Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete While this second relisting hasn't expired, it has been over 7 days, thus I'm exercising my ability to close any time after 7 days. This has been an unusual discussion, with struck votes and debates on a dozen different policy points, but two in particular stand out. As for WP:GNG, there seems to people on both sides of the discussion but leaning toward him failing this standard. That alone would be enough, but in all honestly WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does matter any time it is requested, and I tend to believe the authenticity of the request. Looking at that policy see see a key sentence: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.". They is, how do we define non-public figures? Following the link we get: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article.". Even if we are to stretch WP:GNG to the limit and declare him to pass, thus be notable (a premise that I do not subscribe to), it is unlikely he would be so notable as to deny him deletion under this policy. As such, I find a consensus to delete, for it doesn't cleanly pass WP:GNG, and even if it did, it would quality for deletion via WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Teman[edit]

Ari Teman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former failed PROD. Subject fails WP:BIO. He's won a couple non-notable awards for founding JCorps. Only news coverage comes from the AirBnB sex party and from the 2014 defamation lawsuit, the latter which keeps getting quietly deleted from the article. Reads more like a promotional C.V. than a biography, but maintenance tags to that point also keep getting deleted. Even the images associated with the article are not properly attributed, unless one assumes they were uploaded by Mr Teman himself, which brings up major WP:COI issues as the uploader is the article's main author. Ashanda (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, this has been addressed previously and previous nominations for deletion have been ruled against. Secondly, there are hundreds of press articles about Teman, not including ones on the AirBNB story, covering his comedy, entrepreneurship, activism, and technological innovations. Teman has (1) been featured in major press nationally and internationally (2) founded two international conferences (taking place in the USA and Canada), attended by over 5200 and featured on TED as "Best of the Web" and recognized by major press in those industries (3) was recognized by The White House for founding JCorps (this is sourced and is public information as are all White House guests and honorees) (4) founded GatherGrid which was also featured in Inc and is used by thousands. The photos uploaded are public record and used in multiple news articles covering Teman. Being recognized by The White House, Mayor Bloomberg, and by the Jewish Federations of North America (151 sub chapters, and over 570,000 votes in the competition) are all notable awards, as is being in a TV show with Stephen Fry on the BBC. This is getting to be a bit much and it is undoubtedly the work of a rather unsavory stalker as discussed on the Talk page of Ari Teman. 137.63.63.54 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @137.63.63.54: If you could please provide the link to where this previous discussion took place, I would appreciate reading it. Also, be careful -- your final statements border on violating the No personal attacks policy. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There goes Ari, editing his own article, this time he chose a new IP, right after his old one (173.56.18.121) was blocked. And of course Ari himself fails to give credit to a co-founder of one of his conferences, cites among his accomplishments that a publication thought two of his jokes were funny, removes clear evidence that the $25,000 prize did not go to charity, removes two well sourced lawsuits against him, states that he earned honors in college but provides no evidence, tells the audience about each award he receives three times in his own article, etc. etc. etc. Maybe he is sufficiently notable, but for his notoriety rather than his accomplishments. Most recent non-Ari edited version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Teman&oldid=614713613 ArtTenak (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ArtTenak: Please do not engage in personal attacks. Stick to the subject of this discussion, which is whether or not this article is notable enough for retention in the encyclopedia. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I guess it is no surprise that the website says exactly what the organization wants to say, but it is clearly then not a third party source. Is gizmodo.in a sufficient source for Wikipedia? Is an article about a Freakfest the place where the Freakfest article's author would verify the founding of a conference?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12gurus has been in business since far before NextGen and has NJ incorporation papers establishing that it existed years before the NextGen conferences. These are public record.137.63.63.30 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is good, perhaps 137.63.63.65 could provide a link?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very clear that ArtTenak is (1) acting vindictively (2) violating both the rules against discussing contributor's identities and (3) violating WP:NPA.
  • The history of the page has multiple instances of this attack by the likely same person using fake aliases "KLetters", "ArtTenak" and IP addresses (see Talk page and Talk Page history).
  • The vandal has been blocked by admins, and is now working with suspicious accounts to suggest the deletion of an article on someone who runs multiple international organizations and covered by hundreds of press features. This is obviously an attack and not a valid edit or suggestion of non-notability.137.63.63.30 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 137.63.63.65 one of the suspicious accounts? It only appeared a couple days ago.ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @137.63.63.30: Please do not engage in personal attacks. I opened this discussion in good faith, please stop asserting otherwise. Also, I ask you again to supply a link to the previous discussion(s) regarding deletion of this article that you mentioned in your first post. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Teman&oldid=600030341 and multiple other unregistered wikipedia users have made similar denied requests .
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states the requirements: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Teman has been covered multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject (JCorps, GatherGrid, 12gurus Conferences, Comedy, Patents, AirBNB, Jewish Community Hero, White House, etc.) Additionally, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]" An international award, multiple other awards, and the creation of an ongoing international NGO all fulfill these requirements.
  • It is not a personal attack to state that someone (ArtTenak , who may be KLetters of previous clear vandalism) is vandalizing a page when they are doing so blatantly with false facts, and removing positive awards and facts. The motive is clear. 137.63.63.188 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citing the subject's own web site as proof of the subject's assertions is not a verifiable third party reference. You can not in one breath say that the co-founder's web site's statement is not sufficient but that the other co-founder's web site is. Also, this ignores that there is a verified video, containing both co-founders each referenced as a co-founder.ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't 137.63.63.30 acting vindictively? Is 137.63.63.30 the subject of the article?ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a vandal. I have not been blockedArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telling the joke of the week in an entertainment publication is not a notable award.ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being selected among thousands of comedians for only 1 spot, and with only about 40 selected yearly, in the biggest city in the world, in a publication read by over 2 million people is notable. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the joke of the week is notable, is there a Wikipedia page of jokes of the week?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you just violate the rules you are stating that others have violated?ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why doesn't the person who is so very interested in Ari's Wikipedia page create an account for himself instead of posting from an anonymous IP address?ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, ArtTenak, who are you? Real name, why are you "so very interested in Ari's Wikipedia page"? You seem to have an avid interest in Jonah Halper as well. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the fact that someone rented the subject's apartment for a weekend and that it was written about in The New York Post a notable accomplishment of the article's subject? ArtTenak (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the #1 story on the internet, feature in over 93 publications, from the NYTimes (today's edition), LA Times, Time, Today Show, Howard, Fox, CBS, ABC, Fusion, PIX, and on TV and press in China, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Ireland, Englad, France...I can keep going... 93 is a lot. Clearly all those publications and media thought it was notable. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that make it a notable accomplishment of the article subject? Wouldn't the article subject be better citing his notable actions rather than a notable mistake in which he became an unwitting facilitator of a sex party?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would lawsuits involving the subject not be notable and be deleted by 137.63.63.188 and its predecessor 173.56.18.121?ArtTenak (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a predecessed by any account. Stop the personal attacks and accusations unless you wish to disclose your real name or have it disclosed via lawsuit. If I were the subject, I'd subpoena your identity in a defamation suit, and likely add Ashanda given the accusation of non-notability is clearly damaging and false, that is: defamation. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You deny you are 173.56.18.121?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's good that 173.56.18.121 and 137.63.63.65 are not Ari Teman. 137.63.63.65 in particular might want to talk to Ari before threatening a lawsuit on Ari's behalf, given all of the lawsuits that Ari has already been party to, including the one we learned about at the top of the page. Ari probably doesn't need the headache of a new lawsuit. But maybe he does, all press is good press, right?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This venue is for discussion of whether or not to delete this article only. Content disputes should be kept to the article's own talk page. If you both continue your disruptive editing, you may both be sanctioned. Stop now. Also, do not place your replies into the middle of other editors' posts, it makes the discussion impossible to follow. Ashanda (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious given the number of categories for which this has been included that the subject has done multiple notable things and this has become a silly, obvious attack by some sort of vindictive vandal. Nominating someone who has been recognized by multiple organizations, including The White House, Jewish Federations, and hundreds of publications (including ones like Inc, NY Times, Time, LA TImes, in addition to many local and regional, Jewish and non-Jewish papers) for deletion says more about Wikipedia and its use as a tool to harass, defame, and bully a person than it does about the subject, Ari Teman. Note that Mr. Teman has multiple patents, so notable, in fact, they've been cited by Google in their own later IP: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090248806#forward-citations . So there we have for a single individual notable achievements in: technology, business, social activism, books, awards, comedy, and the #1 trending story on the internet. Really, are we having a discussion about notability? This is bullying. Obvious, childish, bullying that earned Wikipedia a reputation from which it has long tried to distance itself. Shame. Instead of stopping the obvious vandals making false accusations of porn, fictional founders, racism, etc., you're enabling the attack. I vote to end this discusson now. There is only one voice. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks the indepth coverage needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lawsuit regarding this Wikipedia Article NOTE: this Wikipedia entry and one of its editors was served with a defamation lawsuit right before this discussion began and ArtTenak appeared. Obviously that may influence someone's incentive to have this article deleted. This article should not be deleted until that case is resolved. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide a link to the lawsuit? Wikipedia only wants verified statements. Thank you. ArtTenak (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has in depth coverage needed for notability, as well as having won multiple awards, and being CEO of multiple organizations. Also, this discussion was not begun until someone was sued for using the editing of this article to defame the subject. Here is a **sample** of in depth TV and print coverage, there are over 100 more articles and appearances:
  • Comment If those involved in the alleged lawsuit care so much about what it says on a particular wikipedia page at a particular time, they will take time to make sure to create a record of that. We should not alter policies or procedures to aid people involved in lawsuits who cannot be bothered to make a copy of the page as it is when they allege defamantion, a very easy things to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:BIO. Sam Sailor Sing 10:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Individual has articles in the press for over 10 years, has run three international organizations (each with thousands of members) in the press as far back as 2007, was covered in the press for his interaction with Barack Obama (that photo mysteriously deleted from page, needs to be re-added, as it's in public domain), has won multiple awards, holds patents (cited by Google, too). Thus "WP:TOOSOON" doesn't apply since he's already accomplished these things and been noted for them in multiple RS. WP:BIO is answered by user:Shawn in Montreal correctly: "We do have enough non-minor coverage, for me. My rule of thumb is at least 3 RS, which we have in the NY Post, J Post & Inc. magazine articles alone." And another 100+ articles. NYClay770 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWe do have enough non-minor coverage, for me. My rule of thumb is at least 3 RS, which we have in the NY Post, J Post & Inc. magazine articles alone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the coverage is for WP:1EVENT, the rest is mostly superficial or promotional. Ashanda (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs Shawn in Montreal said, "We do have enough non-minor coverage... Multiple RS, which we have in the NY Post, J Post & Inc. magazine" (plus as of this week: NY Times). However, I am asking the administrators here to view the ArtTenak page and consider a full ban given repeated violations (3 reverts, uncited sources, defamatory langauge) and that it's clearly solely dedicated to bash Mr. Teman. Also to increase protection on this page to not allow auto-approvals. I'm sure a review of the subject headings created by ArtTenak will be seen clearly for what they are. Please revert to last accepted revision before ArtTenak. NYClay770 (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: repeated vandal user:ArtTenak has been banned by Wikipedia Admin for " (Disruptive editing: Single purpose account engaging in persistent tendentious editing, BLP-issues and edit warring on Ari Teman)".
  • Given that user:ArtTenak was the sole driver of the Deletion request, has been acknowledged to be in violation, and the majority of votes are Keep (citing over 10 RS including NY Times, Inc, JPost, BBC, Today Show, etc), I ask that the deletion request be removed as it is disparaging to Ari Teman. NYClay770 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Afd should run its course. What's more you appear to be a WP:SPA editor and the closing admin will certainly take that into account. I'm !voting keep, but this process works by consensus and the blocked editor is not the only deletion !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sole driver"? How about the person who nominated it in the first place? You accuse me of sockpuppettry, then go on to admit it yourself. I'm happy to submit to a WP:CHECKUSER, are you? How's the weather in the Seychelles, or are you still using the NYC FiOS account to access an WP:OPENPROXY? The sad thing is that if you had calmly argued your case, you had a decent chance of winning it, but by wildly violating multiple policies, you're certainly not winning any friends. So, no, I DO NOT withdraw this nomination. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my personal comments. Sorry for losing my temper at the repeated accusations. Ashanda (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator To summarize for any admins perusing this discussion for closing; despite the excessive verbiage, there have been two !votes for keep, and two three !votes for delete -- including my nom. The seeming extra keep arguments are all from the same user using several IPs and logged in once as well. I'm unsure that consensus is clear here, I'd ask for an extension of discussion. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Ashanda admits that this is a temper-driven nomination. He then violates the terms of not identifying a contributor. He is clearly biased and his nomination is a temper-driven harassment, by his own admission. I urge him to be blocked from Ari Teman and this discussion. This is really a sad example of what Wikipedia can be. NYClay770 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of talk about this but on review of the article, other than the "Freak Fest" at his apartment and the recent business lawsuit he might bein, all of the information is old about the subject, and even he is too old to participate in Jcorps (up to age 30) and has not held a 12Gurus conference recently according to the websights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.227.56 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really: all of it? The Jerusalem Post feature, for one, is neither "old," nor about any of those topics. Also, per WP:N#TEMP and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, "old information" doesn't seem to me to be a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Shawn in Montreal, user: Ashanda admits he's got a temper and bias against Ari Teman. I'm sure a subpeona of "71.167.227.56" will show the user to be the same person defaming and harrassing Teman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYClay770 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanda admits temper and bias in this post, above. From saying things like "the sad thing is that if you had calmly argued your case, you had a decent chance of winning it" and "Striking my personal comments. Sorry for losing my temper", user:Ashanda has shown clearly his bias. Further his accusations of violating WP:Policy while himself violating it repeatedly is further evidence of his bias. He then filed another report ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Misbehavior_at_the_Ari_Teman_AfD ) where he suspiciously neglects to mention his fellow vandals: user:KLetters, user:ArtTenak (banned), user:Demenac234,user:68.143.198.222,user:108.30.243.78,user:38.96.141.68,user:38.108.195.50,user:47.23.40.34. Mentioning only one side and not the other is the very definition of bias. I request that user:Ashanda be banned and this discussion (really, harassment) be closed. NYClay770 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. This guy is only known because he rented his apartment out to someone he met on the internet. The sources don't give sufficient depth of coverage, aren't reliable, or aren't intellectually independent of one another. Gossip newspapers are not reliable sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, okay this is all becoming moot if the article subject is a) asking for it to be deleted and b) apparently now engaging in legal action but I should just like to point out, not for the first time, that the Jerusalem Post, for one, is not a "gossip newspaper," nor is it reporting on the apartment thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shawn in Montreal, these people aren't worth convincing. Anyone arguing that the Jerusalem Post (JCorps) or New York Times or Inc Magazine (gathergrid) or JTA is a "gossip rag" is not worth the time to respond. Wikipedia has proven itself to be fertile ground for harassment and defamation, with you being a rare exception. It's unfortunate and not the vision outlined by user:Jimbo_Wales. Thanks for your help. When I'm up in Montreal doing a show say hello if you'd like. AriTeman (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . This is Ari Teman. I am not sure how to verify that, but you can see the length of time this account has existed, and a Wikipedia admin may email me if they're able (the email goes to my domain). I'm asking you to delete this article, not because there's any ground, but because this entry (Ari Teman) has become nothing more than a tool for anonymous cowards to defame and harass. They've falsely accused me of acting in porn, stealing from charity, being racist. So please just delete this. It will be a valuable loss, but I'm tired of alerts about vandalism. Thanks to user:Shawn in Montreal. I suspect I'll learn the true identities of a few of the other accounts when the subpoenas come back. - Ari AriTeman (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:AriTeman, if you're up here at Just for Laughs I'll try and check you out. In the meantime, I suspect we'll have administrator action before too long but if it doesn't happen fast enough you could always e-mail [email protected] or visit here and contact the foundation, with a link to this Afd. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AriTeman: I agree that the vandalism of this article regarding you being vandalized is unacceptable. Wikipedia takes articles on living persons very seriously. Egregious violators are blocked, often without warning according to policy, and if this article survives this AfD, I amongst others can keep this on our watchlist to make sure similar BLP vandalism does not recur. That being said, that last sentence borders on a a legal threat and is also against policy, if you do have serious issues, I recommend contacting the General Counsel for Wikimedia directly. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't "threaten" to sue. I sued. I also didn't sue Wikipedia. I don't see a need to sue Wikipedia if it cooperates within the Law (Frankly after the YEARS of the bullshit on this article, I don't care what your "policies" are. You've got to delusional if you expect me to respect your policies with the way this article has been raped by any random hoodlum and stalker who comes across it.) When the law is broken I go to law enforcement and lawyers, not anonymous Wikipedia admins. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as other editors have pointed out (though they may have exposed bias) that Mr. Teman's endeavours have been well-documented by reliable news sources for several years. Founder of multiple notable international organizations, author of at least a few books, first winner of a national Jewish community foundation award, unfortunately involved recently in a couple of unsavoury incidents. Any one of these taken separately would likely fail WP:BLP1E but there's enough of them, and enough coverage, to warrant a keep. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows a non-public figure to request deletion of their own article, but I don't think the definition applies to Mr. Teman based on the guideline. I feel that if he were not threatening to sue us we would not be considering deletion, and in fact his intimidation has coerced at least one editor to strike their !vote. WP:NPOV is one of our oldest policies, and we fail it if we let individuals use bullying and legal threats to control the information we include here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not intimidation. There's been slagging on both sides and the article subject says enough. I changed my !vote willingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is intimidation, whether it's intended or not, and whether or not you were actually moved by it. Telling someone that we can put aside our policies and guidelines because they have lawyers is a terrible precedent to set. Ivanvector (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been comments made here -- on both sides -- that are defamatory, and we do have strict policies against that. You've got an article subject who barely meets WP:BIO, at most. I'd say common sense dictates we just end this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing I've said is defamatory. Defamatory statements require falsehood. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is someone seeking continued employment in the entertainment industry, among other pursuits, who (allegedly) created their own article three years ago, and (allegedly) used multiple accounts to maintain their article during that time. That may or may not have been a violation of WP:SPA, that's for a different discussion. Then, more recently, the subject got themselves into some legal trouble and drew some negative publicity, and suddenly they're here trying to get that negative info removed, (once again allegedly) abusing multiple accounts and making legal threats to try to force control over their content. This is exactly what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is not for. Yes, there has been deplorable behaviour on both sides of this discussion, but as far as I can tell there has only been talk about a legal demand to learn anonymous contributors' identities (which I can only assume is for the purpose of contacting those editors with further legal demands) coming from one side. It appears to me that PC/1 and blocking have dealt with the problem editors, at least for now. Common sense says if he was notable before the recent incidents, he continues to be notable now. Ivanvector (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got to be kidding me. You quoted user:Ashanda's temper-driven false accusation of facts. Do you think I am user:Tipclaysailak and went to the JCorps article to vandalize my own organization? There's no threat. There's an actual lawsuit. Not against wikipedia, against those who have broken the law. (I probably am TemanAri1 and forgot my password, but I wouldn't be able to verify this unless an Admin can send a reset password link to the email in use. All user:TemanAri1 did was upload the Obama photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TemanAri1 so it's probably me. ) I didn't "get myself into legal trouble". Plenty of baseless lawsuits are brought by people against people who didn't do anything that would "get them into trouble". Neither of those suits have any "trouble". One has a motion to dismiss (as the article states), one was dropped. No trouble. Wikipedia would be nicer if people checked facts before posting accusations and reposting false accusations. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not kidding, sir, that's my interpretation of the dispute. The edits which you reverted as "vandalism" on that article are pretty far from what we would define as vandalism. To me they appear to be good faith attempts by a new editor to improve the encyclopedia. The sourcing wasn't great and they probably would have been tagged, improved or removed from the article, but repeatedly calling the user a "vandal" is a bit over the top. On Wikipedia, vandalism is a long way off from stuff you don't like. Ivanvector (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's kinda close, but the sourcing just isn't there. After the solid JPost feature, it drops into trivial blips and passing coverage of other events and such. As the subject has expressed desire to delete, we default to WP:BIODELETE, no exception. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Please delete. I'm not ok with the 'deplorable' accusation. If you think JCorps and http://12gurusHealth.com or http://12gurusCharity.com are "trivial" (having been featured on TED as "Best of the Web" and covered in Inc, Fast Company, Chronicle of Philanthropy, etc. since you want "RS") there's nothing I'm going to do that will impress you and I'll be happier with this deleted. No more Wikipedia is exactly how much Wikipedia I want. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "exception" is that WP:BIODELETE (and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) are for "low-profile individuals" to request deletion of an article about themselves. If we let every person or organization with a beef request that their verifiable and reliably sourced information be scrubbed from the project, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia, would we? So, is Mr. Teman a low-profile individual? We define low-profile individuals as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event", and "[p]ersons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." It seems to me that someone who works as a performer in the entertainment industry automatically doesn't meet this definition, but as other editors have tried to point out Mr. Teman has also been the subject of national and international press coverage for his admirable volunteer work, featured in a TED "best-of" list, appeared in TV commercials and as a regular on a national network, and is recipient of at least one award presented by a national organization. None of this seems to match the description of a person who doesn't seek media attention. Ivanvector (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete The subject is a good comedian and will possibly satisfy WP:BIO in the future, but meanwhile "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is not satisfied. The only factoid at JCorps relating to this article is that Teman started JCorps in 2006 as a website—not enough content for another article. Some editors have wanted to use Wikipedia to tell the world about certain claims, but there is nothing encyclopedic in the now deleted content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Thanks user:Johnuniq. The complement is nice, even on here.
* "there is nothing encyclopedic in the now deleted content" . Thanks.
* For the record (since it's the work of many individuals, and not just me): JCorps is an international volunteer network in multiple countries with thousands of members from over 180 colleges, 600 companies, etc. and many volunteer leaders, it's not "a website" (and right now our website is having all sorts of technical issues due to a server change), and it's had ongoing press in the USA, Canada, Israel, etc, has funded by major foundations, recognized by The White House, sponsored by Google, Schusterman Foundation, etc.. You can see that article has been vandalized, too, by the same vandal user:Tipclaysailak : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JCorps&diff=615631388&oldid=589413196 . I don't have confidence in Wikipedia's ability to block vandals and the defamation is extreme. I've undone those edits (with my *real* name -- policy be damned), but that won't stop the attacks. Don't bother "protecting" the page, because that's a joke. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the majority above me, especially Ashanda, this is real close on the WP:GNG hurdle but not quite there and is more of a WP:1EVENT article. Outside of the coverage of that event, this article is extremely promotional and would need a fundamental rewrite in order to be encyclopedic. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Please delete. Please delete this so the harassment and defamation stops. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A question I have is if this Wikipedia article has actually created the notability? Not just that the article exists but at the point a few months ago that further details were added including the lawsuit, is the article NOW notable when greater details are included?

I did make a notation on JCorps asking if that organization itself is notable, and presumably the founder is no longer a member since it goes up to age 28. The conferences that are referenced don't have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipclaysailak (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ari_Teman&oldid=1068824589"