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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Farivar attained brief fame by making reference on Slate to his own (then self-authored) Wikipedia page. In the fullness of time, this notability has faded and the importance of this egoistic act has passed. Ultimately, the subject is non-notable and the article should be deleted and userfied. Wikipedia should not contain articles the sole importance of which derives from Wikipedia itself. Eusebeus 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st nomination, 2nd nomination for reference.

• Keep. You say. "Wikipedia should not contain articles the sole importance of which derives from Wikipedia itself." Oh, really???Parsssseltongue 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Jimmy Wales article has been kept because there are many citations of featured coverage by reliable sources. Yes, most of those are related to his involvement with Wikipedia, but there are some outside awards and such. Barno 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do we have an essay or something on false equivalents? I much rather just type WP:FEQ [[T&E:FEQ]] than actually explain why those comparisons are out of line. Because The Rolling Stones have an article and are a band it doesn't mean any stoner band should get an article. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was being a BIT tongue in cheek (about the comparison, not my KEEP reccomendation). But I love your [[T&E:FEQ]] essay, Trials! Parsssseltongue 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It links to an interesting piece of Internet history. Danny Lilithborne 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with the nomination. A self-authored article in an online magazine, and a couple of mentions in blogs and podcasts, don't turn the "controversy" into an event notable enough to pass the 100-year test. Barno 00:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another average working journalist. Let him get his ego-boos elsewhere.--Calton | Talk 01:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least because you did not explain what's wrong with the previous two AfD results! - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point - my apologies. I refer you to the article's talk page where the saga can be found. Basically, the subject was perpetrator of an adolescent (so-called greenlighting) hoax, and in the brief publicity flicker surrounding the event, his (self-authored,vanity) page became a touchstone for disagreement. One year later, however, this should be accepted as simply a flash in the pan; the notability of the subject is highly questionable. Eusebeus 10:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wasn't the perpetrator, merely the messenger of the greenlighting hoax. --cfarivar

• Delete per nom. (Liberatore, 2006). 14:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I am compiling a list of navel-gazing Wikipedia pages at User:Paolo Liberatore/Wikipedia. I think we have enough (actually, excessive) coverage of Wikipedia-related things. I plan to nominate some of these articles for deletion. Urdu Wikipedia seems a good starting point (600 articles). (Liberatore, 2006). 14:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable journalist. -Will Beback 21:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passed two VFDs already. Wikipedia should strive for inclusion, not exclusion, of content. Subject writes for numerous publications with huge circulations. Why should someone who wants to understand more about the name behind the byline not be able to get that information from Wikipedia? Just today Farivar's byline appears in the San Francisco Chronicle with no other biographical information. Why should people who write for large publications not be discussed in Wikipedia? The suggestion that Farivar's article should have existed only because of the Greenlighting story is bogus. These sort of endless-VFD cycles give Wikipedia -- and more specifically Wikipedians -- a bad name. Jsnell 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it should be noted that if Cyrus' vanity page is removed, your own page Jason Snell might be userfied in much the same vein. (Not that by this I wish to suggest in any way your comment is invalid.) Eusebeus 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. I'm sure you only brought it up "to be fair," as you said. I will feel free to disagree with your deletionist approach to Wikipedia regardless. Jsnell 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just like the last two times, there's enough here, both of historical and future interest. Qnonsense 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Also, this is one of those articles that people like to drag out and say "Well if Cyrus Farivar gets and article then I should too!" While that in itself is by no means a reason to delete, it's pretty clear that continually keeping this has set a rather bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yet another wonderful example of "I didnt like the previous AFD result... let me relist 'til I get one I like." let the previous AFD decisions stand.  ALKIVAR™ 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable journalist. bbx 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The greenlighting incident itself was flash-in-the-pan, but the person is still notable enough for WP:BIO as a journalist, and the name returns over 46,000 relevant Google hits after discounting the Wikipedia-related links. [1] Yamaguchi先生 08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable fellow. --Myles Long 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing has changed really. --Liface 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.