Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datalink Computer Services incident

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. There is no consensus to delete. General consensus is that news items which do not have enduring notability (short lived) are not suitable for Wikipedia; however, there is no clear consensus that this news item will not last, and arguments have been put forward that there is a possibility the information will be referred to in books on the topic. Additionally, it is felt that the incident is interesting enough to be included in at least two other articles - one on related scams and the other on the victim who appears to have some form of notability and an article may be created on this person at some point. Given the lack of clear consensus to delete, and arguments put forward for possible endurance of interest in the material this is a keep. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Datalink Computer Services incident

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

This is a news story only, and fails WP:NOTE; see also WP:NOTNEWS. Would be appropriate for Wikinews. PROD was removed with no substantive response ("deprod...if you believe it isn't notable, take to afd"). TJRC (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one-off news item. WP:NOT#NEWS is a WP:Policy. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom; also fails to meet the guideline at WP:Notability (events) inclusion criteria; no indication of enduring historical significance or widespread (national or international) impact. This is more of an example of the "'shock' news [or] stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories' ...whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time" specifically cited as not meeting the guideline "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." TJRC (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources seem impressive. I'd be open to the notion of merging this article under a more general article describing the type of this scam; the story seems to be an updated version of the old fortune teller's "you are under a curse, pay me to remove it" confidence trick. I don't know if that particular scam has a name, or if so whether we have an article about it, but it might be worth looking into. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is geared towards proving that the incident was WP:Notable, but the nomination is talking about WP:NOT, a policy. In this current media environment, everything is instantly reported by every news organization everywhere. Abductive (reasoning) 20:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not quite, but yes: this particular event seems to have been reported by quality sources. So I was wondering whether there was a general name for the old fortune teller curse scam. We have a number of articles on traditional confidence tricks, like the Spanish Prisoner and the reloading scam, but I haven't been able to determine whether the fortune teller curse scam has a name or not. This is fairly obviously a high tech version of the same swindle. We have sourced information about this, so while I'd agree that this could be merged into another article, right now I don't know what that article is or what its traditional name would be. We do have a list of confidence tricks, but none of our existing entries seem to match what I am thinking of. This page contains news reports of more traditional incidents. So until someone comes up with the label for this particular kind of confidence trick, and points to or creates an article about it, I say keep, at least in the interim. I may try to gather what I can find and cruft something together, but right now I'm searching for the right title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the sourcing; they're quality sources. But it's just a news item. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I created the article following coverage of the scam, which I found to be somewhat absurd.Smallman12q (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absurdity is not a qualification for a Wikipedia article. The issue here is that the subject is merely newsworthy; not notable in the Wikipedia sense. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I'm wondering if there is enough to for a merge and redirect to Roger Davidson (musician). Per one article: 1) Raul Jaurena’s “Te Amo Tango", which won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Tango Album in 2007, was produced by Davidson, and 2) Davidson is the great-grandson and great-grandnephew of the Schlumberger brothers who founded the world's largest oilfield company, Schlumberger Limited. Per another, he is an acclaimed modern composer and the founder of Soundbrush Records. I understand notability is not inherited, but is there enough on this guy to pass WP:MUSICBIO? It seems as though if he was scammed out of $6 to $20 million, then he must be relatively successful and therefore possibly notable. Location (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge, providing he'd pass WP:BIO.Smallman12q (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it genuinely more desirable to present this info in a BLP about the victim, rather than an article focused on the scam and scammers? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the merge, if the article were written. Given the Grammys, I don't think there's any issue with the musician's notability. (I think the relationship to the Schlumbergers is irrelevant, see WP:NOTINHERITED, although there's no problem with mentioning it in an article whose notability is supported by the other factors, such as the Grammy awards.) No value in the redirect. TJRC (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 05:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Send this to Wikinews. SnottyWong ^chatter 05:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS & the fact that the article is, in the majority, sourced to a single press release (a WP:PRIMARY source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or secondary WP:INDEPTH coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have started an article on fortune telling fraud, and added some of the information here to that article. As far as I've been able to learn, the traditional name for this particular kind of operation is bujo; but that's a Romany word, not English, and as such refers specifically to the Gypsy fortune teller version of the operation. The composer victim may be notable in his own right, but I'm not convinced that the best place for this information is in an article about him. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving as much content as is appropriate into the fortune telling fraud article and deleting Datalink Computer Services incident seems to be the best solution; and if Roger Davidson (musician) is ever created, it's worth noting the incident there (short of coatracking) as well. No need to redirect Datalink Computer Services incident to either. 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep There is notable well-sourced information here. Describing this as fortune telling fraud seems to be improper synthesis. Shall we merge Y2K and other computer scare stories into this concept too? Whatever we do, it should not involve deletion as this would remove the editing history and so obstruct improvement. Our editing policy indicates that we should keep this in mainspace for further work. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Shall we merge Y2K and other computer scare stories into this concept too?" No because, unlike this event, Y2K received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE & Scareware is not about a single event (so is not covered by WP:EVENT at all). Please learn to cite examples that are not clearly distinguishable from the topic at hand. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a notable case, not just a brief news story. I'd be surprised if it wasn't included in books published about this sort of thing. And this case will be mentioned in the news whenever anything similar comes up, that how they usually do things. Dream Focus 16:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that this news story (or stories of its type) tend to have continuing coverage? Because otherwise this is just your opinion. Abductive (reasoning) 19:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abductive's statement above that this is a "one-off news item" , appears to be a statement of unsupported opinion. Given that this is a fresh matter, time will tell who is right and there is no case for deletion in the meantime. For an example of encyclopedic coverage of such matters, which demonstrates the possibility, please see The encyclopedia of high-tech crime... Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the event in question is too young to have continuing coverage as required by WP:POLICY, I am right and you are wrong. I'll look at your source. Abductive (reasoning) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is not policy and so your point is so incoherent it is hard to tell what it means. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same section of WP:NOT that contains WP:NOTNEWS also references WP:NOTE (and by implication WP:EVENT, which contains WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). This makes it reasonable to take consideration of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE when deciding what is WP:NOT an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Some idiot fell for a scam. It happens every day, it isn't special, it has no lasting impact, no continued coverage, no anything that would warrant keeping this. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't "some idiot", this was the inheritor of Schlumberger and a grammy award winner. Furthermore, the alleged grifters' defense, which isn't covered in the article, suggests how unusual this scam may have been.Smallman12q (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus. Notable, unusual scam with lasting impact. See WP:FRINGE for guidance here. Fools and their money are soon parted. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2010 (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.