|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was 'Delete'.|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Originality and speedy deletion
I'd like to add that this was not Jason's idea and had been a very well known prank in the seattle area. How do I know? I happened to have invented it. It's an old craigslist prank I like to call the bar filler. If you don't believe me, go to checkityo.blogspot.com. There you will find a description on how to do the prank dated 2005. I wasn't enough of a jerk to actually post their pictures. That is just wrong.
I don't know what "speedy deletion" is, but I was appalled that Fortuny's article was so speedily deleted AND then protected against recreation.
This all occurred within a week. The article about Fortuny was posted within four days. Survived two days. And then deleted. The main reason it was deleted was that Fortuny's prank wasn't notable.
And yet.... CL is the 7th most popular website, Fortuny's act was an act against the people that visit that site, that site's content is in fact entire people driven, but most importantly,
The article was deleted BEFORE the news of that event could really have spread to the larger world.
All of that is fine, but as news makes it out, proving once again that the act was notable, to find the article protected against recreation shows that the Wiki, like most bureaucracies, acts first and foremost to protect its mistakes.
- Actually, the article was posted within a day. It was deleted per our discussion process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Fortuny. Another version was then reposted by someone else, and it became clear it would be necessary to protect it from recreation. As for your assumption that this is going to become a big story, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. More commonly with these blog topics, they're big one week, and nobody's talking about them in a few weeks. If this is actually even a story in a few months, it might be worth reviewing. Right now it's just the blog-fodder of the week. Fan-1967 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- No one is asking you to be a crystal ball except yourself. Apart from taking up disk space, what is the harm from keeping that article online for more than a week. To delete it after a day, is in fact a POV act. To delete it after a day is to pretend you are a crystal ball and say, nothing here, move along. But worse, I and others contributed to that article and then YOU vanished it. Up yours. I realize that the wikipedia is a fluid mechanism, but deleting articles after a days, that you yourself note may or may not be noteworthy and it is too early to tell, is an extreme POV act, and it also is an act that turns contributors away from further contributing to the wikipedia. What is it you jackoffs say? Don't delete, just improve. —the preceding comment is by 126.96.36.199 - 19:34, 11 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!}
- Also, frankly, I think your discussion period is way too short to be anything but POV editing my a few ingroup members.
- On the page in question, someone had said they were going to nominate the page for deletion unless there were objections in the discussion.
- I objected! I made my case as was requested on the talk page where it had been requested, and removed the banner. I was shocked to find the next day that the page had been taken down with no further mention of an ongoing deletion discussion
- How the hell can you have a deletion discussion that takes place within the period of a day, especially for a current event? Again, the only way to do so is to let the wiki be run by a small ingroup. Why not just change the name to Fan-1967's Wiki? What you are doing is encouraging vandalism, because frankly, your act in taking the page down was exactly that, vandalism to mine and other's efforts.
The day this article was deleted, Google News listed 3-8 sources, today it lists 73, including one in the Chron that interviews Lauren Weinstein, Computer Scientist and Privacy Expert and Jim Buckmaster, CL CEO. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4179361.html This shows the "speedy deletion" was completely inappropriate. Face, the wiki was punked and aided and abetted by the vandal that removed the page from the wikipedia. I suggest you investigate if the deletion was performed by Fortuny. Fortuny's acts are still reverberating. 188.8.131.52 04:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree. This is already an international story on privacy, and it continues to grow. I saw the orignial deletion notice had a period of several days of discussion before it would be deleted. Why was it deleted in less than two? Was the original notice of a discussion period deliberately misleading or just wrong?
- Fortuny is also trying to scrub details of this event. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and wikipedia doesn't read the news. Okay. Whatever. But is wikipedia a memory hole?
- - zota
I come to the Wikipedia for information on significant events. This seems pretty significant with regards to privacy on-line and arguments as to whether people intending on an affair deserve vigilante justice, and Wikipedia is prohibiting dissemination of this information?! He's already going to be in the New York Times on Monday. Can we have an article soon so I might have somewhere to direct my children to next year when they need a reference? AquaRichy 10:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Google News for starters. The Register UK. BBC News. Articles in IT news sources. Slashdot. London Metro. Good Morning Silicon Valley. Germany - De Spiegal. The Associated Press. The Seattle Times. French news media (not the AP line, unique). And that's only 24 odd hours after it broke past the ton of Blog-related hits seen here:
Google for "Jason Fortuny" Craigslist it's out of control and a major international news story about online privacy now swirling around this person. Clearly he's become notable. Big New York Times article will be out either 9/13 or 9/14. Given the mounting scope and scale of this the article needs to be recreated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
Section created on Internet privacy
Television coverage now
- Give it more time before recreating. This will eventually have potential. 220.127.116.11 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
NY Times Article
This weekend, in an article about internet trolls, the New York Times Magazine will be calling Fortuny "most prominent Internet villain in America until November 2007, when his fame was eclipsed by the Megan Meier MySpace suicide". They go on to use him as a major representative of the world of trolling. I'm not sure if we have enough material to make a decent article, but I'd say this is a strong suggestion of notability. William Pietri (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This was nominated for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted article. As I read the history 1/the deletion was overturned at DRV and 2/in any event, the article is now very adequately sourced by our BLP standards. I decline to delete. I suppose another AfD is possible, but I think it can be sufficiently defended--the NYT article explicitly states that in their opinion he himself is notable, not just the deed. DGG (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)