears only the article creator supports keeping the article. Quis separabit?  21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone supported keeping the article on the "Talk" page, but that comment was removed...--262jelle (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (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.