Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of e-mail spammers

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 was Keep. Yuser31415 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of e-mail spammers[edit]

I'm afraid that this list violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel. Actually, I think this list, and many of the linked articles, qualify for WP:Speedy under Wikipedia:Attack page (G7), but since this page has been around since 2004, I suspect having it for a few more days to fully discuss the situation is not a problem. Wrs1864 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. In particular get rid of some of the charged wording (I've already removed "notorious") and tag each entry with a WP:RS such as a ROKSO listing or a wire service story. A list of "known or alleged" spammers -- properly documented as to the facts or allegations -- doesn't violate WP:LIBEL. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment considering that Spamhaus is currently being sued in part for mentioning someone on their ROKSO list, I'm not sure that they alone qualify as a reliable source. In particular, the parts of WP:RS that mention "bias", "confidentiality" (SpamHaus doesn't release all evidence to the public that the collect to protect themselves in a court case), and "Recognition by other reliable sources" (in particular, courts have not recognized them). To be clear, I *personally* feel that Spamhaus is a highly reliable source, but for purposes of Wikipedia defending itself in a legal sense, we need to be very conservative here. Wrs1864 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel don't suggest that the page should be deleted - just watched and referenced very carefully. This being the case, it'll be on my watchlist if it makes it through the AfD process. Squeezeweasel 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although - of course - we need to ensure that information included is adequately sourced & referenced. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I urge people to look through the list and note the number of times that being sued has been mentioned. I can think of a couple of other cases where people have sued because they were accused of being spammers that aren't mentioned in this article. Spammers, in general, do not think as much about the costs they place on others as they do the profits that they can make and simply looking at the top of the page shows that they could make millions if they successfully sue wikipedia. People who don't think of themselves as spammers often are deeply offended by such accusations. IANAL, let alone wikipedia's laywer, but I suspect that council would urge the speedy deletion of these claims until they are well documented, rather than keeping with the hope that someone will do something now that hasn't happened in the last 3 years. Wrs1864 18:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "List of alleged e-mail spammers." Much of the sting of possible libel is removed if we refer to these people as alleged spammers, rather than spammers. I would rename the article myself and create a redirect from the current name, but I don't know how - maybe it's an administrative privilege. Anyone who can do that should please also rename ESKAR to "Eskar." Given the number of blue-linked people in the list, deletion seems like a mistake. YechielMan 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Moving the page appears to be a straightforward procedure. Instead of being bold I think it's best to wait out the AfD process. Raymond Arritt 05:20, 15 January 2007 (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.