This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 16:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Parodi[edit]

• Delete: Parodi is a non-notable company exec, whom even the author of this article -- his own son - thinks isn't famous: Over the next day, mention my father's name to 10 people you interact with and see if they recognize his name. Ten out of ten will have no idea who he is. Delete.
   :-Calton | Talk 05:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. If an entire still active e-commerce company (that I wrote an article about) is not notable, then neither is a single exec.

-— JIP | Talk 06:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for the love of god - I can not believe how many people worked on this article to "tidy it up" and "revert vandalism" and fix style and form problems. It's a completely dead-in-the-water vanity page about a complete nobody that openly flaunts its own non-notability. Who are these people who are working diligently to clean up pages like this??
  

-(unsigned but by User:Apollo58)

Several people gave it a good faith effort to try to keep it more encyclopedic... it's rather uncivil of you to insult us that way. And, what, pray tell, possible justification do you have for a claim that a speedy deletion would be justifiable? (By the way, please sign your comments with four ~ symbols in a row. They are automatically converted to your name and the time. DreamGuy 07:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

In my not so humble estimation, I don't think God might really care one way or another about whether or not this article should be deleted, not that I know the guy or anything mind you....

-Scott P. 12:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

If a figure of speech used for emphasis confuses you just skip over it. It has nothing to do with the overall meaning of the statement. Focusing on it serves no purpose. DreamGuy 13:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I must have tripped instead of skipping over that one. You'd think we were all attending the funeral of some poor recently departed rogue article or something and then some guy walks in wearing a clown outfit. Definately a fashion crime. Sorry, I'll take off my rubber nose, red-afro wig, and size 42 shoes for you for now. Be good. Just don't sit on any whoopee cushions -Scott P. 14:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete; no assertion of notability. Yeah, weird.
  

-Sdedeo 07:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he *was* the CEO of a stockmarket-listed company for 10 years but, having said that, the company was not particularly big (market cap $38m as of August 2005 [1]). Besides, the article has become the subject of an edit war between his son (Andrew Parodi, who keeps on adding a link to his reviewer's page at amazon.com as well a baby picture of himself being held by his dad) and others who keep reverting his edits for vanity.
  

-Alex.tan 07:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but somewhat weak. There are many examples of entries here that are less notable and survive VfDs, but then poor voting on other articles shouldn't be a reason to keep this one.
  

-DreamGuy 07:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. android79 12:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wrong side of the line, vanity.
  

-Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do delete it! Perhaps the ultimate proof that this is not a "vanity" page on my part is that I do indeed hope you all delete this page. This has been a nightmare of the surreal kind. The fact is that there are many pages on Wikipedia about people that are not famous, and being famous has never been the qualification for being on this page. (Talk about not knowing about what makes an entry encyclopedic. Since when has being famous qualified one as being worthy to be in an encyclopedia? Have most people heard of Rudolf Laban and Kurt Jooss? But please, God, DO delete this page. What a nightmare this has all become. And -- for the record -- the only reason I really got angry and it became a "edit war" is because I resented the comments that this page was a "malicious hack job" by me, that I didn't know the facts of my own father's life, and that I got his ethnicity wrong. Bizarre! Again, yes, PLEASE delete it!
  

-Aesculapius75 14:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Those last two comments are patently untrue, as a disinterested reading of the comments on the Talk page would show. That you feel put upon doesn't mean you are being put upon.
      

-Calton | Talk 01:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• • One last thing.... if it now accepted that my father is not famous, and my own opinion that he is not famous has been used as verification that he is not famous, can it AT LEAST be accepted that this was not a "vanity page" and it was NOT an attempt to ride on the coat tails of my father's "marginal fame"?

-Aesculapius75 14:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Nope. Textbook case. I mean, linking your name in a picture caption to Arun Gandhi? Adding an external link to your page of Amazon reviews? Come on.
      

-Calton | Talk 01:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Setting aside the fact that I hope this page does indeed get deleted, setting aside the fact that such hope is proof that this was not vanity, setting aside the fact that I wish you guys would delete the picture of me with Arun Gandhi from your website, I will address the rest of lunacy....

It's futile with you, and most of Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Have fun with your silly little website, and keep telling yourself it's a real encyclopedia. Newflash: real encyclopedias are not on the Internet, and they do not allow anyone to edit them. But I leave you to your pretensions and projections.

-Aesculapius75 02:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I object to User:Aesculapius75's "I'm going to take my ball and go home" attitude, I wholeheartedly support delete. Note that User:Aesculapius75 isn't the only person who's been trying to puff this guy up, so has User:Romer, who's been calling the NPOV article a "hack job".
  

-Zoe 20:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If anyone ever develops a genuine 'scholarly' interest in Michael Parodi at some time in the future, perhaps it could be re-started at that time. Right now I see no real scholarly interest in him from any quarter, and as all others have expressed here, more problems with this page than solutions. Delete. Scott P. 17:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete
  

-Dottore So 22:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Tegal Corporation: verifiable.
  

-JYolkowski // talk 16:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no claim of notability, even contested.
  

-Ken^{talk|contribs} 01:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Tegal Corporation: (or Delete -this note added Aug. 18, 2005-) After reading user JYolkowski's suggestion, I have done a bit of research, and changed my mind. Thank you user JYolkowski for the fresh suggestion. Even though Mr. Parodi may not be worthy of a dedicated article himself, it would seem that the Tegal Corporation is. I just did a Google search on 'Tegal Corporation' and came up with over 5,000 hits. Clearly Tegal Corp is worthy of an article, and if Tegal is worthy of an article, then the info re: the Tegal CEO for the last 10 years is also very pertinent to that company. I say, nearly all bio info on Parodi could be merged verbatim from the Parodi article into the Tegal Corp article, and then the Michael Parodi article could be redirected to Tegal.
  

-Scott P. 11:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please note very odd behavior by user:Romer regarding this article. Apparently a sock puppet whose only intent was to disrupt this article and to annoy all editors associated with this article. Very odd......

-Scott P. 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough and verifiable. I'd suggest deleting the article is not the best way to deal with the trouble over it. Philip Arthur 01:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedia worthy, and esp. not worthy of the effort of this group.

--24.23.154.249 07:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romer, long time no see. Odd, I noticed someone logged in under the name Romer for the first time in several days just 5 minutes after you posted here. I don't see why you find this article to be worthy of such personal interest to yourself that you have created a special sock-puppet just to focus on this article and to annoy the rest of us. I must admit, you certainly did get a few of us to have some very serious, meaningful, philosophical conversations with a few sock-puppets.  :-)

-Scott P. 12:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 12:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note the unusual reversion wars still going on over this inconsequential page, with some 'colorful' language. Is this minor bit of information really worth so much unusual effort, attention and focus here on Wiki? -Scott P. 12:59:50, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.