Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Scherf


 * 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. In cases of living persons the question of reliable sources is paramount. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Scherf


The subject of this article appears to be non-notable with fewer than 1,000 ghits total. The page is unsourced and several attempts to source it have failed due to a lack of reliable sources. Furthermore, the page has become a magnet for disruption as one or more editors, and/or sockpuppets, have continously attempted to add unsourced defamatory material which could result legal liability for wikipedia. In short, there is simply no way that the presence of this article justifies the disruption and potential liability it represents. The best thing for the project is to delete this page. Doc  Tropics  19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep  I don't know where your motivies are; but, we don't delete articles here just so that its not a magnet for disruption. Cnet's News.com  is notable enough for me. --Simonkoldyk 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The link you listed provides a long, detailed article about Gracenote, but only 2 very brief mentions of Steve Scherf, one of which refers to him as a "helpful buddy". My motive is to remove an article with limited encyclopedic content. "Helpful buddy" seems to represent the upper limit of notability; a rather low threshold for inclusion. Doc  Tropics  19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Good point, delete per above. --Simonkoldyk 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doc asked me to take a peek, and nothing I see in the article at this time seems to justify inclusion. I don't think that "pontential liability" is a good reason to delete a page-- but "non-notability" certainly is. --Alecmconroy 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - As one of the editors who has been trying to help improve the article, I agree with Doc Tropics. Oh, and I think WP:LEGAL does give us grounds for deletion over liability. The Kinslayer 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well.. let me clarify:  potential "potential liability" isn't good grounds.  Actual "potential liability" is. :) That was a weird sentence, I wonder if it makes any sense to anyone but me? --Alecmconroy 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think liability already includes the concept that litigation may not follow even when there are good grounds for it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If we really and truly are doing something wrong under tort law and we could be liable, then it's a valid reason, regardless of the actual probability of a lawsuit occurring.  If, however, there's merely a concern that maybe, possibly, we might be doing something wrong or that there might be a potential someone could accuse us of doing something wrong, then don't use that as a pre-emptive reason to try and fix something that verywell might not be broken.   But, that whole debate is moot here, since there's ample reason for deletion regardless.  --Alecmconroy 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The only reason the man is notable is because he is in charge of Gracenote. This article about him was a very short stub until recent attempts to continue an edit war started on an article about his company. Let's keep the edit war confined to the article on Gracenote and the associated request for mediation. If the Gracenote edit war ever dies down and an acceptable version is hammered out, then perhaps we can see if he is notable for anything else besides Gracenote and if an article longer then 3 sentences can be written about him personally. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete – a review of the pages indexed by Google (of which, only about 330 are unique—Google's hit estimates are usually high) doesn't indicate any articles focusing on Scherf, just on his companies. Notability guidelines recommend multiple, independent reviews whose primary subject is the individual.  While Scherf's CDDB and Gracenote contributions may just border on being "part of the enduring historical record in [his] specific field" (see WP:BIO), most of his notability is covered in the company articles and, if deemed notable enough, possibly a redirect could be used. Still, I lean primarily toward a deletion, since someone doing a Wikipedia search for him will find him in those articles anyway. As a final note, it might be interesting to observe that almost half of the unique Google hits (about 150 of the 330) relate to a specific news story, as evidenced in this Google search.   Dall  ben  21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doc Tropics consulted me about what to do and I recommended this nomination. The article is at most a low-borderline candidate for inclusion and the page has been target of repeated attacks.  The subject has requested deletion and we might as well respect the request.  This isn't George W. Bush or Oprah Winfrey.  Durova Charg e!  22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to either CDDB or Gracenote. BTW, it's interesting that the IP address which created this article is from Gracenote. :-) bogdan 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--Amanduhh 23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The only valid reason for deletion cited by the nom is lack of notability determined by google hits. However our notability policy states, notability can be determined if (as one example)
 * The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Then read 2004 World Technology Awards where it says

In 1995, Steve Scherf created an on-demand Internet based CD recognition service designed to recognize CDs being played on a PC. The service quickly became extremely popular amongst early Internet users who shared it with their friends, who in turn, submitted their own CDs to the service. Due to the viral nature of the online database, it quickly grew to include all kinds of music genres, including international CD submissions from 130 countries.... The service is now used in over 140 million devices globally, ranging from PC media players, portables as well as home and car stereos
 * Also 1000 ghits is notable for a businessman. Its not like we're talking about a member of the shoiwbiz industry, 1000 websites talking about the owner of a company certainly passes the ghit test in my mind.  Glen   03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - First, the subject of the article is far more notable than many subjects here on Wikipedia. Just for his creation of CDDB and the huge controversy surrounding it would be sufficient, but also his company Gracenote is a substantial current player in the digital music scene.  Second, it doesn't bloody matter what the subject of the article wants.  This isn't about his wishes.  And he does not make any assertion of his own non-notability.  Quite the opposite;  He asserts that he is SO notable that the article would be a vandal target.  If we cave in to this, what else will we cave in to?  The integrity of Wikipedia depends on being independent of the wishes of its subjects.--BenBurch 20:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly and obviously notable, and BenBurch is right, his desires aren't at all relevant as long as the article is kept to standards of biography of living persons.   Un  focused  02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The last four users appear to have ulterior motives, as one of them has already taunted user Scherf on his talk page. They were almost certainly brought here by today's slashdot activity and may be attempting to interfere with the process of deletion out of malice. That an article may be a target for vandalism seems a very poor reason indeed for judging it noteworthy. This person does not appear exceptionally noteworthy otherwise. Also, there may be legal problems here, per other user's comments above. At most it should link to the Gracenote article. Winecellar 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — Winecellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   In fact, the only edits from this account are to this page Glen 05:38, December 4, 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a lurker, and prefer to not edit. This debate caught my notice, however, and I see no reason why I should not have the right to voice my opinion here. Winecellar 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - The only vague assertion of notability comes from a computer company he is involved in, and a minor scandal about its sale. After existing for over 2 years, this "article" consists of only 6 sentences. Don't "clearly and obviously" notable subjects normally have more than 6 sentences, especially after that period of time? If he is so inherently controversial, where are the huge numbers of allegations and citations that such things involve? There is simply not enough verifiable material to support an article on this subject. Doc  Tropics  06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability does not imply a long article. In fact, articles should be as short as possible. --BenBurch 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if we can trim all the articles down to 6 sentences, we'll be in great shape...think of the savings in bandwidth : ) Doc  Tropics  06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Glen. JamesMLane t c 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above deletion comments. I agree that it appears many of the comments have been motivated out of malice. This seems to go against the spirit of wikipedia of being a complete and unbiased source of information. Siggy123 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — Siggy123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Doc   Tropics  19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction - Actually its just one single sentence that was accused of being malicious, not 'most of the comments'. The Kinslayer 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to all four "keep" comments that appeared just after a slashdot story linked to this article. I find it highly suspect that there were no "keep" arguments here until that story appeared. Yes, only one of the four taunted the subject of the article, but their common vote and contemporaneous nature of the votes are suspicious. Winecellar 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. The debate over Gracenote / CDDB is for that page, not for here. --Elijah 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above deletion comments. Paulquinn00 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) — Paulquinn00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Doc   Tropics  19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete See above. barnamink And yeah Doc Tropics before you point it out, I have few edits, but I am a heavy Wikipedia user, not a troll. As such I'm interested in having factual and unbiased content. — Barnamink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep per Glen. The amount of controversy over this guy should make clear that it's not just his company that's making news, he personally is doing so as well. Wikipedia should therefore have an entry on the fellow. Philip (Respond?) 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The presence of SPA tags appended to the comments of new contributors is not an attempt to discount their comments, nor does it imply trolling or other improper behaviour. These tags are widely used as a service to the closing admin, to provide them with background information potentially relevant to the discussion. I felt it was appropriate to use them here, despite the fact that the new contributors are supporting my nom of this article. Thanks for participating in the discussion; I hope you stay and make further contributions to WP. --Doc  Tropics  20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A check user on these new editors might be informative.--BenBurch 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And completely in violation of WP:AGF. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed the part of that policy that states you DON'T have to assume good faith if you believe there is evidence to the contrary. The Kinslayer 09:37, 5 December 2006 (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.