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

Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

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

• Keep. He messed with Wikipedia, he deserves his infamy. "Revenge is a dish best served cold".
• Keep. It's interesting to read.
• Delete/Merge See above -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly merge as suggested below. No candy for vandals. PJM 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Siegenthaler has said he wanted accountability, and this is evidence that Wikipedia has a certain level of transparency and accountability. Further, this story made national news and will be a notable event in the history of this project. Since this guy got "rewarded" with losing his job and apologizing in person to Siegenthaler innhopes of avoiding litigation, I don't believe this is going to encourage others. Jokestress 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His actions and his confession are newsworthy events, and likely to be of interest for some time. Chris the speller 16:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - He is a notable player in an event that we have already decided to keep. --RayaruB 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per my comments in Talk:John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Brian_Chase. I think that a disambig link to the controversy can be made in the Brian Chase article. And to counter the transparency issues etc. It is transparent, theres a whole article about the controversy! - Hahnchen 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure being outed and having other people write about you in a public forum is a "reward" for internet trolls like this. If anything, this is punishment. As the article mentions, this was covered in national media and is not just a big deal in the wiki community, so I think it's important enough to keep it. Besides, it smacks of fair comment. Guppy313 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does no one else think that his details belong to the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy article? It's not like this guy is Nick Leeson or anything. - Hahnchen 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of us have a higher opinion of Wikipedia than others do. A search on Google news comes up with a grand total of 20 hits for '"Brian Chase" wikipedia'. The "national media" seem to be greeting this with total silence. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge modified (which I'll do if no-one else will) into Wikipedia#History. Ideally retitle. If Wikipedia is valuable, which we presumably think it is, then deliberate sabotage of it (which this action amounts to) is notable and should be documented - if only to discourage other malicious little vandals from pulling similar stunts. Simon Brooke 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Peripatetic 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His name can be mentioned in the controversy article. Besides that, he's totally non-notable. Jacoplane 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The story has been covered by national media, and the wikipedia webpage is linked to by many websites. Somehow this has become encyclopedic material.preceding unsigned vote by User:202.156.6.54, a shared IP
• Merge - either with Wikipedia#History or John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Perhaps put up a redirect to the merged acticle. CharonX 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. --Damian Yerrick 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge - he is well known b/c of what he did --209.222.54.242
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. Nico 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; he's been mentioned in major media now, so he's notable, and also an article on him is useful to help keep him from being confused with the musician of the same name who's already got an article. *Dan T.* 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. No need to reward this nitwit with his own page, or to prolong the myth that this somehow hurts Wikipedia's credibility. | Klaw Talk 16:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and declare person a Dick and the enemy of wikipedia for waisting our, John Seigenthaler Sr, CNNs time. Also declare him a Terrorist or something. Just find an excuse to make his life miserable. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergeper CharonX. Not notable enough for an article of his own. (Haven't seen this many edit conflicts since the new pope.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. --Hugus 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've read the deletion policy, and it doesn't fit into any of the categories. Not an acceptable candidate for deletion. Baltikatroika 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above vote. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples." and "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" specifically -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can the guy who caused the whole thing be considered a minor branch of the subject? Soo 17:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have a pretty comprehensive article on the topic already and this is at the most a subsection of that. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 17:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• User's fifth edit.

• Delete immediately. He is not notable. Just because he hoaxed Wikipedia does not make him notable. If we make an article about him, we have to make an article about every person who gets banned from Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The national media begs to differ with you. Keep for that reason, although I could tolerate merge and redirection. Pcb21 Pete 17:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. It's news, and linked by Slashdot so rather than break the internet and create a lot of 404 traffic we should have something there. When Wikipedia makes headlines, it's notable. The Brian Chase is not notable, but the story is.
• Keep or Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect. —BenFrantzDale 17:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seigenthalergate. Seigenthaler[gate] is notable, this guy isn't. --Fermatprime 17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Concealing information to prevent people imitating it? That's definitely the Wikipedia way! Soo 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seigenthalergate. I think this needs to be here, but not on its own page. --cpritchett42 17:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. It is important, but the information is slim right now and it probably doesn't (yet) warrent its own article. Dark Nexus
• Merge into Seigenthalergate and redirect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. This a part of Wikipedia history, although it does require editing this person has become rather famous. User:Taylortbb
• Merge to Seigenthalergate and redirect there. The guy isn't really that notable but his actions should be recorded. RicDod 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not about rewarding the guy. 1. It's about having a complete objective chronicle of something affects the Wikipedia. 2. The degree of notariety pretty much requires it. 3. If the whole deal wasn't about the Wikipedia, probably no one would have a problem with inclusion. Marcopolo 17:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We're keeping the Seigenthalergate page, why not this? -- 66.159.216.215 17:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge Not notable enough to justify an article 203.109.252.196 17:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't ignore news just because it happens to us. --BRIAN0918 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't merge. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is enough of a contributor to the Seigenthaler issue that there is no sense deleting the article but keeping the rest of the Seigenthaler silliness. Neilc 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. If the Seigenthalergate is notable enough to keep, then this information is at least notable enough to be included on that page. Zacronos 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• First edit.

• Delete this and Brian Chase (Wikipedia prankster). He has less than zero notability and anything here can be covered in John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy quite easily. Gamaliel 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it is newsworthy, then it should stay in Wikipedia. (Bjorn Tipling 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. This man is not notable for any other reason. --Explodicle 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Later on, merging or not merging should be condidered. WAS 4.250 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- JJay 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- SeanO 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- This is just an event of history, therefore it should be saved from deletion. Cosmotron 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 15th edit, only one to an article.

• Keep. -- Perhaps this may be one day noted as the beginning of the end of a truly useful Wikipedia, when out of fear of hoaxing, user anonymity is sacrificed instead of finding a better solution to problems like this. It's the onus of the Wikipedia system to ensure the information is "maintained" as correct as possible, and the solution should not be to expose users (even abusers) like Chase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.27.39 (talk)
  • Ahh, the true sign of a Slashdot user: indentify the "incorrect solution" without making any effort to suggest an alternate solution. --BRIAN0918 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ridiculous. there are hoaxes every day. what makes this guy more noteworthy than any other wikipedia troll? is anyone going to care about him in a year? i thought not. this is an encylopedia, not a blog. Derex 19:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Oh? And how would that look to the mainstream if Wikipedia shoves this issue under the rug. Removing it would look like we are denying this event ever happened, out of embarassment. This information must be available; it's just a matter of where. See below for my suggestion to merge. --CoderGnome 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't think other Wikipedia trolls have had New York Times articles about them. *Dan T.* 19:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now to see where this story goes, but if this article isn't expandable beyond the hoax info, Merge. —Locke Cole 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- Utterly no information that cannot be kept Seigenthalergate don't reward vandals more than necessary. And by the way, Chase was exposed by an antiwiki critic, not us... Jarwulf 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -- Part of a fairly notable hoax. Like it or not, he has a lot of notoriety. Cacophony 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this hoax became significant when national newspapers started reporting on it and the guy lost his job over it. Bryan 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. In the interest of accountability and transparency, this information must be available, but this guy isn't noteworthy outside the context of the Seigenthaler controversy. --CoderGnome 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. He's an important part of that issue, but is otherwise totally nn. Canderson7 ^(talk) 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this hoax is national news, and involves the wiki. --brokenfrog
• Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy --tersevs
• Keep One of the complaints was lack of accountability, This shows that W is able to admit its errors and not hide it. Naelphin 20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. The guy is inextricably tied to the Seigenthaler affair and not notable outside that context. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if telling this story creates copy-cats, it is still a valid topic for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. The guy is not notable outside of Siegenthaler. Scott Ritchie 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per comments above --csloat 20:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Seigenthalergate. Yes, this person is notable, but not outside of the context of the Seigenthaler article. I think it'd be more convenient and make more sense for information about him to be in the article on main issue. Mo0[talk] 20:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a notable part of Wikipedia history. --Groucho 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into general affair article. It is entirely possible for the person who causes a notable thing not to be notable him/herself, and this seems to be the case. JoaoRicardo 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a part of Wikipedia history, like it or not. Should be linked from other pages abou this whole situation. --Ahbanks 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
• Merge and redirect. Not notable except for this incident. It is the event that is notable, not him. --mav 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into bio controversy article. Not notable enough to merit seperate article. Ttownfeen 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Not notable outside this incident. If he becomes more famous later on, then he can get his own article. —Psychonaut 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Seigenthaler article should not become a place for discussion of this issue, but should mention it. Also, the fact that this person lost their job as a result of this should be kept around as a warning to others. --Jon Thompson 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.220.214 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge This is an important fact / story in the history of wikipedia, and will be around in the internet consciousness forever, so it should be documented, though this incident could be described in an article about vandalism / hoaxes on wikipedia in general. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.245.212.72 (talk • contribs) 21:16, December 11, 2005
• Keep or Merge --156.34.70.132 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and redirect there. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and don't merge. This vote took some time and thought.

1. The story attracted significant attention from prestigious news sources.

2. People can become notable for a single destructive act.

3. He lost his job over the incident. That hardly encourages imitation.

4. If Wikipedia were not involved in the story I suspect we would vote to keep.

5. Since Wikipedia is involved in the story we have particular reason to keep. Visitors could construe a deletion, merge, or redirect as a less than forthcoming response. Durova 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect -- The Anome 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 216.164.193.81 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the controversy article. Alensha 21:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the controversy article. This is important part of Wikipedia history. Saigon from europe 21:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, per Canderson7. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, as stated above. Omphaloscope » talk 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The guy is not otherwise notable. There won't be enough material for a full biography. (Unless John Seigenthaler Sr. gets to write it.... just kidding... ) -- PFHLai 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Look at the big picture - in 2 days this will be gone from media attention. This is neither notable for Wikipedia as there have been numerous hoaxes that have gone on here, nor for Seigenthaler who has a lifetime of more notable experiences than this one. Were it not for his op-ed article for USA Today, this would not have been news, like if he had just edited out the hoax himself. 68.145.127.91 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Buns[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't think that pages describing edits should be allowed. Articles get reverted and edited all the time, just because this one got more press there needs to be an entire page about this guy? Sure there can be a snippet in the vandalized article that refutes the false claims, but there does not need to be an entire page that dwells on this edit alone. Leave the guy alone, there is no reason to ruin this person over an edit. Get over it people, you have a encyclopedia that anyone can edit, what did you expect? --Rain 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopedia, and these hoaxes happen all the time. This is not at all noteworthy. Let's delete this and work on more important articles. --GilHamilton 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the controversy article. Gazpacho 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as mentioned above. Gflores ^Talk 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No vandal should gain notability for his actions on wikipedia. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. No notability outside this incident. Capitalistroadster 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. This incident was notable, and should be preserved. Plus, it shows that Wikipedia can admit to its failings, instead of hiding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.230.36 (talk)
• Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy Kwertii 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.I thought it was funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.8.146 (talk)
• Keep. People will wonder whatever happened to the guy who was instrumental to the editorial by Siegenthaler in USA today. It does have encyclopaedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.85.241 (talk)
• Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and Redirect. This article is not about the person "Brian Chase", but about one aspect of the Seigenthaler affair. Therefore the information should be added to the affair's article. The person Brian Chase is not notable and doesn't deserve an article. AxelBoldt 23:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and Redirect. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a quick reference. Merging with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy would mean having to go through a long article. <KF> 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its against NPOV to not list something simply becaused they did a bad thing. Also I find this notable as it triggered the anon can't create new pages anymore thing. (wouldn't mind to much if it were merge, but prefer keep) Bawolff 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The other article can easily support another section. Neither this or the other article is too long that merging would make it unwieldy. MeekSaffron 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this information. Whether it should exist under this title or the controversy article is an organizational issue best left to the editing process, so merging is fine. Demi ^T/_C 00:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Agree with many others above, especially MeekSaffron. Should not "keep", as this is another case of the event being much bigger than a participant. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, don't give this loser free ad space, or others will start to emulate him then come forward to say, "Hey, I was the one who vandalized place article title here. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge the information into Seigenthalergate (Seigenthalergate could be a useful short name for this scandal). Try to make an example out of the vandal and what happened to him so that they'll be discouraged from fucking up Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think that name works. (Bjorn Tipling 00:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge into Seigenthalergate I agree with Rickyrab, it would make an example out of him. AgentFade2Black 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's ninth edit.

• Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It provides more detailed factual information but is largely redundant and doesn't deserve a separate article. Improve the Siegenthaler article instead.
• 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]

• Keep And it doesn't hurt that it pisses the guy off, he's an asshole.

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]

DELETE. The man tries to hold himself up as somoene who stepped forward when he learned of the damage he caused, but the truth is, he was traced by his IP address. DELETE.

• Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. It's the controversy, not the individual, that's notable. --Zippy 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. This article belongs with the biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.90.243 (talk)

• KeeporMerge'--User:Smerk
• 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]

• Merge seems best. --Davril2020 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and redirect. Rogue 9 02:37, 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) 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. This guy hasn't done anything remarkable beyond perpetrating the Seigenthaler hoax, which in my irrelevant opinion is completely blown out of proportion. Pilatus 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cribcage 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This story has generated more press than most of what passes AfD on Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Avoid self references. Rhollenton 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content & Delete. Having this article only encourages exactly the sort of behavior we don't want. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Although this individual vandalized Wikipedia, he shouldn't be singled out and should instead be merged into the page on the controversy, as everything here pertains only to the controversy. --Jackson 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per above. --Dana 03:33, 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]
• Keep or Merge' with some of the mentioned articles --Chester br 04:35, 12 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]

• Merge After reading many opinions listed above I have actually changed from the opinion I came here with (keep) to merge. Kudos to everyone for putting forth good arguments. akds

• 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 the notoriety in the same way. edgarde 05:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. tregoweth 05:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge His life is only notable in the context of this particular event, thus it should be merged with the article about the event. Kaldari 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge he's just not notable enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 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]

• Merge This guy is not important enough to have his own article. Just because he was responsible for the mess does not merit a seperate page for himself. Please merge it into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Natalinasmpf, I'm sorry, but we are not here to punish people for their mistakes... we are maintaining an encyclopedia, not a newspaper... Jam2k 06:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - If every two-bit Wikipedia vandal got an article written about them, we'd have a whole lot of articles... - Mark 07:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's the first big hoax for Wikipedia, and one of the 'turning points' for the Internet.

• Delete and no merge and I am very stongly about that. This story was interesting, but it has gone to far. Let it die. Do we really want this in a published book of Wikipedia if it ever happens? --^BuGs^ 08:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 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

• 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]
• Merge. His life is not that interesting aside from this singular act. I vote to merge it with the John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. jasker
• Merge into Seigenthalergate, or, failing that, delete.--Sean|Black

• Merge into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Punishing the vandal's reputation should not be a factor here, we should follow the same criteria as for any other article. It is pretty clear that this bio is non-notable apart from the controversy. Dforest 08:28, 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]
• Merge: cost of peace of mind for John Seigenthaler: one man's job. Damage done to free speech by free speech advocate: incalculable. Putting the whole hazerai in one place, and granting Brian Chase the mercy of relative anonymity: priceless. - Nunh-huh 08:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]