Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terren Peizer (2nd nomination)


 * 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   from the rewrite plus the withdrawal and few strong delete reasons means this one is a keep. —[ DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs ] 18:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Terren Peizer
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems he is only notable "well known" for one event. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the rewrite I withdraw this nomination. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 163 gnews hits, 13 gbooks hits, War of the Milkenites: Terren Peizer finds out that some people never forget in Forbes 1999 (hmmmm), CEO and majority owner of a famous company like Cray, and other companies with substantial coverage, plus all of the many refs in the article (some may have been inadvertently and inappropriately pruned while dealing with the antics of the obsessed SPA there.) That someone with far too much time on his hands has decided to create an army of sockpuppets and IPs and attack an article should in no way cause the deletion he desires. (See the previous AfD, where he nominated it twice simultaneously, the other AfD has been deleted.) If needs be, ignore him, let's get a reasonably good version, and protect it for 6 months if necessary.John Z (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not that famous, he's a CEO of a very small company, and was one witness out of a parade of them who testified against one guy over two decades ago. The Cray thing is dated as well.  Not sure why some people are so focused on attacking this guy, but I don't think he's notable enough or that it's worth the trouble to keep this article up.75.82.59.206 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The only mentionings about him on the internet are the exact same repeated press releases by his company, the same resume on him submitted by his company, as well as the same bad press he received for his company from 60 minutes, and the same bad press he received for being one of thousands of workers who got canned from the company he used to work for. It's all repeats of the same small stories. Quite frankly, he is one of millions of people who own companies (others own larger ones and aren't here on Wikipedia) but he was unfortunate enough to be a small witness in one or two legal battles. Other than that, he seems to be a very private, non-famous, virtually unknown (or not wanting to be known) person and should remain respectfully as such. He's probably cringing enough already over the bad press about his company being questioned and losing money as it is, so perhaps we should just leave him alone on Wikipedia and delete the entire article. Poor guy...I'm beginning to feel sorry for him... 71.167.250.126 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Delete. He's so unimportant, it's ridiculous. He's not famous, his company is worthless, and his article is useless information. If you keep him up, it will only reveal harsh truths about him. If you take him down, it will only prove that he is totally not worth mentioning. Either way, he loses. Go on and put him out of his misery. 66.108.145.222 (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   — John Z (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep Not notable for only one event since there has been follow-up coverage and other issues. I'm really not sure about this because the one primary event was something that was highly notable. He was a very prominent witness for a major case. On the other hand, most of the publicity and focus has been due to that. Countering that, some of the coverage related to his business work in later years seems completely independent of that arguing against ONEEVENT claims. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Now at full keep given the analysis of the similarly named editor below. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For AfD purposes, one should take a look at this version, which is basically the article up to a few weeks ago.  There's puffery and fat there, but some refs, which appear to be specifically about him, like the extensively quoted article in Financial World by Stephen Taub that calls him "one of Wall Street’s top players,” have been removed. The SPA, who clearly knows better, likes to insist that only online references are acceptable, and successfully eliminated it.John Z (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, while it could use improvement he appears to have had an extensive business career, enough so that I'm forced to guess at which "one event" is meant. If it's the Milken scandal, arguably his career since is actually more significant than his bit part there. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a significant rewrite to the article that hopefully addresses some of the issues. I'll try to do more later. --Michael Snow (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I vote for DELETE, for many of the same reasons posted above. Also, I went and looked back at the original entry for him, as well as a few vandalisms.  It is obvious that whoever originally listed him did it with the intent to slander, and without NPOV.  It is also obvious that whoever is slamming this guy is not going to give up editing the page to include rumor, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.98 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I checked, and I'm referring to the vandalism in Oct 11, 2007 - I wont reprint the vandalism here but it is obvious that there are enough folks out there who want to create mischief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.98 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DeleteI also vote to delete this page for the reasons stated above. For those seeking information, there is plenty available on the internet, but I do not believe that he needs a Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.252.157 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete ...why does this guy even have a Wiki page? Plenty of people have testified in public trials who aren't listed on Wikipedia.  And he is listed in the same category as Trump, etc.?  Silly.  It sounds like someone is still mad at him and pursuing some kind of immature vendetta.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.12.98 (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DELETE! Vendetta? I do not even know him and would not even care to. He is such a nobody it is ridiculous. Delete, delete, etc. 66.108.7.182 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2008 (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.