Talk:Justin Seay

Notability

Sorry to shoot down this article, but I hardly believe this person qualifies as notable. I was questioned whether or not Corey Smith (an Athens, Georgia musician) was a notable person, having recorded three albums and toured across the Southeast performing shows, and also appearing on CMT's website. Someone who appears as a non-acting part in a movie that has little impact in the film other than filing a lawsuit against the producers is not what I would consider notable. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for film are as follows: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:

   * Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers5
   * A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
   * An independent biography
   * Name recognition
   * Commercial endorsements"

I do not feel that the subject of this article meets this criteria. Nor do I believe the subject meets the criteria for: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."

Zchris87v 09:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I Disagree

I disagree with your assessment of this article. Mr. Seay is notable. It is true that no independent biography of him is published, nor does he he have commercial endorsements or great name recognition (For all I know, Mr. Seay may have a large fan base). However, Mr. Seay is made notable by his apppearance in Borat and his being a party to the subsequent litigation against the film Borat.

First (and most obviously): Mr. Seay was in Borat. Borat was recently rated one of the top ten films of the year by the AFI [1]. Mr. Seay played a role in that movie. Millions upon millions of people saw that movie, and I'd think most either laughed or cringed at Mr. Seay's words and actions. This holds true regardless of whether he was paid for his time in the movie. Mr. Seay's appearance in the film alone would make him notable.

Second: If there remains any doubt as to whether Mr. Seay is "notable", consider that he took it upon himself to sue the producers of Borat, deliberately thrusting himself (albeit as a "John Doe") into the public eye by filing a lawsuit against a top box-office hit. A google search for "Justin Seay" will reveal his appearance in "pop culture publications", such as The Smoking Gun [2], Salon [3], and The Washington Post [4]. Additionally, Mr. Seay's actions have resulted in the Borat film being characterized as "litigation-inspiring" and "uproar causing"; This would tend to increase Mr. Seay's notability as it indirectly references him and his lawsuit against the producers of Borat. Lastly, Mr. Seay's lawsuit may result in the scene containing him being excised from future versions of the DVD [5] - while this is a future event, it has drawn attention of its own, and this adds to Mr. Seay's notability.

Mr. Seay's appearance in Borat coupled with the affects of his litigation against the producers of the film make him notable for the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus, I am strongly opposed to a deletion of this article on the grounds that Mr. Seay is not notable. takethemud 10:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I take it that you yourself have seen Borat, and I, for one, have not, which is why I questioned his notability. If he did play a large role and was the topic of legal debates in such a large scale (I've been far too busy studying to have a chance to watch much TV), then I suppose he is notable. I was only bringing this into question, and since someone responded to it, I'll remove the notability tag. At any rate, I still removed the "trivia" section under the Chi Psi page that remarked Mr. Seay as being "morbidly obese." Zchris87v 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

2nd Vote Against Notability

First, none of your reasons for Mr. Seay being "notable" (and I use quotes b/c I refuse to call him notable myself) are drawn from Wikipedia's guidelines for being notable.

Your claim that most movie viewers either "laughed or cringed" at Mr. Seay's actions is just that - a claim. You have no reference to back that theory up. It is an opinion.

Secondly, nowhere is it listed in Wiki's guidelines for being notable that a subject is notable for engaging in lititgation. Nor does it list that someone "thrusting themself into the public eye due to litigation" is a guideline of being notable. Again, this is an opinion of yours, and there is no reference or proof of your claim.

Although you claim that a simple search for his name returns his name in many "pop culture publications," a search for many names will lead to many articles in pop culture publications, most of which you will not find on Wiki listed as "Notable."

With the above not standing, Mr. Seay is at least still listed in the litigation as "John Doe." Although I'm sure "The Smoking Gun" conducted their research and it is correct, there is no litigation listing Mr. Seay as a plaintiff. It is for this reason that I beg for the deletion of this article from Wikipedia.Squirrel579 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Mr. Seay is Notable

Squirrel579,

You state that none of my reasons for Mr. Seay being notable come from Wikipedia. I disagree. Allow me to retort.

Wikipedia says that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. [6]

Mr Seay has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of Mr Seay. See my above references. Salon, The Smoking Gun, and the Washington Post are all published works, they are all non-trivial, and they are all independent of Mr Seay.

I said Mr. Seay is notable for being present in the Borat movie. If you look here: [7]. You will see that persons can attain notability "for their involvement in newsworthy events." Mr Seay participated in that movie. The movie and the scene were newsworthy events.

Also, Mr Seay's engaging in litigation will tend to make him notable. By filing the lawsuit, Mr Seay thrust himself into the public eye and created a newsworthy event in which he is now inextricably involved. This is not my "opinion." If you look here: [8] you will see that persons can attain notability "for their involvement in newsworthy events." Obviously, Mr Seay's lawsuit is newsworthy - it is, after all, in newspapers, publications, etc. Mr. Seay is involved in it. On its face, that seems to meet the standard for notability.

I also disagree that this article is made out of any kind of antagonism toward Mr Seay. I created the article because the subject of the litigation was in newspapers throughout the world, stating that "John Doe" plaintiffs sued the producers of Borat. Mr Seay was revealed by the Smoking Gun (via an article in a USC newspaper as I understand it) to be one of the John Doe plaintiffs.

For these reasons, I am going to remove the deletion template on the page. I would humbly ask that it not be readded by editors who have a strong personal interest in the subject to the extent that their ability to be fair and impartial is impaired. Squirrel579, of your 17 Wikipedia edits, 14 have been related to Mr Seay, his fraternity, and Borat. I worry that you have an interest in the subject matter that would impair your ability to remain neutral.

I would also ask that future adding/deletion of the deletion template be discussed here on the talk page as they have been recently. takethemud 04:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)takethemud

You proved my point, this is for Spite

You make the following statement:

"I created the article because the subject of the litigation was in newspapers throughout the world, stating that "John Doe" plaintiffs sued the producers of Borat. Mr Seay was revealed by the Smoking Gun (via an article in a USC newspaper as I understand it) to be one of the John Doe plaintiffs."

It now seems you created this article because you simply want to reveal Mr. Seay's identity, not because you find him notable enough to place on Wikipedia. Wiki should not be used in such a way. Although you have the right to remove the deletion tag, I will be nominating this page for deletion via the AFD process. Also, you removed my notability tag, which I did not approve of, and also without expanding the article in any way to disprove any of my points for putting it there in the first place.

You claim Mr. Seay "thrust" himself into the public eye via the suit, but I find that hard to believe for a guy who files suit as "anonymous." If anything, it appears you are trying to thrust him into the public eye yourself using Wikipedia.

You claim I must have a strong personal interest in this article. I, much like you claim in your talk page, decided to make a profile after reading Wiki for years. If anyone has shown a strong personal interest in this person being "notable" it has been you for the reason of identifying him because he filed a suit as anonymous. Also, a quick look at your contributions shows edits to the Sigma Alpha Epsilon page. Are they a rival fraternity of Chi Psi or something?

Also, the reason for adding the deletion tag was clearly stated in the deletion tag itself; therefore I found no reason, or find no reson in the future, to repeat in discussion. squirrel597 18:11, 12 December 2006

Redirect

This person has no notability outside of the film. Therefore, he is notable enough for a mention in that article, but not an independent article. If his lawsuit succeeds and then he gets murdered by fans of the film, perhaps he could be considered independently notable. His lawsuit should be discussed in that article along with the other lawsuits directed at the film. This has the advantage of giving context without duplicating information. If the editors of that article deem that to be taking up too much space then there can be a subarticle for lawsuits related to the Borat! film. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect, as his name appears in the article but I still find him not notable enough to have his own page. If he is notable, then why is Ray Ray McElrathbey not notable? He is a football player for Clemson who received national attention after taking custody of his 11-year old brother, while working two jobs, playing football, and going to classes. He appeared on ABC World News as the "Person of the Week", in several national publications, and even appeared as a guest on Oprah. In terms of what he did notable, the NCAA bent their rules on not allowing college athletes to receive donations of any sort just for his case, and the Fahmarr McElrathbey Fund was set up for his brother. Now, if this article is allowed to stand, I must question why I should not be allowed to make an article about Ray Ray McElrathbey. He seems far more notable that Justin Seay. Zchris87v 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)