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

<noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}</noinclude>
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
<!--
Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

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. &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<span style="color:#FA8605;">'''ALKIVAR'''</span>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]][[File:Radioactivity symbol.png|18px|]] 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

<!-- Please place new comments at the bottom of this page -->
===[[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. {{User:SusanLarson/sig}} 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

'''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 (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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. [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion|Read this]] for more information. Thank you.

====Delete====
*'''Delete''' This isn't important. Nobody cares. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 00:27, 15 Dec, 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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! - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnchen]] 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. His name can be mentioned in the controversy article. Besides that, he's totally non-notable. [[User:Jacoplane|Jacoplane]] 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]]  [[User_talk:Zordrac|(talk)]] <small>[[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]]  [[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinian]] [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]]</small> 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
**The national media begs to differ with you. '''Keep''' for that reason, although I could tolerate merge and redirection. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 17:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
***Which "national media"? The English? The Australian? The Canadian? Please, don't think that because USA papers are giving attention to this, it suddenly became a world topic. [[User:JoaoRicardo|JoaoRicardo]] <sup>[[User talk:JoaoRicardo|talk]] </sup> 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 19:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
**'''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. --[[User:CoderGnome|CoderGnome]] 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' -- I don't think other Wikipedia trolls have had ''[[New York Times]]'' articles about them. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 19:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*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.
*'''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]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:68.145.127.91|68.145.127.91]] 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Buns
*'''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? --[[User:Bryan986|Rain]] 22:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:GilHamilton|GilHamilton]] 22:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' No vandal should gain notability for his actions on wikipedia.  -- [[User:Malo|malo]] <small>[[User_talk:Malo|(tlk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Malo|(cntrbtns)]]</small> 23:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
* Merge content & '''Delete'''. Having this article only encourages exactly the sort of behavior we don't want. —[[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] <span class="usertalk">([[User talk:Cassowary|<span title="Ae hI: ja" class="IPA">ɑe hɪː jɐ</span>]])</span> 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This is not an article that belongs in an Encyclopedia. Just because he made a fool of Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should in effect try to make a fool of him, by having an article on him. Gosh! 12 Dec 2005 14:46 GMT
*'''Delete.''' [[User:Cribcage|Cribcage]] 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Avoid self references. [[User:Rhollenton|Rhollenton]] 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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? --[[User:Bugs5382|^BuGs^]] 08:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' Then I suppose we don't need the [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|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. [[User:Jam2k|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''' gives me no information at all. (plus no candy for vandals) [[User:Muzzle|Muzzle]] 09:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' If we were to keep this article, we might as well keep an article on every person mentioned in the news, regardless of how important or unimportant they are.  This gentleman, before this incident, was non-notable and will be non-notable after the incident has faded from our memories.  There is absolutely no need for an article, no matter how brief it is, to be written about him. --[[User:Martin Osterman|Vortex]] 16:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Wikipedia anonymity is one of its greatest assets, this article publicizes an editors mistake and ridicules him. It also may fall under [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]] --[[User:Prodego|<span style="color:darkgreen;">''Prodego''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]]</sup> 17:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
** How does the article begin to approach [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]]? [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
***"Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks", the placement in an article makes this a very notable comment. [[User:Prodego|<span style="color:darkgreen;">''Prodego''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<span style="color:darkgreen;">talk</span>]]</sup> 18:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
**** As far as I know, everything within this article is well sourced and verifiable, not accusatory.  The vandal has personally come forward and apologised for his actions.  Please come forward if you are aware of something within this article which qualifies as a personal attack.  [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as it does not contain anything that's not already in the controversy article. I don't think we need a second article to mirror aspects of the main article. --[[User:Bringa|Bringa]] 18:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or at least Merge.  He won't be remembered in 3 weeks, much less in 3 years. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Absolutely non-notable and forgotten by everyone in several months. Wikipedia is encyclopedia of important things. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' non-notable. --[[User:Elian|Elian]] <sup>[[:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Elian|Talk]]</sup> 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
* '''VERY STRONG DELETE''' - committing an act of libel or slander does not make one notable, even if it is against a person of note. Some of the arguments for keep here are apalling. Keeping it because he deserves further soiling of his reputation? That's just as wrong a use of wikipedia as what Chase did is. [[User:Pacian|Pacian]] 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Tell me, how is he any more notable than the thousands of other IP vandals? We don't have mainspace articles on [[User:Michael]] or [[User:Willy on Wheels]] or [that random IP across the street] now, do we? &ndash; [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', doesn't meet [[WP:BIO]] in my opinion. Unless you buy into the tabloid press of course.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' --as many have said it is important not to reward a "hoaxer" so that such activity is not encrouaged. There has already been enough attention to the matter to encourage further vandalism. Why encourage more? [[User:129.15.203.74|129.15.203.74]] 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', why should we be giving people who harm the Wikipedia community the credit they are seeking?  To allow such action would be inviting other vandals in to get their 15 min of fame!. [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*:Agreed. '''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#708090">?</span>]]'''[[User:Encyclopedist|<span style="color:#708090">?????????????</span>]]''[[Wikipedia|<span style="color:#708090">*</span>]]''[[User_talk:Encyclopedist|<span style="color:#708090;">  (talk)</span>]] 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. It is an article about a vandal and we don't need to give them encouragement to corrupt other articles for their personal 1 minute of fame.--[[User:DakotaKahn|'''<span style="color:#6698FF">''Dak''</span><span style="color:#FBB117">''ota''</span>''']] [[User talk:DakotaKahn|'''<span style="color:#6698FF"><sup>t</sup></span>''']] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''<span style="color:#66CC00"><sup>e</sup></span>''']] 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  The guy is an irrelevant jerk and only the story, which is plentifully documented in other Wikipedia articles, is notable (and that only because the victim happened to have front page access to the MSM). [[User:62.96.220.142|62.96.220.142]] 08:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. All the good-faith contributors on Wikipedia who work to make it ''better'' are more notable than a vandal. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete (merge, no redirect)''' a notable vandal, notable only locally inwikipedia. Merge the content into the main article. [[user:mikkalai|mikka]] [[user talk:mikkalai|(t)]] 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Willy on Wheels and friends don't get articles and they have caused more trouble than he has. [[User:Quaque|'''<span style="color:green;">Qua</span>''']][[User_talk:Quaque|<span style="color:#191970;">'''Que?'''</span>]] 15:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' before this ends up like the [[GNAA]] votes. [[User:Swirlix|Swirlix]] 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. I can't believe all the keep votes. This is a WikiNews item masquerading as an encyclopedia article. It looks like this is going to be kept, but a year from now, if there is another AFD, he'll have been well past his [[15 minutes of fame]] and it will be a slam-dunk consensus to delete. [[User:BlankVerse|<sup><span style="color:green;">''Blank''</span></sup>]][[User talk:BlankVerse|<sup><span style="color:#F88017;">''Verse''</span></sup>]] 14:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I think the article is inappropriate and I agree with the original poster.[[User:BenPhil|BenPhil]] 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' we already have an article for this [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 01:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  His only notability is as a Wikipedia editor, and Wikipedia editors should not have articles on their Wikipedia edits.  [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' no need for a separate article. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 07:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' NN - agree with most of the above --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] 17:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

==== Delete or merge ====
*<s>'''Delete''' or '''Merge''' Not notable enough to justify an article [[User:203.109.252.196|203.109.252.196]] 17:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</s>
*:anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —{{User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig}} 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''/'''Merge''' See above {{User:SusanLarson/sig}} 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and possibly '''merge''' as suggested below. No candy for vandals (even if it's sour candy). [[User:PJM|PJM]] 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
** Would a delete and merge be a violation of [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]]?  [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me]] 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 
***Yes, if actual text is merged, no, if information is just retold. [[User:Zocky|Zocky]] 02:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into Seigenthalergate, or, failing that, '''delete'''.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">ck</span>]]
*'''Merge''' with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. person is only notably in the context of the Seigenthaler affair. otherwise, '''delete''' --[[User:Jiang|Jiang]] 12:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete or merge''' per Jiang; leaning toward delete. I've never seen so many votes! <span class="user-sig user-horsepunchkid">&mdash;[[User:HorsePunchKid|<span style="font-family:monospace;font-variant:small-caps;cursor:crosshair;white-space:nowrap;">HorsePunchKid</span>]]&rarr;[[User talk:HorsePunchKid|<span style="color:#070;cursor:help;" title="Kame-san says: Talk to me!">&#x9F9C;</span>]] <span class="user-sig-date">2005-12-15&nbsp;09:07:18[[ISO 8601|Z]]</span></span>
* '''Delete or merge''' per Jiang. [[User:Amcaja|Amcaja]] 17:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

==== Merge ====
*'''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. [[User:SimonBrooke|Simon Brooke]] 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - either with [[Wikipedia#History]] or [[John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy]]. Perhaps put up a redirect to the merged acticle. [[User:CharonX|CharonX]] 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] and redirect there. --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] and redirect there. [[User:Nicodh|Nico]] 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|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. | [[User:Keithlaw|Klaw]] [[User talk:Keithlaw|Talk]] 16:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''per CharonX. Not notable enough for an article of his own. (Haven't seen this many edit conflicts since the new pope.) --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] and redirect there. --[[User:Hugus|Hugus]] 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|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.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:24.226.63.155|24.226.63.155]] ([[User talk:24.226.63.155#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.226.63.155|contribs]]) 17:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</small>
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]]. Seigenthaler[gate] is notable, this guy isn't. --[[User:Fermatprime|Fermatprime]] 17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]].  I think this needs to be here, but not on its own page. --[[User:Cpritchett42|cpritchett42]] 17:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into Seigenthalergate and redirect. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] and redirect there.  The guy isn't really that notable but his actions should be recorded.  [[User:RicDod|RicDod]] 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. This man is not notable for any other reason. --[[User:Explodicle|Explodicle]] 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect'''. The guy is inextricably tied to the Seigenthaler affair and not notable outside that context. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 20:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] --[[User:tersevs|tersevs]]
*'''Merge''' -- Utterly no information that cannot be kept [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] don't reward vandals more than necessary. And by the way, Chase was exposed by an antiwiki critic, not us... [[User:Jarwulf|Jarwulf]] 19:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:CoderGnome|CoderGnome]] 19:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]].  He's an important part of that issue, but is otherwise totally nn. [[User:Canderson7|Canderson7]] <sup>([[User_talk:Canderson7|talk]])</sup> 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect'''. The guy is not notable outside of Siegenthaler. [[User:Scott Ritchie|Scott Ritchie]] 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' as per comments above --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 20:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|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. [[User:Mo0|Mo0]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User Talk:Mo0|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 20:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:JoaoRicardo|JoaoRicardo]] 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]].  --'''[[User:Cyde|Cyde Weys]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:Cyde|talk]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">[[Special:Contributions/Cyde|contribs]]</span></sup> 20:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and redirect. Not notable except for this incident. It is the event that is notable, not him.  --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into bio controversy article. Not notable enough to merit seperate article. [[User:Ttownfeen|Ttownfeen]] 21:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and redirect.  Not notable outside this incident.  If he becomes more famous later on, then he can get his own article. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 21:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 21:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] and redirect there. &#126;[[User:Mdd4696|<span style="color:#333333;font:normal normal bold small sans-serif;">MDD4696</span>]] <span style="font-size:small;">([[User_talk:Mdd4696|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Mdd4696|contribs]])</span> 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with the controversy article. [[User:Alensha|Alensha]] 21:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with the controversy article. This is important part of Wikipedia history. [[User:Saigon from europe|Saigon from europe]] 21:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and '''Redirect''' per above. --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]](<sup>[[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]</sub>) 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''', per [[User:Canderson7|Canderson7]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|did you read this?]])</sup> 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''', as stated above. [[User:Omphaloscope|Omphaloscope]] &raquo; [[User_talk:Omphaloscope|talk]] 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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... ) -- [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to the controversy article. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', as mentioned above. [[User:Gflores|Gflores]] <sup>[[User Talk:Gflores|Talk]]</sup> 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and Redirect. No notability outside this incident. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 23:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] [[User:Kwertii|Kwertii]] 23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 23:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] and Redirect. [[User:Evil Monkey|Evil Monkey]] - [[User talk:Evil Monkey|Hello]] 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. It's the controversy, not the individual, that's notable. --[[User:Zippy|Zippy]] 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.  --[[User:Chan-Ho Suh|Chan-Ho]][[User talk:Chan-Ho Suh| (Talk)]] 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. The other article can easily support another section. Neither this or the other article is too long that merging would make it unwieldy. [[User:MeekSaffron|MeekSaffron]] 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]]  I agree with [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]], it would make an example out of him. [[User:AgentFade2Black|AgentFade2Black]] 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*: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.
*MERGE.  This article belongs with the biography. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:69.112.90.243|69.112.90.243]] ([[User talk:69.112.90.243#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.112.90.243|contribs]]) </small>
*'''Merge''' seems best. --[[User:Davril2020|Davril2020]] 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. This guy hasn't done anything remarkable beyond perpetrating the [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthaler hoax]], which in my irrelevant opinion is completely blown out of proportion. [[User:Pilatus|Pilatus]] 02:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Jackson|Jackson]] 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' Per above. --[[User:Youremyjuliet|Dana]] 03:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:akds|akds ]]
*'''Merge''' with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. [[User:Tregoweth|tregoweth]] 05:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' His life is only notable in the context of this particular event, thus it should be merged with the article about the event. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' he's just not notable enough. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 05:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and Redirect''' 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... [[User:Jam2k|Jam2k]] 06:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:I've changed my vote to include Redirect.[[User:Jam2k|Jam2k]] 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - If every two-bit Wikipedia vandal got an article written about them, we'd have a whole lot of articles... - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 07:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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]]. [[User:jasker|jasker]]
*'''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.  [[User:Dforest|Dforest]] 08:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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 [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|one place]], and granting Brian Chase the mercy of relative anonymity: priceless. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 08:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] --[[User:Zpb52|Zpb52]] 08:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. &mdash; [[User:JIP|<span style="color:#CC0000;">J</span><span style="color:#00CC00;">I</span><span style="color:#0000CC;">P</span>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 09:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge & redirect''' --<small>[[User:Pamri|Pamri]] &bull; [[User_talk:Pamri|Talk]]</small> 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. &mdash; [[User:ciphergoth|ciphergoth]] 09:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' and '''Merge''' into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. -- [[User:SGBailey|SGBailey]] 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)(UTC)
*'''Merge''' as per [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and '''redirect''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] - deserves coverage in the main article but no, IMO, his own article. [[User:CLW|CLW]] 14:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. I've never seen so many people vote on one issue. I'd hate to be the one counting the votes! [[User:Davidpdx|Davidpdx]] 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]].  [[User:Larsinio|Larsinio]] 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
* '''Merge and redirect''' per CharonX.  I feel it would set a dangerous precedent if this article were left in the main article space, as it is both self-referential and a positive reward for hoaxing. [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid">&nbsp;Guy,</span> you know?]] <sup>[[User_talk:Just zis Guy, you know?|[T]]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Just zis Guy, you know?|[C]]]</sub> ''[[User:Just zis Guy, you know?/AfD|AfD?]]'' 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*Merge and redirect to the article on the controversy. This article is basically the last part of that one. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect'''; cut down on the self-referencing.  [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''', and agree with feeling sorry for him. [[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 17:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (From talk: Due to the size of the page, I cannot now edit it to add my vote... Could somebody please add this on my behalf. So signed by [[User:SusanLarson]] on his behalf.)
*'''Merge and redirect''' to the contraversy article, not notable outside event.[[User:D-Rock|D-Rock]] 17:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
* '''Merge''', move the drummer back, and add a disambiguation notice for [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]].  [[User:Austin Hair|Austin Hair]] [[User talk:Austin Hair|?]] [[Special:emailuser/Austin Hair|?]] 20:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. A Minor player in a second rate event (Think about the event as if it had happened 5 years ago) 5 years from now noone will care. The event is part of history, so keep the event. But not the 3rd dwarf from the right. [[User:213.235.192.21|213.235.192.21]] 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with [[John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy]] with the usual redirect. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] 00:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''shorten to one sentence and merge'''. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about this guy which would warrant more than mentioning him in the parent article. [[User:Zocky|Zocky]] 05:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect'''.  By itself not notable.  Just more Wikipedia clutter. -[[User:Wiccan Quagga|Wiccan Quagga]] 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' the most useful chunks of information with the Seigenthaler Controversy or put them wherever you see fit and then redirect. Apart from Mr Chase's involvement in this particular case, he's just your average Joe, so I see no point in dedicating him an entire article, and a boring one at that. --[[User:Schwallex|Schwallex]] 20:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' -- Subject of article is seemingly non-notable outside of Siegenthaler issue. Partial players in larger events do not presumptively merit their own individual article. If Mr. Chase continues to act in the public eye this may change, but for the moment he fits squarely into the Siegenthaler controversy article. It would be repetitive to multicast his involvement into a second article. Redirection may be appropriate.  -- [[User:Adrian Lamo|Adrian]] 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' -[[User:G Clark|G Clark]] 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' we should not make a [[scapegoat]] out of this guy, after all he admitted to his "deeds".  [[User:Mieciu K|Mieciu K]] 23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to Wikipedia Biography contreversy, there is no point of having some computer vandal article on Wikipedia.  Firstly, having an article for a Wikipedia vandal will probably incite more vandals to follow his antics.  Also, aside from sparking of his little prank, he is pretty much unnotable (and considering the amount of Wikipedia vandals, he is not so relevant considering other actions such as date changing and spurious biographies are NOT foreign to Wikipedia). However, considering the long reaching effect of this dude, one needs to merge it with the already crazy Wikipedia controversy article.  No need to keep this guy around and give him an article likes he's a trophy.  '''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#708090">?</span>]]'''[[User:Encyclopedist|<span style="color:#708090">?????????????</span>]]''[[Wikipedia|<span style="color:#708090">*</span>]]''[[User_talk:Encyclopedist|<span style="color:#708090;">  (talk)</span>]] 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to main controversy page. He has no useful importance outside of the controversy. This kind of thing was bound to happen sooner or later due to the public's and media's misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of Wikipedia and he just happened to be the first one that garnered media attention. [[User:Nightwalker|Nightwalker]] 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into Seigenthalergate and redirect. [[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Jasmol]] 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' into the other article (as it has been dubbed, "Seigenthalergate")and redirect. --[[User:N410|N410]] 04:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and '''Redirect''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]], as this is relevant to the situation. Otherwise, '''Move''' to a less deragotory page title. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Blu Aardvark|(talk)]] | [[special:contributions/Blu Aardvark|(contribs)]]</sup> 06:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' to the article on the controversy.  I pity the admin who ends up closing this. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to controversy article. If additional data needs to be added about this person, a separate article can be created later. -- [[User:Ze miguel|Ze miguel]] 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' and redirect. Except for the media coverage caused directly by a single ''USA Today'' op-ed, this guy is the Wikipedia equivalent of Slashdot's [[Signal 11]]. (Who? Exactly.) -- [[User:Mpt|Mpt]] 10:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. --[[User:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] [[User talk:IJzeren Jan| <span style="color:green"><sub>''In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij''</sub></span>]] 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' the fucking thing already. It's going to happen however the votes go. There's almost zero info in this article that's not already at the WP controversy article anyway. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. The thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so for any given entry we ought to ask, "Would this subject/person/thing merit his/her/its own entry in a regular encyclopedia?" In Mr. Chase's case, the answer is unquestionably "no." There should certainly be an entry for Seigenthalergate on here if for no other reason than to not erase history, but Chase himself is merely a part of that. [[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. If all Brian Chase ever did/does is be noted for the hoax, he should be included on the page about the hoax, not have his own page. --[[User:JohnDBuell|JohnDBuell]] 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. [[User:French Tourist|French Tourist]] 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. --[[User:ConradKilroy|ConradKilroy]] 23:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''  absolutely not worthy of his own entry, but an indispensable part of the current controversy  [[User:Cori.schlegel|cori]]<sup>([[User_talk:Cori.schlegel|talk]])</sup> 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with Siegenthaler controversy article and redirect to that article, as others suggested. [[User:Massysett|Massysett]] 01:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' For future, facts of case the should be found in one place , Zache (comment by [[User:130.234.200.110|130.234.200.110]] 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
*'''Merge''' to either [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] or [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]]. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]].-- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merege''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] and redirect there. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 07:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

==== Merge or keep ====
*<s>'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' - he is well known b/c of what he did --209.222.54.242</s> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:209.222.54.242|209.222.54.242]] ([[User talk:209.222.54.242#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/209.222.54.242|contribs]]) 16:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</small>
*:Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —{{User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig}} 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*''Keep'' or '''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] and redirect there.  It is important, but the information is slim right now and it probably doesn't (yet) warrent its own article.  [[User:Drknexus|Dark Nexus]]
*'''Merge''' or '''Keep'''.  If the [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] is notable enough to keep, then this information is at least notable enough to be included on that page. [[User:Zacronos|Zacronos]] 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:*First edit.
*'''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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:128.226.230.36|128.226.230.36]] ([[User talk:128.226.230.36#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/128.226.230.36|contribs]]) </small>
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] and redirect.  [[User:Rogue 9|Rogue 9]] 02:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''or'''Merge''''--[[User:Smerk]]
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge'''' with some of the mentioned articles --[[User:Chester br|Chester br]] 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep of Merge''' with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]].  The information needs to be available.  I'm not sure if we ''should'' be giving this joker free advertising but at the same time, this ''is'' important to the events in question. [[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''redirect''' This entry is essential to preserving the credibility of Wikipedia.  This whole situation demonstrates that a self-correcting entity like Wikipedia can be a reliable source for information and that it does have all the necessary safety measures built in for policing its content.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:198.110.78.109|198.110.78.109]] ([[User talk:198.110.78.109#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/198.110.78.109|contribs]]) 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge''', but definitely not delete. If anything, the amount of reactions on this VfD should demonstrate ''some'' demonstration of notability. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><span style="color:navy;">The Minist</span></u>]][[WP:EA|<u><span style="color:green;">e</span></u>]][[User:The Minister of War|<u><span style="color:navy;">r of War</span></u>]] [[User talk:The Minister of War|<sup><span style="color:navy;">(Peace)</span></sup>]] 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge''', but fdont delete. This man is now part of Wikipedia's history, hence he  deserves a mention. [[User:Omoo|Omoo]] 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' if it made the news, which it did... then keep. [[User:Sethie|Sethie]] 16:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


*'''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.   --[[User:Ludek9|Ludek9]] 01:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) .

*'''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? [[User:PragmaticallyWyrd|PragmaticallyWyrd]] 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' or '''merge'''. It happened. It was relatively important. It is our duty to document it....

====Keep====

*'''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. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' His actions and his confession are newsworthy events, and likely to be of interest for some time. [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] 16:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' - He is a notable player in an event that we have [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy|already decided to keep]]. --[[User:RayaruB|RayaruB]] 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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]]. [[User:Guppy313|Guppy313]] 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
**'''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. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnchen]] 16:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
**I think some of us have a higher opinion of Wikipedia than others do.  A search on [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Brian+Chase%22+wikipedia&filter=0&sa=N&start=10 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]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
***The Google query you have linked to now returns 115 hits.  I suspect this number will increase significantly over the next few days as coverage continues. [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
***[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4520678.stm BBC] -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 11:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' --[[User:Peripatetic|Peripatetic]] 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''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.</s> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:202.156.6.54|202.156.6.54]] ([[User talk:202.156.6.54#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/202.156.6.54|contribs]]) 16:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</small>
*: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'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. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 16:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I've read the deletion policy, and it doesn't fit into any of the categories. Not an acceptable candidate for deletion. [[User:Baltikatroika|Baltikatroika]] 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' on the above vote. "[[WP:NOT|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 {{User:SusanLarson/sig}} 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*::How can the guy who ''caused the whole thing'' be considered a minor branch of the subject? [[User:Agentsoo|Soo]] 17:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*::: Because we have a pretty comprehensive article on the topic already and this is at the most a subsection of that.  {{User:SusanLarson/sig}} 17:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
**User's fifth edit.
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' to [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] and redirect. —[[User:BenFrantzDale|BenFrantzDale]] 17:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Concealing information to prevent people imitating it? That's definitely the Wikipedia way! [[User:Agentsoo|Soo]] 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or merge. This a part of Wikipedia history, although it does require editing this person has become rather famous. [[User:Taylortbb]] 17:46, 11 December 2005
*'''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. [[User:Marcopolo|Marcopolo]] 17:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. We don't ignore news just because it happens to us. --<small>'''[[User:Brian0918|<span style="color:black;">BRIAN</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Brian0918|<span style="color:gray;">0918</span>]]</small> 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', don't merge. -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schnee]] (''[[User talk:Schneelocke|cheeks clone]]'') 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Neilc|Neilc]] 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep'''.  We're keeping the [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]] page, why not this? -- [[User:66.159.216.215|66.159.216.215]] 17:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</s>
*:Anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —{{User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig}} 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' If it is [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002677060_wiki11.html newsworthy], then it should stay in Wikipedia. ([[User:Btipling|Bjorn Tipling]] 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
*'''Keep''' for now. Later on, merging or not merging should be condidered. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. -- [[User:SeanO|SeanO]] 18:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' -- This is just an event of history, therefore it should be saved from deletion. [[User:Cosmotron|Cosmotron]] 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*: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.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:206.47.27.39|206.47.27.39]] ([[User talk:206.47.27.39#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/206.47.27.39|contribs]]) 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</small>
**Ahh, the true sign of a Slashdot user: indentify the "incorrect solution" without making any effort to suggest an alternate solution. --<small>'''[[User:Brian0918|<span style="color:black;">BRIAN</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Brian0918|<span style="color:gray;">0918</span>]]</small> 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. -- Part of a fairly notable hoax. Like it or not, he has a lot of notoriety. [[User:Cacophony|Cacophony]] 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', this hoax became significant when national newspapers started reporting on it and the guy lost his job over it. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', this hoax is national news, and involves the wiki. --brokenfrog  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:192.195.234.26|192.195.234.26]] ([[User talk:192.195.234.26#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/192.195.234.26|contribs]]) 19:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep''' One of the complaints was lack of accountability, This shows that W is able to admit its errors and not hide it. [[User:Naelphin|Naelphin]] 20:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Even if telling this story creates copy-cats, it is still a valid topic for Wikipedia. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 20:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.  It's a notable part of Wikipedia history. --[[User:MisterHand|Groucho]] 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.  It's a part of Wikipedia history, like it or not. Should be linked from other pages abou this whole situation.  --[[User:Ahbanks|Ahbanks]] 20:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.
*'''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. --[[User:JonThompson|Jon Thompson]] 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:66.43.220.214|66.43.220.214]] ([[User talk:66.43.220.214#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/66.43.220.214|contribs]]) 21:10, December 11, 2005 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. <small>&mdash;''the preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment is by'' [[User:66.245.212.72|66.245.212.72]] ([[User talk:66.245.212.72|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/66.245.212.72|contribs]]) 21:16, December 11, 2005</small>
* ''Keep'' or ''Merge'' --[[User:156.34.70.132|156.34.70.132]] 21:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 21:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. [[User:216.164.193.81|216.164.193.81]] 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.I thought it was funny.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:71.193.8.146|71.193.8.146]] ([[User talk:71.193.8.146#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.193.8.146|contribs]]) </small>
*'''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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:83.156.85.241|83.156.85.241]] ([[User talk:83.156.85.241#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/83.156.85.241|contribs]]) </small>
*'''Keep''' as a quick reference. Merging with [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy]] would mean having to go through a long article. [[User:KF|<span style="color:green">&lt;K</span>]][[User talk:KF|<span style="color:green">F&gt;</span>]] 23:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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) [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 00:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''
:This is the users sole edit. I think we should disregard it (even though he's voting the way I did). ([[User:Btipling|Bjorn Tipling]] 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
*'''Keep''' and '''merge''' the information into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|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. <nowiki></nowiki> &mdash;  [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk:Rickyrab|Talk]] 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
**No, I don't think that name works. ([[User:Btipling|Bjorn Tipling]] 00:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
*'''Keep''' And it doesn't hurt that it pisses the guy off, he's an asshole.
:This is an anonymous vote (and he's [[Wikipedia:Civility|uncivil]]), I say disregard (even though again he voted the way I did. :( )([[User:Btipling|Bjorn Tipling]] 02:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
*'''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. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 02:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', it's important on its own as part of Wikipedia's history. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:208.151.246.150|208.151.246.150]] ([[User talk:208.151.246.150#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/208.151.246.150|contribs]]) </small> 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. This story has generated more press than most of what passes AfD on Wikipedia. [[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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). [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
**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. -- [[User:JJay|JJay]] 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
***'''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!). [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' If Osama Bin Laden can be noteworthy then this guy should also be noteworthy. [[User:220.233.48.200|220.233.48.200]] 05:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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..." [[User:24.2.49.140|24.2.49.140]] 05:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Edgarde|edgarde]] 05:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', notable, in my opinion. Plus his reputation needs to be punished. -- [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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).--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">ck</span>]] 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*** 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. [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' although it is unfortunate there are so many, erm, strange votes here.  [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me]] 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. --[[User:TheGrza|The]][[User Talk:TheGrza|<span style="color:Green;">Grza</span>]] 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Verifiable? Check. Enyclopedic? Check. Nothing else to be said. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 08:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. To not do so would be like never outing the author of [[Primary Colors|Primary Colors]].
**'''Comment''' Non-sequitur. The [[Joe Klein]] article contains information that is otherwise notable.  This article doesn't. [[User:Dforest|Dforest]] 09:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. A very important character in Seigenthaler saga. --[[User:Jannex|Jannex]] 10:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I don't quite understand the arguments for merging, he is significant and, as such, merits an article. [[User:Themindset|Themindset]] 10:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Sindri|Sindri]] 11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''keep''' newsworthy <sub>?</sub>''<sup>[[User:UkPaolo| UkPaolo]]</sup>/<sub>[[User Talk:UkPaolo|TALK]]</sub>''<sup>?</sup> 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' because the nominator used a non-word.  [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' If it's good enough for the BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4520678.stm] it's good enough for an article. Also, it's an important cautionary tale for all Wikipedians. [[User:Lee M|Lee M]] 12:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Completely agree with previous comment - read about this man on BBC news and want to know who he is [[User:Mattmm|Mattmm]] 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Totally agree with the accountability argument [[User:Jbarfield|Jbarfield]] 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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 ;-) [[User:SoLando|SoLando]] ([[User talk:SoLando|Talk]]) 13:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*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". [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 14:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
**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. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Kazari|Kazari]] 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.--[[User:Chuckhoffmann|Chuckhoffmann]] 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', easily meets and exceeds the bar of [[WP:BIO]].  [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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! [[User:Pitchka|Dwain]] 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''KEEP'''- very notable [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] 16:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Mareino|Mareino]] 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.--[[User:Britsda|Britsda]] 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and then discuss what to do with the content (merge or keep seperate) once the media publicity blitz dies down.  [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. This man was just mentioned on a BBC Radio 4 news programme. If the BBC considers him notable, so do I. [[User:Dmn|Dmn]] 17:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
**'''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. [[User:MeekSaffron|MeekSaffron]] 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
**Being "mentioned" in a news programme does not equal notability. I bet thousands of people are mentioned by the BBC in its news programmes. [[User:JoaoRicardo|JoaoRicardo]] <sup>[[User talk:JoaoRicardo|talk]] </sup> 06:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or if we must merge into the Siegenthaler subarticle. &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<span style="color:#FA8605;">'''ALKIVAR'''</span>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]][[File:Radioactivity symbol.png|18px|]] 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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?  --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.[[User:160.36.121.50|160.36.121.50]] 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Part of Wikipedia history. --[[User:Neverborn|Neverborn]] 21:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''keep''' please erasing this does not make any sense [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 04:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.,,,,,[[User:Ariele|Ariele]] 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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?  [[User:Imdwalrus|Imdwalrus]] 20:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 21:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.  [[User:Jaileer|Jaileer]] 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Malnova|Malnova]] 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -This gained considerable coverage on various cable news channels, and a big controversy within Wikipedia --[[User:BrenDJ|BrenDJ]] 22:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' JH [[User:128.214.200.202|128.214.200.202]] 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Notable because he is part of what led to WP removing abilities from anon users. [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 22:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or at least Merge and redirect if the article don't grow three kb --[[User:Marc Lacoste|Marc Lacoste]] 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This is illustrative information highly relevant to the discussion of the viability of the wikipedia concept proper. [[User:84.167.142.65|84.167.142.65]] 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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 [http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,389949,00.html Spiegel] [[User:Kt66|Kt66]] 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. [[User:The Wookieepedian|The Wookieepedian]] 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': [[User:Rentastrawberry|<span style="font-family:stop; color:#C41E3A"><b><i>RENTASTRAWBERRY</i></b></span>]] [[User talk:Rentastrawberry|<small><b><sup><span style="font-family:goudy old style; color:#C41E3A"><i>FOR LET?</i></span></sup></b></small>]] [[User:Rentastrawberry/Classic Rock Full List|<b><span style="font-family:goudy old style; color:#C41E3A"><i>röck</i></span></b>]] 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. --[[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. <small>&mdash;''the preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment is by'' [[User:68.124.137.87|68.124.137.87]] ([[User talk:68.124.137.87|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/68.124.137.87|contribs]]) 01:02, December 13, 2005</small>
*'''Strong Keep''' - His existance and relevance are proven by his already being here, deleting him would be attempting to alter historical purity. [[User:Blindsided|laurens.whipple]] 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:66.68.67.59|66.68.67.59]] ([[User talk:66.68.67.59#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/66.68.67.59|contribs]]) </small>
*'''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. [[User:Rcade|Rcade]] 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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... [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- [[User:Ratclaw|Ratclaw]] 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
:*<small>User's [[Special:Contributions/Ratclaw|first edit]]</small>
*'''Keep''' - I only found this page thanks to [[Yahoo]]. I think that's notable and newsworthy enough to warrant it staying. --[[User:Beau99|Beau99]]|[[User_talk:Beau99|talk]] 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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". [[User:129.97.252.63|129.97.252.63]] 04:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. --[[User:Putainsdetoiles|Putainsdetoiles]] 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
:*<small>User's [[Special:Contributions/Putainsdetoiles|first edit]]</small>
*'''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. --[[User:DuKot|DuKot]] 05:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.  [[User:Sleeper99999|Sleeper99999]] 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' he had made himself notable enough [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' it's become part of wikipedia's history, international media reported on it, he is part of the historical event. [[User:DirkHusemann|dr who]] 07:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Even german "der spiegel" is refering to that article [https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,389949,00.html] --[[User:Superbass|Superbass]] 07:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Vandal or not, he's now one of the top ten names associated with Wikipedia in the English language media. [[User:Vfp15|Vincent]] 09:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It is important for people to know that vandalism will not be tollerated or go unnoticed--[[User:SethG|SethG]] 09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''merge''' -- [[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] | [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 09:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Grue|<span style="background:black;font-family:Courier;color:#FFFFFF;">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</span>]] 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. He's a major figure in Wikipedia history, and he will serve as a precendent for inevitable future controversy. [[User:Avengerx|Avengerx]] 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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 [[User:Algumacoisaqq|Algumacoisaqq]] 18:02 13 December 2005 (UTC))''
*'''Keep''' Don't rewrite history just because you don't like it.  --[[User:Geverend|Geverend]] 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. (Or, at the very least, merge.) Most vandals don't make headline news &#8212; this one has. [[User:Jareha|jareha]] 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' The media attention this has gotten make this person noteable, although most wikipedia vandals are not. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Like it or not, this whole affair is a genuine news event. [[User:CarbonCopy|CarbonCopy]] 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep'''. Notable enough to have hits on Yahoo News coming up when a search for Wikipedia is done. [[User:Naja Haje|<span style="background:black; font-family:Tahoma; color:#00FF00">'''Cobra'''</span>]]22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''STRONG KEEP''' this is seen on major news sites now, and should be kept, even google turns up these results (unsigned comment by [[User:Broodwars20850|Broodwars20850]] 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)) (dated by poster as "12.13.2005 17:48 EST")
*'''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". [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''KEEP!'''  this is a vital piece of wiki history! (unigned comment by [[User:131.212.42.164|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. [[User:TheDewi|TheDewi]] 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' a part of our history. [[User:PaulinSaudi|Paul, in Saudi]] 15:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' simply put, it is not a vanity page. [[User:CastAStone|CastAStone]] 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.[[User:Mutantjedi|MutantJedi]] 05:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' because this a lesson that somebody somewhere could learn from. [[User:Sweetfreek|Sweetfreek]] 08:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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! [[User:JALockhart|Jersey_Jim]] 12:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- this is an "encyclopedia" article. [[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<span style="color:chartreuse">|</span>[[User talk:Bcorr|Брайен]] 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': This guy gave himself up, it was in newspapers... Wikipedia stands only to gain by showing the consequences of vandalizing articles. --[[User:Howrealisreal|Howrealisreal]] 15:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Deleting it may be perceived as trying to sweep the matter under the rug.  Under no circumstances can we give that impression. &ndash;[[User:Adashiel|Abe Dashiell]] <sup>'''([[User_talk:Adashiel|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Adashiel|c]])'''</sup> 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep''' and delist from AFD immediately.  You'll have to excuse my sweetheart, she's a terrible, terrible judge of character.  &mdash;[[user:Radman1|'''RaD Man''']] ([[User_talk:Radman1|''talk'']])  00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
: <small>users 8138th edit.</small>
*'''Keep''': --[[User:Steschke|ST]] [[:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Steschke|○]] 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.  --[[User:Hurricane111|Hurricane111]] 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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..." --[[User:Mark Yen|Mark Yen]] 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Participant in a notable incident. --[[User:DrTorstenHenning|DrTorstenHenning]] 10:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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.  --[[User:Fhoenix Fan|Fhoenix Fan]] 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. [[User:199.46.198.237|199.46.198.237]] 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', for now.  Perhaps, bring it up for AFD at a later time when the controversy has cooled off. ---[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Perhaps merge later when things die down.--[[User:Aleron235|Aleron235]] 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''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, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 
====Other====
*'''Keep''' for now to see where this story goes, but if this article isn't expandable beyond the hoax info, '''Merge'''. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] 19:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''TATTOO TO JIMBO WALES' FOREHEAD'''. Why? Why not. Really, the arguments here are quite amusing, not unlike those squeaky toys you get out of a vending machine, but like such toys, you quickly realize there's hundreds of them, they're pretty much the same, and they're all worth about a quarter. By the way, this is a keep or merge. --[[User:Jscott|Jscott]] 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*Holy freaking cow, that's a lot of RfD responses! I think I'll just pass... :) &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and '''merge''' the information into [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|Seigenthalergate]].  I want to see the  day that wikipedia is so exhaustive in scope that it contains every man, woman, and child.  Also pets.  [[User:JeffWaxman|JeffWaxman]] 04:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*Absolutely no idea where to vote... this thing is crazy. Wikipedia is not self-referential, and this doesn't pass notability standards. '''Delete forever'''. Mention his name in the other article, but none of this is really worth having. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<span style="color:purple;">LV</span>]] [[User talk:Lord Voldemort|<sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)</sup>]] 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Extremely Strong Undecided''' There are many good arguments on both sides of this debate, and it will be weeks or months before the dust settles and cooler heads can make an informed decision on the merits.  Meanwhile, the article should be kept right where it is so that the many people following the many external links to it will know exactly where to find it. //[[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' Hehe. While I've given my vote above, I'm not violently opposed to the alternatives. Especially the tattoo option. However, I don't understand why merge & redirect is bad for those opposed to it, since currently 99% of the information in Brian Chase is contained in the other article as well, as I mentioned on this Afd's discussion page. --MeekSaffron <sup>[[Special:Contributions/MeekSaffron|<span style="color:#808000;">(Jaffa,</span>]][[User talk:MeekSaffron|<span style="color:#800000;">Tree!)</span>]]</sup> 00:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I feel sorry for the poor sap who has to count the votes on this thing.
*'''Try to start a national controversy about this vote page''' so that a [[Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Brian Chase (hoaxer) controversy]] article is necessary. But seriously, I find myself profoundly unable to care about this matter. Once we're at the point of having a passionately contested, in-depth, 30-page debate about a three-paragraph stub, it's clear that Wikipedia loses either way. The process has eaten the encyclopedia. There's plenty of reason to delete this article (it's redundant to other articles and the figure probably won't be noteworthy enough for an article once we've given the events some perspective), and then there's reason to keep it (might as well leave up an article until there's more space between the present and the events, since it's easier to delete an article later than to recreate it later after it's been deleted, and lets people work to improve the article in question in the meantime), and somehow I don't see how it makes the slightest difference to the future of mankind either way. Yeesh. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 09:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
**But that would only lead to yet another deletion debate, so we'd need to create an article about [[Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Brian Chase (hoaxer) controversy controversy]], and everyone can see where ''that'' leads - [[Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Wikipedia Votes for Deletion for Brian Chase (hoaxer) controversy controversy controversy]]! And as for where ''that'' leads... --''[[User:Wwwwolf|wwwwolf]]'' ([[User talk:Wwwwolf|barks]]/[[Special:Contributions/Wwwwolf|growls]]) 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
*** I was waiting for someone to make that joke. Dammit, I should've been bold! --MeekSaffron <sup>[[Special:Contributions/MeekSaffron|<span style="color:#808000;">(Jaffa,</span>]][[User talk:MeekSaffron|<span style="color:#800000;">Tree!)</span>]]</sup> 20:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

;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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:195.75.98.242|195.75.98.242]] ([[User talk:195.75.98.242#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/195.75.98.242|contribs]]) 17:48, December 12, 2005 (UTC)</small>
*'''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
*<s>'''Keep'''.  It is significant enough to reference in John Seigenthaler's biography.  Should that reference be deleted as well?</s>
*:Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —{{User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig}} 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''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.</s>
*:Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —{{User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig}} 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''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.</s>
*:Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —{{User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig}} 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep'''.  He messed with Wikipedia, he deserves his infamy.  "Revenge is a dish best served cold".</s>
*:Unsigned, presumably anonymous comment, please sign in & sign your posts when voting —{{User:Ćvar Arnfjörđ Bjarmason/Sig}} 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep'''.  It's interesting to read.</s>
*: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.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>