[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

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

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 of the debate wasThe decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes to keep.

After processing 293 total votes

Total Keep: 146

129 Keep
17 Keep/Merge

Total Delete: 46

40 delete
6 delete/merge

Total Merge: 124

101 merge
17 Keep/Merge
6 delete/merge

While this does not provide an overwhelming keep vs. merge consensus it does provide that this article should not be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

Notability, Non-Encyclopedic, and do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notoriety. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Delete

  • Comment Then I suppose we don't need the controversy article also, if your view is considered. But that page has already been voted to be kept and merging this into that would be the most appropriate thing to do. Jam2k
  • Reply That one is fine. This is page is just ridiculas. Also I think the controversy section on John Seigenthaler Sr. should be removed too.

Delete or merge

Merge

I've changed my vote to include Redirect.Jam2k 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep

  • First edit.


  • keep or Merge . A quite importaint part of history of Wikipedia. Every good idea has its downsides and flaws , which need to be viewed in perspective ,and not hidden away. What most attracted me to wikipedia in 1st place was the whole idea of freedom of (reasoned) discussion and varied points of view of all types of issues.So to me the John Seigenthaler episode needs to be documented here. --Ludek9 01:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Merge or Keep I don't have much to say here, I've only barely ever contributed anything to the Wikipeida. But I think this info should definitely stay in, in some form or another. As others have said, this is an important part of Wikipedia's history. Anyway, I suspect it's important enough that even if you totally delete it, it'll just come back in some form anyway. There's nothing to stop someone from recreating the entry from a locally cached copy of the page, is there? PragmaticallyWyrd 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. It happened. It was relatively important. It is our duty to document it....

Keep

This is the users sole edit. I think we should disregard it (even though he's voting the way I did). (Bjorn Tipling 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
This is an anonymous vote (and he's uncivil), I say disregard (even though again he voted the way I did. :( )(Bjorn Tipling 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. He is way above the bar we commonly set for notability. I'm not saying that the events are equivalent in importance, but we have an article for the driver who told Rosa Parks to give up her seat, because his action precipitated a notable event. Only merge and redirect if a new norm is being created, so I can make redirects out of the stubs of minor TV characters I keep running into. - BanyanTree 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's important on its own as part of Wikipedia's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.151.246.150 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This story has generated more press than most of what passes AfD on Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created it as Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster) last night because I thought he was encyclopedic (If Nick Leeson can get into Wikipedia for one screwup with major consequences, I think Chase belongs). It got turned into a redirect. Whatever. I also think this might deter non-vandalism–oriented jokes here by making sure this is what they get out of their 15 minutes. And, in that vein, I propose a new category: People who must never be allowed on Wikipedia again. (Just kidding). Daniel Case 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not give this guy too much credit. Leeson, after a period of fraud and over $1bn in losses, caused the collapse of Barings Bank, rocked the financial markets and put 100s out of work. So far Chase is the only person to lose his job over this, and I doubt that Rogue Vandal is in the works with Robert Redford as Siegenthaler and Ewan McGregor as Chase. -- JJay 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT Yeah, but it looks like he's just kicked off the largest, most active deletion vote in the history of Wikipedia (Does anyone keep these records? Has any deletion vote ever drawn this many users, even factoring out sock puppets?) That in itself confers notablility.
      • How about a compromise that would deter vandals alright ... Keep the article on Wikipedia; Delete the subject from reality (Joke! Joke! Joke!). Daniel Case 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. looking through the votes I think that User:Locke Cole nailed it; the story might not be finished playing out yet. If a few weeks go by and nothing new happens, it would be reasonable then to merge with the main controversy article. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Osama Bin Laden can be noteworthy then this guy should also be noteworthy. 220.233.48.200 05:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of so many wikiers bash on the mainstream media and encyclopedia writers by saying they cover up their own misdeeds and embarassments. Well, Brian Chase is an embarassment to the Wikipedia...and wouldn't you know, the citizen reference writers are trying to cover it up. "The more things change, the more they remain the same..." 24.2.49.140 05:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would say any and all factual statements belong in Wikipedia. If what was written about Brian Chase is true, and is presented from a neutral viewpoint, then it stays. User:Georgeccampbell
  • Keep - Newsworthy, and the name may go down in net history/parlance as a prominent example of a particular web phenomenon. Do delete the next 225 trolls who try to achieve notoriety in the same way. edgarde 05:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, in my opinion. Plus his reputation needs to be punished. -- Natalinasmpf 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the first big hoax for Wikipedia, and one of the 'turning points' for the Internet.
  • Keep. Wikipedia's reputation suffered because of the actions of Brian Chase.
    • So? Everytime a twelve year old puts a penis in George W. Bush makes Wikipedia's reputation suffer (provided someone sees it, of course).--Sean|Black 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, the major difference in this case is that the vandalised article in question received worldwide press coverage, resulting in a major policy change on Wikipedia (only registered users may create new pages), the resignation of the vandal from their place of employment, and follow-up news coverage focused on the person personally responsible for the vandalism. If Willy on Wheels were to receive this type of coverage, he/she/they would warrant a Wikipedia article as well. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it is unfortunate there are so many, erm, strange votes here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --TheGrza 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable? Check. Enyclopedic? Check. Nothing else to be said. Johnleemk | Talk 08:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To not do so would be like never outing the author of Primary Colors.
  • Keep. A very important character in Seigenthaler saga. --Jannex 10:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't quite understand the arguments for merging, he is significant and, as such, merits an article. Themindset 10:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 10:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP maybe even photoshop his asss on a galow, or in front o a fireingsquad. - anyway this must be remebered as danger to a world of free speach - I hope this guy loses more than just his job, - i shure as hell wouldn't want him as my son.-- 11:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, newsworthy stuff. --Sindri 11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep newsworthy ? UkPaolo/TALK? 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the nominator used a non-word. Kurt Weber 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's good enough for the BBC [1] it's good enough for an article. Also, it's an important cautionary tale for all Wikipedians. Lee M 12:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely agree with previous comment - read about this man on BBC news and want to know who he is Mattmm 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally agree with the accountability argument Jbarfield 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about notable, though I am uncomfortable about giving such "recognition" to vandals/dispensers of misinformation. Plus I have a strange feeling Seigenthaler wouldn't be too fond of an article on Brian Chase being merged into an article about him ;-) SoLando (Talk) 13:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to delete the Seigenthaler controversy article, and now I think I was wrong about that. It seems to getting a lot more attention than I thought. I was worried about having an excessive focus on things that happen to us, a different standard of notability, or skewed perception...but now I'm pretty sure that article is worth having. So, when I look at this article on Brian Chase, my first reaction is to think it should be merged/redirected, and anything worth saying can go in that controversy article. But, I figure I ought to learn a lesson and err on the side of a keep vote, because if you're in doubt a keep vote is usually the way to go. I think on the article talk page it might be a good idea to discuss merging there, though, and let the editors who are interested in the subject make a decision about that. I think in an uncertain case it's a good idea to put down a vote for keeping it, but also urge interested editors on the talk page to look at it more deeply and make an eventual decision about whether to merge it or keep it independent. A keep vote doesn't necessarily have to contradict eventual merging; I would expect interested editors in the future to make a better decision than me. It just means "keep pending talk page review". Everyking 14:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side note, I also want to say I feel really sorry for the guy. Vandalism and deliberate inaccuracy can't be tolerated, but it should be dealt with quietly here on Wikipedia, not through all this press coverage. He shouldn't have to suffer in his real life for this, just because Seigenthaler wanted to blow it up out of proportion to serve his idea that Wikipedia is dangerous, or whatever it is he thinks. But anyway. Everyking 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I happen to know Seigenthaler through professsional ties. He is an honorable man and I think his airing of this editing issue is valid. It is just as valid for us to publicize the person who dishonored him. Not for retribution, but for accuracy. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke and other infamous journalists of the past, for example, should be remembered as the scoundrels they were just as accurately as we remember the heroes. Kazari 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chase ignited an international controversy and sparked some fairly important debate on the nature of Wikipedia by his ill-considered actions, which I think makes him notable enough to have his own entry.--Chuckhoffmann 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets and exceeds the bar of WP:BIO. Silensor 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To do anything else but keep this article would be the same as a cover-up!!! Some users should also be careful what they say about people outside of the article sites as well such as Rfiend who seems to libel people at the drop of a hat! Dwain 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP- very notable Astrotrain 16:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- He's now made so many newspapers that he hit the top of the news.google.com page. Even if he never does anything else newsworthy in his life, he's earned himself a spot in the encyclopedia. --Mareino 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Removing such a noteworthy event in Wikipedia's history would mar it's reputation, similar to a cover up. I would suggest this be kept as a learning experience to make this tool better.--Britsda 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then discuss what to do with the content (merge or keep seperate) once the media publicity blitz dies down. Hall Monitor 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man was just mentioned on a BBC Radio 4 news programme. If the BBC considers him notable, so do I. Dmn 17:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But he's only notable for this hoax. Most of the info already exists in or could be easily integrated into the controversy article. Unless he becomes notable for something additional, I don't see a compelling reason to have a separate article for him. MeekSaffron 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "mentioned" in a news programme does not equal notability. I bet thousands of people are mentioned by the BBC in its news programmes. JoaoRicardo talk 06:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or if we must merge into the Siegenthaler subarticle.  ALKIVAR™ 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - up for deletion? What gives? Merge is also possible, as there's not much here just now, but the story's not over yet. And what would a deletion look like to the outside world? --Plumbago 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important event that may shape Wikipedia policy for years to come. A man who has changed the way people look at Wikipedia in a major way. There are many other less important articles about more minor people. This could easily be something people care about 5 years from now.160.36.121.50 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of Wikipedia history. --Neverborn 21:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please erasing this does not make any sense Yuckfoo 04:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete this article, because this 'accident' was in the media so hard. --Johannes Buchner
  • Keep. Merge, modify, edit, whatever...but KEEP because this topic may (or then again it may not) help Wikipedia deter real vandals. Then there's its historic significance too.,,,,,Ariele 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not quite generic enough to be merged into the main article, and why get rid of part of the site's history? Imdwalrus 20:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP. It is notable, and guess what... being caught, losing your job, feeling the need to apologize doesn't exactly encourage one to vandalize Wikipedia. Misguided AFD. - RoyBoy 800 21:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now (unfortunately) an historical event in the world of the internet. Wikipedia may be the biggest and best wiki, but it isn't the only one. As we progress in time and technology, wiki's will play a bigger part in people's lives. Documenting what is the first national furor over a wiki's vandalism is pertinent information for future generations. Jaileer 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. obviously. The fact that a gazillion people have voted here is testament to it's popularity. Anybody who wants to delete is denying their own reasons for coming to this page in the first place. There are better candidates for deletion out there that nobody cares about. "do we really want to reward and encourage more activity like this by giving it additional notoriety?" Huh? While we're at it, let's delete Hitler's entry, too. Malnova 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -This gained considerable coverage on various cable news channels, and a big controversy within Wikipedia --BrenDJ 22:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JH 128.214.200.202 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable because he is part of what led to WP removing abilities from anon users. nae'blis (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge and redirect if the article don't grow three kb --Marc Lacoste 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is illustrative information highly relevant to the discussion of the viability of the wikipedia concept proper. 84.167.142.65 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now a part of Wiki history and shows the own honesty and power to document facts of interest in a neutral manner. See the german article of the Spiegel Kt66 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wookieepedian 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Stbalbach 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.124.137.87 (talk • contribs) 01:02, December 13, 2005
  • Strong Keep - His existance and relevance are proven by his already being here, deleting him would be attempting to alter historical purity. laurens.whipple 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra Strong Keep - Exercising total and complete honesty is done by keeping things level, balanced and fair -- especially with things that might reflect negativly upon the place hosting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.67.59 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep. The libelous Siegenthaler edit is a big story, as shown by the national news coverage given to the identification of this hoaxster. I believe there will be interest in this controversy's two main participants as long as there's interest in Wikipedia. Rcade 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he's notable enough to warrant his own page. The fact is, his identity and name have widely reported. As a result, he's not just another vandal, I'm surprised that some people don't appear to understand this. Whether or not it will encourage other vandals is irrelevant. We should not hide an article just because it may encourage vandalism. The widespread reporting is far more likely to encourage further vandals anyway. Merge with redirect is acceptable but not preferble. He's now notable enough for his own article... Nil Einne 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ratclaw 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I only found this page thanks to Yahoo. I think that's notable and newsworthy enough to warrant it staying. --Beau99|talk 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mr. Brian Chase is an honourable and upstanding citizen of the United States. By deleting his entry Wikipedia risks damaging its reputations further for "covering-up". 129.97.252.63 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. "'I'm glad this aspect of it is over,' Seigenthaler, 78, said. But he expressed concern that 'every biography on Wikipedia is going to be hit by this stuff - think what they'd do to Tom DeLay and Hillary Clinton, to mention two. My fear is that we're going to get government regulation of the Internet as a result.'" (source: Yahoo! News -- "Author Apologizes for Fake Wikipedia Entry" http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051212/tc_usatoday/authorapologizesforfakewikipediabiography) Brian Chase is a key player in an event that could bring about consequences for all of us. For the simple fact that there's national debate about government regulation of the internet, it defies logic to say that Brian Chase is not noteworthy. He's part of the reason there's national debate to begin with, and while he may not be the person who has sparked said debate (Siegenthaler gets credit for that, with the article he wrote in USA Today), there wouldn't be any debate, had he not done what he did. Everyone knows what caused the World Wars, everyone knows what lead up to Roe v. Wade and to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, everyone knows about the draft during Vietnam, and everyone should know about what Brian Chase did. To play any kind of role in bringing about such debate that could lead to a landmark decision, especially one that deals with privacy laws, freedom of speech, and a whole slew of other issues, is definitely noteworthy. --Putainsdetoiles 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its important to our history....as is this....clean it and leave it. not all past is bright. learn, keep it, cleanit, and move on--Alex 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there are tons and tons of random people listed in wikipedia, and this guy has made national news. i agree that wikipedia should not become a blog, but brian chase has shown a hole in the screening process of posts on wikipedia, he has significance in illustrating the great freedom of the internet. i suggest that wikipedia screens people's entries and notes whether or not an article has been verified.
  • Strong Keep Notable person in the realm of world wide web free speech. --DuKot 05:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or at the very least Merge. Chase has now become news, and deleting him so rapidly makes us look like CBS killing the 60 Minutes tobacco story. Transparency is key here. Sleeper99999 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he had made himself notable enough abakharev 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's become part of wikipedia's history, international media reported on it, he is part of the historical event. dr who 07:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even german "der spiegel" is refering to that article [2] --Superbass 07:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandal or not, he's now one of the top ten names associated with Wikipedia in the English language media. Vincent 09:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is important for people to know that vandalism will not be tollerated or go unnoticed--SethG 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there will be more of them and a category of wiki spam, defacers and hoaxers. Just wait till april 1 comes round. we'd better be ready and ahve responses for the public.
  • Keep interesting thing in the histoy of wiki 13.00, 13 December 2005
  • Keep a good example of how anti-Wikipedia trolls may ruin your career.  Grue  14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He's a major figure in Wikipedia history, and he will serve as a precendent for inevitable future controversy. Avengerx 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone want to know about the issue, they go to the issue article. If they want to know about the involved people, they go to the involved people's article. (unsigned comment by Algumacoisaqq 18:02 13 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep Don't rewrite history just because you don't like it. --Geverend 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Or, at the very least, merge.) Most vandals don't make headline news — this one has. jareha 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The media attention this has gotten make this person noteable, although most wikipedia vandals are not. DES (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not, this whole affair is a genuine news event. CarbonCopy 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable enough to have hits on Yahoo News coming up when a search for Wikipedia is done. Cobra22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP this is seen on major news sites now, and should be kept, even google turns up these results (unsigned comment by Broodwars20850 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)) (dated by poster as "12.13.2005 17:48 EST")[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If someone is famous enough to be all over the newspapers and on the media then he is by definition notable and worthy of an article. The fact WP deems it necessary to vote on whether someone in the media for an infamous scam on a major internet site is notable just highlights the weaknesses and lack of logic that is bedevilling WP. IMHO keeping this article is a "no brainer". Deleting it would be unencylopćdic and just make WP look as though it was deleting it to cover up the scandal. I can hardly think of a more stupid tactic in terms of news management. As they say in the media business, you'd only give the story "more legs". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! this is a vital piece of wiki history! (unigned comment by 131.212.42.164 01:29, 14 December 2005
  • Strong Keep. If he is noteworthy enough to appear in newsmedia worldwide, he is noteworthy enough for an entry. The huge amount of traffic to this VfD page shows how much interest it is generating. To delete this guy's story as "punishment" is incredibly POV, and is tantamount to a whitewashed rewrite of Wikipedia's history. TheDewi 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a part of our history. Paul, in Saudi 15:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep simply put, it is not a vanity page. CastAStone 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This whole story has been made important by other media. 10, 20, 50 years from now, what happens with wiki, blogs, and other Internet media, we have no way to predict, but like it or not, this story may become important to the history of the wiki.MutantJedi 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this a lesson that somebody somewhere could learn from. Sweetfreek 08:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with as much information as possible about what happens to this guy because of what he did. And he should be banned from editing for life. Let this serve as an example to vandals: This is what kind of damage you can do to someone else, and this (loss of job, loss of privileges, loss of credibility; and you can be tracked down!) is what can happen to you! Jersey_Jim 12:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is an "encyclopedia" article. BCorr|Брайен 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy gave himself up, it was in newspapers... Wikipedia stands only to gain by showing the consequences of vandalizing articles. --Howrealisreal 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting it may be perceived as trying to sweep the matter under the rug. Under no circumstances can we give that impression. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and delist from AFD immediately. You'll have to excuse my sweetheart, she's a terrible, terrible judge of character. —RaD Man (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
users 8138th edit.
  • Keep: --ST ○ 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though Brian Chase made a joke out of Wikipedia's expense, he has certainly passed the notability test(though more in terms of notority). In addition, since many news articles talk about the incidient, it is verifiable. Thus, no matter what our opinion is of him, the article should be kept. --Hurricane111 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. With this incident cause for some people to call for the boycotting of Wikipedia, and as widely covered in the news as it was, I believe that this article is certainly noteworthy. However, consider renaming. Not only is the qualifier "(Wikipedia hoaxer)" bulky and unwieldy, it also states in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably... 3. are not insulting..." --Mark Yen 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Participant in a notable incident. --DrTorstenHenning 10:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is critical that this information be kept, especially now while so many people are looking for information about this issue. This is important accountability on the part of Wikipedia and demonstrates critical fairness that Wikipedia is able to not only post information about others, but willing to discuss/address the shortcomings of its platform and user base. Removing this post will only further undermine Wikipedia's credibility and I urge you to not do it. In a compendium of tens or hundreds of thousands of topics, leaving this one additional page surely won't hurt anything and can only help. --Fhoenix Fan 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. 199.46.198.237 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. Perhaps, bring it up for AFD at a later time when the controversy has cooled off. ---Aude 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps merge later when things die down.--Aleron235 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of the wrongness of what he did his actions have had a huge impact, making wikipedia high profile for the 1st time ever, and thus he is entirely nottable enough to be here, SqueakBox 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Unsigned and anonymous votes (a small selection of the total)
  • Keep A vote for keeping it. :)
  • Keep Keep it, it shows honesty and the ability to learn for wikipedia. TimmBauten 12.12.2005, 18:50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.98.242 (talk • contribs) 17:48, December 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep it for the people who'll read wikipedia in 500 years!
  • KEEP Keep it, as a warning for all in the future, that even a hoax can be damageable and disrespectfull. This also shows the flaws of Wikipedia and should be remembered as one of the firsts (if so.) Monday, 12.12.2005 17:32
  • Keep Keep this article as a self-corrective to Wikipedia and warning to future hoaxers. Wikipedia cannot claim to be a reliable source of information unless it opens itself up to self-scrutiny. Kemet 12 Dec 2005
  • Keep. It is significant enough to reference in John Seigenthaler's biography. Should that reference be deleted as well?
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark as a hoax, or preferably put into a hoax Wiki entry. This has become a part of Wikipedia History and needs to be preserved in a way that acknowledges that fact.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I went here to look up info on the guy as soon as I saw the report. This has historical context for the wiki project.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He messed with Wikipedia, he deserves his infamy. "Revenge is a dish best served cold".
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's interesting to read.
    Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


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/Brian_Chase_(Wikipedia_hoaxer)&oldid=1089568123"