Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Toeppen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per James500's sources. There are BLP concerns and concerns about an over-dependence on primary sources. I've discounted two !votes which appear to be SPAs. Weighing this discussion, James500's rationale seems most convincing. v/r - T P 15:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Toeppen

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

There are no sources that cover this small business owner in substantial depth. The article relies on a mix of primary sources (company website + court document), sources that are about his company that already has an article, and sources like the NYT link that doesn't appear to actually mention him. The remainder are brief mentions. There is already an article on his business (barely notable as it is) and I don't see a need for a separate one on him. CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've not worked on the Dennis Toeppen article, I have however spent some time previously working tirelessly on the Suburban Express article. I would be careful to ensure that few editors from that article begin to rain down on this AfD discussion. As CorporateM has suggested on the talk page, there have been a number of COI edits involving this subject. Verdict78 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this article has been edited by an SPA User:Gulugawa and a regular disinterested editor User:TheOriginalSoni. Verdict has not made edits to this page. However, since the company page has a long history of sockpuppets and COI editing, the closing admin would need to be especially careful looking out for that in "votes." CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, the NYT article does definitely mention Toeppen. I'm not opining about whether the article should be deleted, though. Today at the article, I did remove a footnote to a blog, but am not sure whether to delete the whole article. The NYT suggests keep.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that given the article subject's relation with his bus company and the relevant off and on wiki notoriety, the article should have been taken with extreme caution and it should have been checked in detail whether or not he fell under our notability guidelines. I do contend however, that there are more than a number of sources, particularly books, which talk in detail about his early years. In this context, as well as part of his bus company, I believe Dennis has been covered in sufficient depth to meet general notability guidelines. There are several sources referenced in the article which would prove the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question For the cybersquatting, were there more than the 2 court cases mentioned. The article says: "For example..." which is not good wording for negative information in a BLP. And does Internet Encyclopedia give actual sources for the companies for which it is given as a reference? If so, those should be cited. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The publications TheOriginalSoni mentions are based on Cybesquatting...not Dennis Toeppen. Additionally, his main notoriety comes from his bus company, which is already covered in depth on the Suburban Express wiki page.

12.238.238.104 (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The owner of Suburban Express is presumably a plausible redirect to that article. James500 (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have not edited this article, but I have contributed small edits to the Suburban Express article. The content on the Dennis Toeppen article is basically 1) already on the Suburban Express article; 2) describing the person's "cybersquatting" activities performed in 1995. As far as I can tell by reading the article, cybersquatting wasn't an illegal activity until four years later, so I'm not sure that info is even notable. HtownCat (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not independently notable. Current article on Dennis Toeppen reads no more notably than a BLP of someone who built a Bird house and went to Summer camp and happened to get in the newspaper for both. Suburban Express is notable enough, has an article, and on its fringes he comes up as founder/manager--but all that can be properly covered there. Similarly Cybersquatting is notable, but he's just a throwaway example of it. KevinCuddeback (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please also go through the recent editing history of the company's article before judging the authenticity of the votes. The article has a long history of pro-company edits by (now blocked) sockpuppets and of late, it has recieved a similar trend of edits from editors, including Htowncat.

Regarding cybersquatting, I do not think it is appropriate for editors to judge notability of a person based on the legality of an activity. If there are sources talking about it, it's notable. Otherwise, it is not. My stance remains that there are sufficient sources about cybersquatting for the article to be kept, including in various books. [The bus company part makes no case for notability as the campany has an article of its own] Anyone closing this AfD should look through the number of sources available before making a decision on the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like KevinCuddeback stated, Suburban Express/Dennis Toeppen have attempted to manipulate sources/information on multiple pages via sockpuppet accounts as a means of self promotion...and this will continue. Additionally, the information here is already mirrored in great detail on the Suburban Express page. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re COI edits: If need be, the page could be fully protected so that only admins can edit it. James500 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Dennis Toeppen will have to have an article. There are simply too many books describing him as noted [1], notorious [2], famous [3], the most famous [4], the most infamous [5], well known [6], perhaps the best known [7], and a pioneer [8] [9] etc in relation to his cybersquatting activities. That doesn't sound like a throw away example to me. Just search for "Dennis Toeppen" in Google Books. James500 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.