Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Rosenblatt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vanity. Pure and simple. TheCustomOfLife 22:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think your mistaken. It can't be vanity if its not done out of self interest, considering the article is not on myself. Its an attempt to expand the horizons. If this is a free encyclopedia, we should not have policing of the material as long as its not purporting to be something other than it is and as long as it is factual.

I can write an article on my Wikipedia friend Owen Blacker here, but it would still be vanity. See Mr. Nomura's vote for deletion topic; some student wrote it for him but it's still a vanity entry. With that issue aside, the person still has to be notable, and Mary Sues and Bobbie Jos and Danny Rosenblatts are not. TheCustomOfLife 22:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no clear definition for what constitutes notability. Indeed, I would have no objections if you wrote an article on Owen Blacker. As long as it does not interfere with the obtaining of truthful information, it should be allowed.

A regular high-school student, with no other merits to his name other than the fact that he went to a closed-down school and has ADD, is simply not notable. I don't think anyone would fight that reasoning, either. Also, if you want to sign your name, do four tildes (four of ~). TheCustomOfLife 22:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a completely subjective position. It has factual information and it does no harm. There is not reason to expend the effort to delete it. I will join you in protecting the encycolpedia's integrity, but this is no threat. We should remove it from the deletion list.

We'll see what other people have to say on the issue, but I really don't see it surviving. I don't have anything against you or Danny, but he's just not famous enough. TheCustomOfLife 22:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We'll see what the general opinion is. I hope that they support the freedom to post factual information over a tyrannical stranghold on what they believe is unnotable.

Hi there, newcomer. Please have a look around our information pages, including Welcome, newcomers and the FAQ. — Please don't think of this as a "tyrannical stronghold". We are not here to battle against you or your opinions; it's just that the community at large has pretty much come to the consensus that there is no point in including pages on people who are not notable. Yes, you are right, it's a subjective classification - we vote on the borderline cases on a case-by-case basis and thus ensure that the majority is happy. — Notice also that disallowing this entry does not make Wikipedia any less "free". You see, the content is free in the sense that anyone is free to take it and make their own encyclopedia fork from it. If you think including factual information on any individual whatsoever would be nice, we welcome you to start a new project to collect this kind of information. On Wikipedia, as I said, we have consensus not to do this. We would end up with a lot of articles the contents of which are relevant or interesting to only a very very small amount of people, and are extremely hard to verify due to a lack of reliable references. — I hope you understand this, and I'm sure you will find things you know a lot about that you can write about in Wikipedia. Honestly, we do accept a lot of obscure things that you don't normally find in a paper encyclopedia. — Timwi 23:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. —Stormie 23:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joyous 23:13, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear and well-said. Dan, yours is what we call a "vanity page." If you wish to contribute to this site, by all means feel free to do so within the boundaries. It's free to sign up and you can talk about yourself on your very own user page. BTW, this isn't a tyranny at all. In fact, it's the closest thing to a pure democracy as you're likely to find anywhere. I'm voting to delete your article, but encouraging you to sign up as a user. - Lucky 6.9 23:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree...delete. Ilyanep 23:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Preserve this page, if you do nothing else. If factual information is being restricted, it is tyranny. The majority may support it, but it is still tyranny. The weakness of democracy is that the majority don't always have the correct point of view. Regardless, it is the best system we have and we must work within it. Vote to preserve this page. This is more than about an individual- it is about the very freedom we hold dear. Where will they stop next? Will any information the majority, or a minority of self-styled police, find uncomfortable also be restricted? The Internet is the last refuge for free information in our society and must be protected. A stand must be here before it goes to far. Join me in voting to preserve this article

I was going to hold my tongue, but please get a grip. TheCustomOfLife 23:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's try this again, Dan. You do not warrant an encyclopedia article. Neither do I, for that matter. Therefore, my contributions have been on general topics. So too are the contributions by each and every person to cast a vote here. So in short, do I have a page under my real name? Of course not. Personal information is on my user page. It's only fair to warn you of the possibility of this conversation showing up on the very popular "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" page. To be blunt, you're going to look rather foolish. Take a breath, count backwards from fifty and consider the advice we've all given you. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, this is not an article on myself. It is nota personal article. If I look foolish in defending my freedom, than so be it. I will not abandon my principles: that it should be permissible for me to place factual information at times and places of my choosing so long as it does not obstruct others.

  • This is the final time I'm going to be nice about this. If you don't think that this is a personal article, let's review it: An inhabitant of Aberdeen township; born 1987 in Long Island. Daniel subsequently attended the New School High School, later known as the Atlantic School and now defunct. He busies his time with computer-related activities and with the visitation of extremist websites. Sounds personal to me. If you want to start a user page and contribute to this site, go ahead. If not, your acts are very much obstructing others. Are you understanding what I'm trying to tell you? Just don't write about yourself. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: "Freedom" does not mean license, as Benjamin Franklin observed. The vandal cries out that he is being censored when the cops are called, too. Encyclopedias differ from phone books, personal web pages, and commerce, even though those things might contain facts. This encyclopedia permits more than most (because of its format: it can allow more topics of ephemeral importance, as it is constantly updated and needn't fear being obsolete the day it's published), but that is not anarchy. In a state of total freedom, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Geogre 00:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How are my actions obstructing others? Perhaps we will be doomed to censorship. The last bastion of free communication, the Internet, is about to be lost. The misguided tyranny of the majority may have its way. Will not a champion for freedom arise and answer the call?

  • OK, we've all had a laugh, and now it's time to end this. Kid, you're an idiot. You're half brain-dead, and that's the good half. You've been welcome until now to create a user page and type away about Danny Rosen-bleeding heart until hell freezes over. Instead, you plead "freedom" and "censorship" in the most agonizingly melodramatic way possible while all this time laughing your hiney off at the stupidity you've wrought. Will not a champion for freedom arise and answer the call? You sound like a Dudley Do-Right cartoon. Do you have any friends, Danny? I mean, outside the ones you watch on Cartoon Network, that is. Consider getting a life outside of "extremist websites" and spending less time with a copy of Maxim and a bottle of Jergens in the freaking bathroom. - Lucky 6.9 00:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This little SOB has been going under the user name of "Colinrorr." He blanked the discussion on this page and turned "Danny Rosenblatt" into a redirect to Freedom of Expression. I hope that I've redone it properly. What's the matter, Dan-dan? Do we gots to call the WAHHHH-mbulance? - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) .

Colinrorr, you do not have the right to clear text on public pages when you do not like what has been said. TheCustomOfLife 01:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page was moved from Danny Rosenblatt to Freedom of Expression; moving VFD page to match. -- Grunt 01:14, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

"Colinrorr" has been warned that his behavior is unacceptable. If he tries it again, open fire. -- Cyrius| 01:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VFD tag is being removed repeatedly from this page by Colinrorr. -- Grunt 01:17, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

  • Delete, as not notable. Encourage user to create a userpage (; —siroxo 01:24, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • And we close today's discussion with a zinger! - Lucky 6.9 01:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonfamous.--Jerzy(t) 01:31, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a question of "free speech" or any other noble abstract moral term, it's simply a question of following the rules. Wikipedia is not anarchy. Wyllium 14:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, probably autobiography. Note: after being transformed into a redirect to Freedom of Expression, the page was deleted by User:Guanaco. I'm not sure whether it was proper to do this prior to the expiration of the discussion and wish User:Guanaco would comment, but I think the original page was obviously deletable under Wikipedia policy, I think the consensus for deletion already exists, I think the redirect probably qualified for speedy deletion as patent nonsense; so I think it would be silly to restore the page just to allow the discussion to proceed. Therefore, in order to allow the discussion to proceed, here is the content that was originally under discussion. Users can still vote, and the article can be restored if there is no consensus at the end of the full VfD discussion period. Dpbsmith 20:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Danny Rosenblatt is an inhabitant of Aberdeen Township, where he has lived since his birth in Long Island in 1987. He attended the now defunt Atlantic School for four years before its closure. His hobbies mainly focus around Japanese culture. Daniel is afflicted with attention deficit disorder. He rose to prominence with his visitation of extremist websites.
  • I certainly haven't changed my mind. Maintain speedy deletion. - Lucky 6.9 21:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. I don't see why there needs to be more debate. There have been enough users who've decided on deletion. Mike H 21:37, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a ridiculous waste of time for all concerned -- the offending page should be deleted at once. If Danny Rosenblatt is indeed the fellow who wrote the article, he is truly afflicted with attention deficit disorder, not to mention a lack of plain common sense. 00:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No prominence, no significance, no point. Average Earthman 14:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm really sorry about all of this. My friend, whom you lovingly know as Colinrorr, thought it would be hilarious to post an article about me. Feel free to delete it, but don't get rid of everything he put here. For some absurd reason, he wrote an incredibly extensive article on the Iraqi resistance [[1]] which is completely acceptable but inhumanly long. As for what he said about freedom of speech, he was probably making fun of you for taking him so seriously. He's a smart kid, but he has some really strange ways of amusing himself. Anyway I hope that this clears things up.--Sumolegend 23:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I just got a similar apology on my talk page. Hey, at least we have a great new BJAODN entry! - Lucky 6.9 23:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • One last thing I hope everyone here understands, I am not colinrorr, and none of the statements he made here are mine. He is friend of mine, who decided to play a joke on me. I just found out about all of this pretty recently. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up any confusion.-- 04:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)