Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Comisar (2nd nomination)

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. Like I have said in some recent AFDs, I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a BLP subject's wishes be taken into account in a close AFD on a marginally notable person. However, after reviewing the article's talk page it seem to me that the subject does not want the article deleted, he wants to control it. Also, this is not a close AFD as the only editor advocating deletion is DanielRigal and it's based on the the subject's objection to the content of the article (not its existence). Everybody else says he's notable and not for just one event and nobody's buying the nominator's WP:NOTNEWS argument. This is a clear keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Comisar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article falls into the category of WP:BLP1E. Per guidelines, "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." The subject's claim to fame is being convicted of fraud and extortion. The subject's movie roles do not amount to much and the subject lacks WP:NOTABILITY of Barry Minkow or Frank Abagnale. The article is looks to be more of a vanity piece that lacks WP:NOTABILITY than an article. reddogsix (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom plus this: It is clear that the subject objects strongly to how the article is written and that he has an taken obsessive interest in it (see the talk page). There is a precedent for deleting articles for persons of borderline notability who object to them. Even if he were felt to be of borderline notability, I would still support deletion. I think it is great that the prison allows its inmates access Wikipedia, presumably as an educational tool, but clearly the subject is obsessively interested in using it for managing his own reputation. This seems unhealthy and we should not be a part of it. Finally, it is clear that this article is causing more trouble than it is worth for the people trying to keep it on track as a neutral, well sourced biography. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was recently trough a AfD nomination which was withdrawn after assertion of notability, so I dont see the reason to why anyone would put it up again so soon. Like it or not this person has reached the notability needed for inclusion in the wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rather than jumping to conclusions and implying there is a personal judgement associated with the AfD, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of WP:BLP1E, reread DanielRigal comments above, and look at the article talk page. reddogsix (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a case of BLP1E because Steve Comisar has a long history of repeated involvement in destructive and criminal con games. The article ought not be a "vanity piece" and I urge other editors to place it on their watch lists as I have done. There is only one person who would benefit from deletion of a neutral, referenced article about the notable Steve Comisar, and that is the convicted con man himself. When he is released from prison and perhaps seeks to begin a new con game, the lack of a neutral Wikipedia article about him will be a boon to any possible criminal activities in the future. I hope that he will abandon criminal activity but consider the risk that he will continue to be high, considering his long record of lying and recidivism. I urge anyone arguing in favor of deleting this article to read the references provided, and ponder how useful it would be to Comisar to have this article long gone once he is released. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure the "long history of repeated involvement in destructive and criminal con games" is a reason to ignore BLP1E - none of the convictions (or con games) appear to be notable/significant events. It seems as if this article is based on his conviction - a single event. Regardless of the resolution of the AfD, I agree it should be watched to ensure the addition valid and supported text. With that said, I do not believe whether or not he benefits from this article or its deletion should be a criteria for a "keep" or "delete" !Vote. reddogsix (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The overall career is notable enough and well documented enough to meet the BLP requirements. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't understand the WP:BLP1E argument here. When I search the Google News archive under his full name "Steven Robert Comisar", I see many articles about him and his con games in reliable sources over an 18 year period, starting with a horse racing scam in 1990. If you want to know how extensive and pathological his con games have been, just read The Creep With The Golden Tongue from GQ magazine, in August, 2003. How can any editor review this material and conclude that Steve Comisar is not notable? The sources show quite clearly that he is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered my points above? There are other arguments apart from notability. The key one being that this is an article that the subject himself objects to strongly and the talk page has degenerated into vague legal threats. Obviously we wouldn't delete an article about a major figure just because they objected to it but he is not a major figure. There is prescient for deleting articles about people minimally in the public eye when they object. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just noticed something I should have noticed before: Apart from one redirect from an incorrect capitalisation of his name, the article is a complete orphan as far as the article space is concerned. Even if we keep it nobody is likely to see it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject's annoying habits are irrelevant: he has achieved sufficient levels of notability, not least for the bizarre story arc of his career as a "reformed" conman who eventually proved not to have reformed, etc. National press coverage trumps trivial concerns and whining by Comisar. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 23 July 2011 (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.