Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

Notability, Non-Encylopedic, and do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notarity. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge See above -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly merge as suggested below. No candy for vandals. PJM 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Siegenthaler has said he wanted accountability, and this is evidence that Wikipedia has a certain level of transparency and accountability. Further, this story made national news and will be a notable event in the history of this project. Since this guy got "rewarded" with losing his job and apologizing in person to Siegenthaler innhopes of avoiding litigation, I don't believe this is going to encourage others. Jokestress 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep His actions and his confession are newsworthy events, and likely to be of interest for some time. Chris the speller 16:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - He is a notable player in an event that we have already decided to keep. --RayaruB 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - As per my comments in Talk:John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Brian_Chase. I think that a disambig link to the controversy can be made in the Brian Chase article. And to counter the transparency issues etc. It is transparent, theres a whole article about the controversy! - Hahnchen 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure being outed and having other people write about you in a public forum is a "reward" for internet trolls like this. If anything, this is punishment. As the article mentions, this was covered in national media and is not just a big deal in the wiki community, so I think it's important enough to keep it. Besides, it smacks of fair comment. Guppy313 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Does no one else think that his details belong to the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy article? It's not like this guy is Nick Leeson or anything. - Hahnchen 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge modified (which I'll do if no-one else will) into Wikipedia#History. Ideally retitle. If Wikipedia is valuable, which we presumably think it is, then deliberate sabotage of it (which this action amounts to) is notable and should be documented - if only to discourage other malicious little vandals from pulling similar stunts. Simon Brooke 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Peripatetic 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. His name can be mentioned in the controversy article. Besides that, he's totally non-notable. Jacoplane 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The story has been covered by national media, and the wikipedia webpage is linked to by many websites. Somehow this has become encyclopedic material.preceding unsigned vote by User:202.156.6.54, a shared IP
• Merge - either with Wikipedia#History or John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Perhaps put up a redirect to the merged acticle. CharonX 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. --Damian Yerrick 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge - he is well known b/c of what he did --209.222.54.242
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. Nico 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; he's been mentioned in major media now, so he's notable, and also an article on him is useful to help keep him from being confused with the musician of the same name who's already got an article. *Dan T.* 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. No need to reward this nitwit with his own page, or to prolong the myth that this somehow hurts Wikipedia's credibility. | Klaw Talk 16:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and declare person a Dick and the enemy of wikipedia for waisting our, John Seigenthaler Sr, CNNs time. Also declare him a Terrorist or something. Just find an excuse to make his life miserable. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Mergeper CharonX. Not notable enough for an article of his own. (Haven't seen this many edit conflicts since the new pope.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. --Hugus 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've read the deletion policy, and it doesn't fit into any of the categories. Not an acceptable candidate for deletion. Baltikatroika 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on the above vote. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." and "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" specifically -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete immediately. He is not notable. Just because he hoaxed Wikipedia does not make him notable. If we make an article about him, we have to make an article about every person who gets banned from Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. It's news, and linked by Slashdot so rather than break the internet and create a lot of 404 traffic we should have something there. When Wikipedia makes headlines, it's notable. The Brian Chase is not notable, but the story is.
• Keep or Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. —BenFrantzDale 17:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Seigenthalergate. Seigenthaler[gate] is notable, this guy isn't. --Fermatprime 17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)