Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Smith (cybersquatter)


 * 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. There's good argument that the subject meets our notability guidelines. However, those guidelines are to be applied with common sense, and the clear consensus here is to remove the article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Smith (cybersquatter)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is about a known spam vandal (User:Universe Daily) who has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for massive spamming, sockpuppetry, and abusive behaviour. It serves only as a vanity piece to further this vandal's aims. Furthermore, while I want to assume good faith, the article's creator (User:Dervishdude) appears suspicious. His/her first action was to post a complete article (with references) about Wayne Smith. Dervishdude's third contribution was to the article aquatic ape hypothesis, to restore an external link owned by Wayne Smith (yet another frame-redirect URLs). That URL had been added by an IP just over half an hour previously, and deleted shortly thereafter. The same IP (User:124.186.69.185, whose previous abusive behaviour indicates he is yet another Universe Daily IP sock) created a redlink to Wayne Smith (cybersquatter) 13 minutes before it was even created by Dervishdude. Dervishdude's only edits after that involved the Wayne Smith article, as well as adding a redirect at Wayne Robert Smith - a page addressed under this deletion debate a few years ago. Dervishdude has also identified as being from the same IP range as many of the UD IP sockpuppets. (Note the contribution history for Talk:Wayne Smith (cybersquatter), where Dervishdude signs comments posted by 124.186.78.43 and 121.223.8.38.) Ckatz chat spy  17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- like it or not, this individual is notable per the various refs associated with the article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A. B., please review the revised note above, as the version you responded to did not include details regarding the page's creation history. Thanks. --Ckatz chat spy  17:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For those unaware of the background of this person on Wikipedia, see Long term abuse/Universe Daily.
 * I'm well aware that Wayne Smith was likely the creator of this article. Nevertheless, he is notable, having been the subject of multiple press articles about multiple domain-squatting incidents -- not just the 2006 Bindi Irwin case. Here's a sample of the press coverage:
 * Latest incident
 * 2008
 * Do we really want to gratify the desires of a banned editor by keeping his article? No -- but I believe we want even more to have comprehensive coverage of notable subjects. Besides, I don't think community dislike for a person is listed in our policies as a basis for deletion. It won't hurt us to keep this article and we can semi-protect it if that will partially assuage concerns about tampering. I'm not going to make a death-stand to save this article if the community really wants it gone. I do, however, think we should keep it. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:CSD does give a justification for deleting this article if desired, however I still think we should keep this article and let the AfD run its course. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2008
 * Do we really want to gratify the desires of a banned editor by keeping his article? No -- but I believe we want even more to have comprehensive coverage of notable subjects. Besides, I don't think community dislike for a person is listed in our policies as a basis for deletion. It won't hurt us to keep this article and we can semi-protect it if that will partially assuage concerns about tampering. I'm not going to make a death-stand to save this article if the community really wants it gone. I do, however, think we should keep it. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:CSD does give a justification for deleting this article if desired, however I still think we should keep this article and let the AfD run its course. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we really want to gratify the desires of a banned editor by keeping his article? No -- but I believe we want even more to have comprehensive coverage of notable subjects. Besides, I don't think community dislike for a person is listed in our policies as a basis for deletion. It won't hurt us to keep this article and we can semi-protect it if that will partially assuage concerns about tampering. I'm not going to make a death-stand to save this article if the community really wants it gone. I do, however, think we should keep it. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:CSD does give a justification for deleting this article if desired, however I still think we should keep this article and let the AfD run its course. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:CSD does give a justification for deleting this article if desired, however I still think we should keep this article and let the AfD run its course. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I feel there are several points to consider here. One, is being a spammer notable enough to rate an article? Two, given Smith's history of abuse of Wikipedia, are there extenuating circumstances that would suggest we use extra discretion in deciding if an article is warranted? (For example, are we just feeding the ego that seems to regard Wikipedia as his personal directory service?) Finally, based on what I've observed, the editor who created the article is in all likelihood User:Universe Daily (aka Wayne Smith). Given that he is banned outright, we'd have to remove his contributions anyway - which wouldn't leave an article at all. To be honest, I listed this at AfD based on the subject; if I'd known at the time that it was probably posted by UD himself, I'd more likely have seen it as a speedy delete. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused, I agree with A. B. If it is a matter of a banned user editing or something it should go to ANI or something. He seems quite notable now, even if he wasn't back then.  What am I missing here? Drawn Some (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 21:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm conflicted. My instinct is to totally agree with Ckatz per WP:DENY. However, if A. B. wants it kept, what is the right response? I would like to comment on some issues with the article if it were kept.
 * We don't have any evidence that "Wayne Smith" is the real name, and the birth date given has no reference. There are 20 references, but they are essentially of two kinds: (1) Casual news reports of a single event (causing shock by registering bindiirwin soon after the death of Steve Irwin, with some related cybersquatting examples), and (2) articles written for web sites by a person using the name "Wayne Smith". None of the sources did any more than repeat a story. This SMH article seems most authoritative and it puts "Wayne Smith" in quotes, saying only that this name was used to register the domain (with a fake phone number), and that Australia Zoo "said a Wayne Smith had worked as a volunteer at the zoo for two weeks" (my emphasis of "a").
 * My understanding of WP:BIO makes me doubt that the subject is sufficiently notable, and there seem to be other cybersquatters with more notoriety (example), so Smith may not even be a notable squatter.
 * If the cybersquatting incidents are notable, they should be added to Cybersquatting, which would make the Smith article redundant (and pointless because it contains no verifiable information other than the fact that some cybersquatting occurred).
 * The article lists some squatted domain names that still appear to be controlled by Smith. It seems very counterproductive to blacklist those URLs so they can't be linked on WP, yet effectively list them in a vanity article. If the article is kept, I would argue that the domain names should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The incident with bindiirwin.com is WP:ONEEVENT. Otherwise a non-notable person. WWGB (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Man buys websites, annoys some people, gets minor local coverage, publicises self on Wikipedia, gets banned, returns using sockpuppet. I don't think there's much to discuss. Delete it, blacklist all the URLs, ban this sockpuppet. Fences and windows (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too much self-reference, and a borderline BLP. Andjam (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; vanity page by a banned user, so falls under WP:CSD. If someone else wants to create the page, I think the "ONEEVENT" argument is strongest -- he's not really notable enough for our standards.  (The only reason I didn't speedy delete it myself is it seemed a bit unrespectful for the people who took the trouble to comment here.  It can wait for AFD close.) Antandrus  (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note -- this is not a ONEEVENT subject. He's gained notoriety over the course of multiple, unrelated events. --23:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The strongest argument to delete is WP:Deny recognition. We don't need to give coverage to a cybersquatter and spammer. Fences and windows (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2009 (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.