Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Christoforo


 * 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. Combination of WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, and general principles of BLP1E and the general guidelines of BLP policy mean I'm deleting this early. Further, not one policy-based reason has been cited to keep this article, and no evidence of actual notability, not internet flash-in-the-pan notability has been presented. While we might be able to justudy a mention in Penny Arcade (webcomic) or even at a stretch an article on the drama, we cannot justify this biography. If you disagree, feel free to proceed directly to DRV. Courcelles 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul Christoforo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. This article doesn't meet the criteria for a significant person. It instead uses wikipedia as a platform in a PR war. Leondz (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge I agree with this being a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and the page feels very confrontational. However, couldn't it go with the controversies and legal issues of Penny Arcade? It did have enough impact that it might be something that could fit in there. The event was noteworthy as far as events involving the webcomic go, but the individual in question lacks the notoriety for his own page. I agree with renaming it though, maybe Ocean Marketing Controversy or something? Aircalibur421 (talk) 4:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article and person are not noteworthy (clearly part of a backlash resulting from one incident, which (probably) originated from Reddit). Request for deletion. Refer to WP:BLP1E. spykesinmahshoe (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a proper bio, it is a smear article; a result of a company's PR fiasco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinithehat (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 December 2011‎ (UTC)
 * Note please refer to the already contested deletion of this bio. the article is unbiased. and request for deletion from the party in question can't be allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Christoforo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdisand1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Jdisand1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is some sort of campaign based on original research to smear someone or something; it is not a biography of a notable person. The sources are simply excited echoes of a single incident and while the sources show there is a news event, there is no evidence of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. This article is bordering on being an attack page. No editing can make this into a biography by any reasonable definition of the term, therefore deletion is the best option. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:BLP1E. A lot of coverage, but it's a single event, unlikely to have a lasting relevant impact on PR. Jarkeld (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This sounds to me like the definition of WP:BLP1E. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is it one event, but it is not remotely sufficiently sourced to make allegations which are potentially adverse. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete. The person in question has become a Meme, cited in major business publications as an example of how to wreck your business through catastrophic social marketing. The sources being cited include State of Fla business records, court documents, and even the person's own words. All of these sources are highly reliable, and used elsewhere in Wikipedia articles and biographies. Example: The "Leeroy Jenkins" meme was created by a single event, and has gone on to be featured in many Internet and non-Internet cultural references. This bio about the person that spawned this event is (already) similarly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.110.108 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC) — 68.113.110.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge/Redirect with Penny Arcade (webcomic). Obviously not something that should be a standalone article (no argument with WP:BLP1E being cited). But the issue has gotten some mainstream press with MSNBC, so a short write-up of the whole issue is appropriate. And since it was Penny Arcade that first latched on to the issue and sent it on its way to becoming viral, that would be the most appropriate merge target. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete. The subject has become an almost instant meme and has received significant coverage by reputable sources. It does, however, need to be re-written so as to be encyclopedic and to meet WP:NPOV. As currently written, it seems to be a pile on.  MrX ''' 02:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete from WP:BLP1E: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I think this applies here. Even if the incident were notable (and I'm not conceding that it is), this individual doesn't meet general notability guidelines, and shouldn't have an article. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete Check the talk page for the article. It is filled with users who feel it shouldn't be deleted. While they have posted in the wrong place, they clearly want their voice to be heard, and I agree with them. Getting mentioned on sites like Kotaku and Penny Arcade and news outlets like MSNBC should be criteria enough for an article. --Tarage (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable BLP. Also violates WP:BLP1E. PaintedCarpet (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete The person mentioned in the article has been mentioned on MANY webpages, including major news sources such as MSNBC.  He has become an internet meme, to delete would be irresponsible.  98.16.176.243 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This man is not significant. The issue will likely not be a lasting piece of news, or mentioned much in a few weeks' time. If it is, then WP:BLP1E will no longer apply. News outlets are keen to pick up any article they can find, and it is not surprising that an isolate news event generate thousands of brief news articles and discussions. Having such large amounts of web pages on a single day's news story does not make this person any more important. Finally, being popular with Reddit, Know Your Meme or 4chan is hardly a basis for encyclopedic notability! 2.27.245.89 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to some appropriate article with possible heavy-handed trimming. The person isn't probably notable enough for an article of its own, I guess, but the controversy got media traction, so it's probably worth mentioning somewhere. I predict, with my epic mental powers, that this will be a flash-in-the-pan meme. (Merging and summarising is pretty much standard operating procedure when there's a minor incident involving some non-notable person, right? Do we even need to AfD this stuff? Why am I here anyway?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - textbook case of WP:BLP1E. This person is not notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. We should not have an article on every person who has briefly been the focus of the Internet's attention. Robofish (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - notability is not temporary. Roodog2k (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - possible WP:CSD G10, classic WP:BLP1E Leondz (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete This article is in relation to a largely known and publicized event that has been covered by several news stations as well as a popular gaming culture wesbite (Penny Arcade).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.18.25 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename The event is obviously notable, as it generated tons of press in the community. (I got here by threading though stories that started on Slashdot)  I agree that the individual himself is not likely notable per the criteria via BLP1E, but the EVENT itself likely is.  Even Forbes is covering it, and that is as reliable of a source as you could hope for.  As to what to change the name to, that would better be on the talk page of the article, IMO, but input here isn't a bad thing either.  Here is another link:   Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who cares if Forbes is a reliable source or not? Nobody's arguing that. As for why he's in Forbes, well, that's kinda Forbes's job. But we are an encyclopedia, not a news source. WP:N directly refers to WP:NOT in its definition of notability, and I think it would be beating a dead horse if I started quoting things like WP:NOTNEWS to you. Do you honestly think you're going to remember this event a year from now? Five years from now? -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you even read WP:NTEMP? I don't remember much about the French Revolution either, since I wasn't alive, but we have an article on it so I can read about it.  Seriously, this argument doesn't even make sense.  Do we only include events we remember? Only ones we think are important?  No, we include that which passes WP:N, ie: significant coverage by multiple reliable sources.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes, I have. Also, you cut off the part of WP:N that I explicitly called out. Here, let me quote it for you. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Thomas Dzubin (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Ocean Marketing. While Christoforo was the lightning rod, he himself is not notable. The controversy is, and so naming it after the more neutral company name seems worth doing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, Ocean Marketing Controversy. A bunch of new articles have come out today, I can't see how the event itself can't pass wp:n now. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be Ocean Marketing Controversy, or something similar. This should not be a bio at all, but an article about an internet phenomenon that escalated from poor customer service. The current article even link to a criminal case involving Christoforo, which has nothing to do the event. MrX ''' 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ocean Marketing isn't a notable company.  Its only claim to fame is this incident.  --George100 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Intuitively, one very small company's PR implosion isn't noteworthy, even if it's getting temporary press in gaming/tech media (and some outside). I also agree with the WP:BLP complaint. At best this should be heavily abridged and moved into the Penny Arcade article, as Wwwwolf & User:Umbralcorax suggested. Pleiotrope (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. While certainly an entertaining story, this event does not appear noteworthy. 12.169.164.5 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. The above vote is mine.  I had forgotten to log in. Alyeska (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. The above vote is mine.  I had forgotten to log in. Alyeska (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete it's the definition of WP:BLP1E. Nobody's going to know who this guy is in a year, and notability is not temporary. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be difficult, but your observation that "notability is not temporary" supports the idea to keep.  You're the second to use this argument, but I don't think it means what you think it means.  WP:NTEMP is where your statement comes from, and supports a KEEP, not a delete.  Dennis Brown (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Take it a step further. It's simple discrete math. If A implies B, then (NOT B) implies (NOT A). That is, if this is temporary which it is then he is not notable. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply The policy on notability, and in particular WP:NTEMP has never been interpreted that way, and thankfully, never will because it clearly doesn't say that, and no amount of magical "math" changes that. You would have to be guessing what is important in the future.  The policy clearly states that if it is notable "now", it is considered notable "forever". Dennis Brown (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Curious though, someone appears to have removed the most important part. I will have to figure out where this was removed, and why. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. Elements of this information could easily be added to the Penny Arcade article.  Which is probably going to happen anyway. Alyeska (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Obviously WP:BLP1E and a potential WP:BLP violation. Kuguar03 (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Under what criterion do you intend to speedy delete it? (Hint: there isn't one, unless you count WP:SNOW, which is not a speedy deletion criterion) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who regularly participates in AfD discussions knows exactly what I meant. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a second here. The one argument that has come up several times (including by myself) has been that this matches WP:BLP1E and I haven't seen anyone even attempt to contest that, much less do it well. Does anyone have a comment on why it doesn't match/should be ignored? If I could be convinced of that, I would probably be willing to back down, but until that happens, I don't see how any closing admin could ignore that point, and it's not even worth attempting to debate this further until that has been covered. (Note: I'm not advocating closing early, just saying "we're wasting time here if we don't talk about this") -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I'm not entirely clear on what your stance is that you would be backing down from. However, I don't feel that this is a person notable for a single event, because I don't feel that the event is notable. What's the event? A man who sell joysticks is a jerk, people who are interested are flabbergasted. Eh. ViniTheHat (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note however that WP:BLP1E provides an exception: "In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event." (emphasis added).


 * Although this event is not sports related, the exception still applies. The basic criteria for the exception is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe this subject meets that criteria in abundance, notwithstanding the fact that there are also some non-independent sources.  MrX ''' 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete I'm not entirely sure if this needs to be redirected (or more specifically, to where), but I think the event/company/individual is notable enough through coverage for the information to be worked in somehow. I think there's too much knee-jerk delete reaction involved. Will post something more thorough in the morning. Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename - The event is notable, even if the key players are not. Dwcarless (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do NOT Delete. This person/event has become part of the internet cultural zeitgeist and is vital to understanding a large event that took place therein. -  Bagel7  T's 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Penny Arcade, which appears to be the main notable company associated with this situation. It could be added to the "Legal issues and controversy" section.  --George100 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2011 (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.