Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Basabe

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 was keep, even after discounting the views of IPs and new users. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subject doesn't appear to be encyclopedia material. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomTheRingess 01:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice how the people whining about deletion can't come up with one shred of evidence that contradicts the article? unsigned comment by anon user:4.155.132.57

• It'd spare time if we just assumed that every article was non-notable by default until proven otherwise. --Agamemnon2 05:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I'm only barely leaning towards keeping it - a google search turns up a fair number of hits, but most of it links to gossip and rumour. Perhaps a rewrite is needed? Barneyboo (Talk) 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Everything I posted to this article is true and verifiable-based on reports in the New York Post and New York Observer newspapers. I would ask that the article be preserved. Thesaunterer 01:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not everything that is verifiable is notable. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-Would add that some of the information about American Express and Basabe Sr.'s failed businesses appeared in a Ny Post article by Tom Sykes. Another NY Post article is as follows: "...Public records reveal that his father, Fabian Basabe Sr., an Ecuadorian émigré who was thought to be a telecom entrepreneur, has a strong aversion to paying his bills in a timely fashion.

American Express, for example, obtained a judgment against Basabe Sr. in August 2001 for $27,233, but only acknowledged "full payment and satisfaction thereof" this spring. ...

Although records show that Basabe Sr. ultimately paid most of his creditors — he settled with Harbor Bay in 2004, for example — there are always new bills. Last Aug. 25, the Internal Revenue Service filed a Federal tax lien demanding $19,496." NomenNescio 02:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Users has only made one talk page cooment and vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself, psycho. I have contributed to numerous articles, but registred only recently. NomenNescio 17:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is not the place for being less than civil with the personal attacks, regardless of your editorial track record. Please keep that in mind. B.Wind 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and RE-friggin-WRITE. Article is all unsourced gossip and borderline libel, but the subject does, sadly, appear to be notable enough. Flyboy Will 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article was not "unsourced". Regarding the accuracy of those accounts in the New York papers, I refer to Wikipedia's statement on verifiability

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false."

Bekah80 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Users only contribution is vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Maybe change wording slightly, but information is factual/verifiable. Rus mac 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users only contribution is vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as attack page. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of it's truthfulness the inflammatory tone does make it sound like a baseless attack, if not deleted it should be re-written. Drn8 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Interesting how this user ^ can call this article an attack page without offering anything to counter the article's content. Let's hear more reasoned voices from unbiased users. Article should stay as is. PopeofRome 14:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users only contribution is vote in this afd --pgk^(talk) 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with cleanup to remove the emphasis on rumour, gossip, and general things any normal person would cringe at to read in an encyclopaedia. I think he's notable enough, and I think the information is verifyable so while it is not NPOV, it isn't quite an attack page either. --Qirex 04:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the goal of an encyclopedic entry to flatter the vanity of the subject. Since the info is verifiable and the subject is notable, it makes no difference whether he would "cringe" to read it, or not. –previous unsigned comment by NorthShoreNancy (talk, contributions)

No, you're misinterpreting my statement. I never said that the subject of the article would cringe at it; I couldn't care less. I said any reader of an encyclopaedia would cringe. And not at the facts, but at the obviously angry and biased tone. There is nothing wrong with any of the factual information, and that is why I cast a keep with cleanup vote. But, for example, the entire first paragraph reads like a gossip column written by an old enemy. Opening a sentence with "One of the other lies this individual has told..." is NOT acceptable under WP:NPOV guidelines as it carries all kinds of unnecessary connotations. To write, instead, "Basabe has also claimed to be [...] although this is false." is better. PS. please remember to sign comments by typing ~~~~ --Qirex 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I didn't write that in the first place, but I will change the article to reflect Wiki's standards. NorthShoreNancy 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as he isn't notable. Bjelleklang - talk 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable. Add sources. -- JJay 05:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep extremely minor notability...hardly a male Paris Hilton as alledged in article.--MONGO 09:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the news articles make him borderline notable. If this was from the New York Post and New York Observer, then please add the references. Most of us Wikipedians can't read minds as to were material came from. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - note User:203.162.27.201 removed TheRingess vote, now restored --pgk^(talk) 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the above post: I would think Mr. Basabe's appearance on a Reality TV show makes him somewhat of a public figure and therefore a candidate for inclusion. I would be happy to add additional sources if article is allowed to remain and apologize for any confusion.Thesaunterer 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I know who this guy is, and I haven't even seen the show. We have plenty of reality show contestants with articles here, and Fabian is a well-known "villain." --MisterHand 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Defitite Keep. The info about the arrest warrants comes from a March 2, 2004 article in the Chicago Tribune about presidential kids. Basabe made himself a public figure as a television star, and his numerous media spots (Oprah show, etc). NorthShoreNancy 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(NorthShoreNancy's contributions started with this afd discussion)

User:Qirex did not sign this comment. Lack of integrity?NorthShoreNancy 03:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well known person. Rewrite would be good though.--Bkwillwm 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the subject is verifiable and can be sourced. Dan100 (Talk) 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think the page is now written in a much less POV manner. - Matthew238 02:36, 26 December 2005 (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.