Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nik Richie


 * 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   no consensus. As this debate is only partially focused on the actual subject, the rest being attacks on editors, I have forgone the option of relisting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nik Richie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article should be speedily deleted. Founding a website that barely cracks the top 3,000 most-visited in the U.S. and outside the top 10,000 worldwide (source: Alexa.com internet rankings) does not automatically make one notable. Despite being reasonably well-written, the article exists purely to promote the subject's website, thedirty.com, as evidenced by the embedded links to thedirty.com contained within. Even if these were removed and sourced in a more Wikipedia-appropriate format, that would not change the subject's lack of notability or the article's promotional purpose. Finally, for what it is worth, thedirty.com is a destructive cyberbullying portal. "Nik Richie" has made himself semi-wealthy at the expense of tens of thousands of ordinary, non-celebrity Americans and others. Wikipedia should absolutely not be allowed to serve as free advertising for this sort of filth. I strongly urge Wikipedia administrators to delete this article swiftly and prevent (re-)creation of an article on either "Nik Richie" or thedirty.com. Damon Killian (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll look into researching to see if there's anything salvagable, but I do want to state that having low rankings does not automatically show a lack of notability. We also don't delete articles because the subject is a jerk or might encourage bad activities. If that was the case, the article on Encyclopedia Dramatica would've been deleted long ago. There's definitely an issue on the article with an overabundance of primary sources, but there's also enough to where I don't think it could be speedied for lack of notability or that it's so promotional it could be speedied under that. This will have to just go through a week long AfD process. In any case, this guy does seem to be borderline notable but I'll have to go do some hoofwork before making any big decision.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable public personality. @nominator, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominators reasons are very poor WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I've picked through the most reliable sources (NY Times and BBC News) and while they substantiate the events being referenced in the article, they do not directly refer to Richie, so fail significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a handful of local news references that do seem to substantiate the website thedirty.com or its predecessors, but again they don't cover Richie as a person. To be honest, the easiest way to salvage this would be to start a thedirty.com article from scratch using whatever reliable sources pass muster. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, nomination could be better explained without the attacks, but I don't see how Richie is notable. Sources provided are about his website; make an article about that if you wish. Slow Graffiti (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact he and his website are essentially the same thing and has regularly been reported in the media means its information people may reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.120.121 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Possibly consider keeping only the section on legal action and merge it into the existing article on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The remainder of this article is littered with borderline ridiculous non-notable items such as the subject's tweets or the presence of a 21-signature petition against the subject's website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.10.210 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Horrible article that needs to be pruned with a machete. That's off my chest. Carrite (talk)
 * Keep - Clearly a public figure. Nearly a quarter million Google hits make a big enough iceberg for a few reliable sources showcones. See, for example, THIS PIECE from Forbes magazine, "The Dirty Business: How Gossipmonger Nik Richie of The Dirty Stays Afloat." Carrite (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More evidence of Richie's publicfigureness is THIS PIECE from the LA Times. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the video is now down, ANDERSON COOPER was interviewing Richie about his website. All these from the first two pages of a simple Google search. This is pretty clearly a bad faith nomination per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The article was created by user 'DS Cable', whose Wikipedia contributions consist of revisions to page Shayne Lamas (Nik Richie's wife), Mission Viejo High School (inserting and re-inserting Nik Richie under Notable Alumni), and Jones vs. Dirty World LLC (a court case involving Nik and thedirty.com). The only non-Nik Richie-related page 'DS Cable' frequently edits is Ripoff Report, which is on the extreme periphery of Nik Richie/thedirty.com-related matters as it involves the Communications Decency Act.  Between his/her list of pages contributed to and the positive treatment he gives the subject in this Nik Richie article (mentioning a plaintiff's unrelated legal problems post-lawsuit vs. Richie, referencing an anti-Richie petition with a paltry 21 signatures, quoting Richie's tweets), I suspect 'DS Cable' is a Nik Richie/thedirty.com fanboy, possibly a member of the site's official paying fan club known as "The Dirty Army," and not a good-faith contributor to Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.10.210 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are two themes quickly developing here -- one is about the value of the page, and the other is about the value of the person discussed in the page.  The first point is legitimate fodder for debate here; the second is not.  Some have expressed concern about the primary sources used for some references; those are legitimate points which should be addressed and are currently being addressed.  Many of the primary links have been removed and replaced with more appropriate references, except where necessary for context (i.e., a direct quote from the subject).  As for other complaints as to substance, please note this is a FIRST EDITION page which, like all such pages, will require revision/updating to improve its suitability.  In closing, please note that mere dislike for the subject of a page is NOT a sufficient reason to conceal the discussion from public view. DS Cable (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - One other thing, name calling is unhelpful here, but it's worth noting that this AFD was initiated by user Damon Killian who has been vandalizing many Richie-related pages for a while now; i.e., by removing "notable alumni" reference from Nik Richie's high school page (Mission Viejo High School) and by including false and offensive Non-WP:Neutral point of view commentary/advocacy in other Richie-related pages such as Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC. This conduct suggests a personal agenda, not a good faith concern. DS Cable (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: subject seems to be notable enough for an article, though most of the arguments supporting that position have used poor sources. WP:BASIC calls for multiple, published secondary sources with substantial depth of coverage. The subject has clearly received substantial coverage, but a week after AfD nomination I still don't see anyone making a solid argument for notability. I looked for myself and the article still has poor sources: I see primary sources (e.g. interviews), secondary sources that offer non-substantial coverage (e.g. they are about his wife), a source that is not independent of the subject (i.e. his website), and secondary sources that are unreliable or dubiously reliable (e.g. gossip sites). Those are fine for supporting certain claims, but not for establishing notability. However, I found enough to satisfy my own evaluation of the subject with respect to WP:BIO. I would say the best sources I saw for establishing notability are these:, , , . They are secondary sources (with the exception of the interview by Vegas Seven, but it does have a couple paragraphs of analysis that could be considered a secondary source), they are independent from the subject and each other, they all have Nik Richie himself as the focus, and at a glance they seem to be reliable to me. BigNate37(T) 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Televised interviews with 20/20 and Anderson Cooper, and articles on Phoenix NewTimes and Arizona Central meet Notability. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (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.