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. Whether or not the article should be merged with 5W Public Relations is a matter of editorial consensus. Sandstein (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Ronn Torossian lacks nobility. Torossian is no different from thousands of other PR spin doctors and SEO professionals who abuse Wikipedia for their own and their client's promotional purposes. The Torossian article totally lacks NPOV as it has been manufactured by Torossian and his staff of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Vivid i.e. - User:Judae1 Another illustration of this fact is the false listing of McDonald's as a client. Please see Businessweek article. [1] Another example is the recent repeated deletion of a New York Post article on Torossian which reflects negatively on Torossian which has been deleted by those who created the article in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet for Torossian and his news releases. Within Wikipedia, notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".

The Torossian article includes blatant advertising and self promotion which is transparent to anyone who reads it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agavtouch (talk • contribs)

• — Agavtouch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single purpose account whose only edits are directly related to this article and an associated AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly an advert and notability isn't really established. Alberon 09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The users (including myself) who deleted the NY Post news piece had not edited the wikipedia article before, as is clear by the item's history. Agavtouch and Zonenet on the other hand have both taken a particular interest on Torossian's biography. I have no opinion on the person's notability, so I won't vote.--Atavi 10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions and comments, mostly for the nominator. The nominator asks us to see a Businessweek article. It's devoted to this person (of whom I hadn't previously heard), and indeed makes him seem at least moderately remarkable (though not pleasantly so). I'd thought that this article and its content would be evidence of considerable notability. What more notability do you demand? (Something like intrinsic worth? But that would disqualify articles on tens of thousands of people, from [insert politician's or criminal's name here] on down.) If Torossian (the man, not the article) is veracity-challenged, well, so are many people who get articles. If promotional ("COI") editing is going on, that can be dealt with. (Meanwhile, I hadn't heard that the New York Post was something usable as a source for an encyclopedia article.) -- Hoary 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't understand why this was nominated, as the nominator him/herself has provided a source which establishes notability. WP:POV and WP:COI issues should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger 11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BusinessWeek article. Epbr123 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the BW article is not in the Wiki article, so the wiki article does not assert that notability. - Crockspot 15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Clearly an advert and notability is not established. But of even greater consequence, whether Torossian appeared in the New York Times or Businessweek is irrelevant, as it is clearly documented that this article was written by Torossian and his staff which equals a complete and total lack of NPOV. This article should have gone for "Speedy Delete" as it spits in the face of every user who edits and reads Wikipedia. Agavtouch 13:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• — Agavtouch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single purpose account whose only edits are directly related to this article and an associated AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that nobody in the PR racket is notable, or are you saying that Torossian isn't notable within this racket? If the latter, what are your criteria of notability? And where is the clear documentation that this article was "written by Torossian and his staff"? Incidentally, the last time I checked my face, it was free of Mr Torossian's spittle, or indeed anyone else's. -- Hoary 13:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether one likes or dislikes Torossian, Wikipedia clearly states that one cannot write their own bio! There must be NPOV or neutral point of view employed at Wikipedia. Just go to the history section of the Torossian article and see for yourself who created this puff piece - a paid employee of Torossian - User:Judae1. Agavtouch 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And indeed Judae1 does seem to have created it, and yes, Judae1 says in his user page that he's in Torossian's outfit. However, Judae1 hasn't touched the article in four months. Are you saying that other Torossian puppets have controlled it since then? And what are you saying about Torossian's notability? -- Hoary 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Stub Notable enough (in an unpleasant way). The fluff can easily be deleted, and balanced with the stuff that has been airbrushed. Mayalld 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the Business Week article does establish notability, its absence from the Wiki article prevents the Wiki article from asserting that notability, leaving it vanispamcruftisement. Serious COI problems with the authorship. - Crockspot 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really care whether this article is deleted or not, but I do not agree with your delete reasoning at all. Are you asking that this article be deleted just on a technicality (i.e. you agree that there is a source that satisfies notability but you say that the source was not mentioned in the article, so the article should be deleted)? - TwoOars (Rev) 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify. The BW article barely establishes notability (notoriety?). But if, as has been the case in the past, editors will constantly be purging the source from the article, it is rendered spamvertisement, and has no place on Wikipedia. In order for me to flip to keep, the article would need to be completely re-written, using the BW article as a main source for much of the article. I have no confidence in that ever happening, so it should just be deleted. - Crockspot (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Any actual encyclopedic information can be merged into the article on the public relations company itself. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A clarification The nom says "Another example is the recent repeated deletion of a New York Post article on Torossian which reflects negatively on Torossian which has been deleted by those who created the article in the first place." I did revert one edit, for reasons mentioned in the edit summary which has nothing to do with how it portrays the subject. I personally am indifferent to whether this article is kept or deleted and I had nothing to do with this article except for that one reversion. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, I, Atavi, was unsure whether this passage should be included in the article, and asked TwoOars in IRC for their opinion, and after discussion they deleted the item.--Atavi 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 5W Public Relations and redirect to that, as there's little or nothing about this person that isn't about his company. -- Hoary 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The leaders of every business are notable, and for advertisers, PR people and so on, this is to some extent a matter of notable clients. KP Botany is no longer around here--very unfortunately for the encyclopedia--to defend the article she started, but she showed here her usual good judgment. DGG (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just because someone may not be liked or respected by some within an industry does not make him less worthy of an encyclopedic entry. The initiator of this delete request demonstrates a non NPOV with comments like “Torossian and his staff of sockpuppets and meatpuppets” and even went as far as lying in his characterization of a “false listing of McDonald's as a client” and using that as a reason, The Businessweek article refers to McDonald’s as a former client, which lends to Torossian’s ability to garner such clients. The fact that he did have such a client is big enough for a small, new firm. Let’s be objective. The article could be a tad more neutral, but it is by no means non-noteworthy. The authorship of the piece is not a strong enough reason to deny the article, as the evidence of the subject’s noteworthiness. Just because someone may appear to have a COI in an article does not make it a COI, rather it makes it open to more scrutiny to be certain it is still an NPOVRubenKlor 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but the article should focus on what he is notable for i.e. being a self-promoting spin doctor. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV and abusive self promotion. Heathspic 12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• — Heathspic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - Not offering an opinion one way or another, I'm sure most of these editors here already know where I stand. That said, when I posted the piece, it was done as a post of a notable person, even if I do work for him. Never once did I hide it or run from it, as my user page clearly identifies who I am. What I find most interesting here is that users such as Agavtouch and Zonenet have been on Wikipedia for a whole of two days now, existing solely to defeat this article. Wikipedia is a community of editors and admins, most of who are genuinely good people just trying to provide information to the public. I have started many articles and contributed to a lot more on things that I just know about and even enjoy, and occasionally on things I know more intimately. IMO, this person we are talking about is notable - and long before I started working at the firm. I disagree with anyone who believes that one with any level of interest may not contribute to an article. An example is the American Jewish Congress page, created way before my term there, but contained errors and missing facts as to the organization's history. I made some changes - not to sell anyone on the agency, but to correct what was wrong. I find it disingenuous for people to make these kinds of edits without revealing who they are and why, whereas me being upfront about it by the very fact of it, makes me adhere to more strict guideline and opens me to scrutiny - which is warranted, and leads to a better article in the process. I think that for someone to so obviously look to challenge Mr. Torossian’s veracity on Wikipedia, he or she would be better off appearing as a true concerned Wiki community member rather than a meatpuppet for one of Torossian’s rivals. -- Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain (because I'm not volunteering to work on this article or help clean it up, and I agree cleanup is needed), but seems to me like there are sources to establish notability and provide material. -- Kingdon (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect with 5W Public Relations, assuming that the later is kept. I don't see one being all that notable without the other. Note: both the author of this page and the nominator for deletion have been warned for edit-warring and COI problems. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. He is mentioned in passing in any of the reliable "sources." The article is an abuse of Wikipedia. It is mainly edited by Juda, his employee (which is scummy on its own). Juda knows he has a COI yet he edits the page. This whole thing reeks of an abuse of Wikipedia. Juda and Torrosian work at a PR firm. They are doing it for publicity for their publicity firm. The irony is sickening.--Agha Nader (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mentioned in passing? A 4 page article in the New York Times and an article in Business Week? This article has to stand on notability and verifiability issues only. Its is notable from the articles in the New York Times, and Business Week, and almost every sentence is linked to a source, this is becoming a vote on if you like the guy, that is no way to edit an encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Sickening"? Mmm, the last time I checked my shirt and trousers, they were free of traces of vomit. The article is, Agha Nader says, mainly edited by Juda, his employee. "Juda"? Never heard of him. Does AN mean Judae1? He does indeed claim to be within this company, but he hasn't touched the article in four months. Is AN saying that other Torossian puppets have controlled it since then, or that Judae1 has socks, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments First of all I would like to call your attention to Heathspic's contibutions, noting dates and contents. Next, I would like to kindly indicate to Hoary that User:Judae1 is Juda S. Engelmayer. I will refrain from any other comment on the discussion.--Atavi (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to 5W Public Relations. The notability is of the company, not the individual. —Moondyne 01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Do Not Merge Lacks nobility and NPOV. Article was authored by paid employee of Ronn Torossian. Do not merge into 5W Public Relations for that article was also authored by same paid employee. Wikipedia is not a dumpster for SPAM and self-serving egos. Batright (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• — Batright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. It seems a bit strange to me that both the nominator and Batright refer to nobility rather than notability. I'll leave it to the reader to draw conclusions. I don't think that the subject's lack of nobility is in much doubt here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I have never before seen a nomination that does a better job of establishing notability than this one. The article -- and the nomination -- provides ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the article subject in depth, all of which satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Bad faith nomination as pointed out by User:Alansohn, the AFD was started by an account created just for this deletion, and the company article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact This AFD could not be more solid that this article was written by Ronn Torossian for Ronn Torossian. Batright (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bewilderment: I might be interested in this "fact" if I could only parse its expression. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto for the account used by User:Batright. It has less than a dozen edits. And as Phil Bridger points out has the same spelling errors as the nominator. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article establishes notability with strong sources both in the mainstream media and publications within his professional field. If the article is overly promotional, then simply edit it so it is NPOV. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If new editors have joined Wikipedia as a result of this and or other AFD's it is a compliment for Wikipedia and her growth. In their desperation to keep this SPAM, non-NPOV advertisement on Wikipedia these new and senior editors should not become the target of a professional, paid, discredit campaign against them by Ronn Torossian and his employees of 5W Public Relations. We must ask ourselves one question. Has Wikipedia become a Yellow Pages for which PR CEO's and their firms may arrogantly promote themselves in their own words and then use spin tactics to retain the article or is the Wikipedia community responsible for improving the standards of quality information based on objective and accountable fact? Batright (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should Wikipedia bow down to aggressive anonymous trolls disrupting writing because they have an axe to grind? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC) * This user is in violation of 3RR[reply]
  • Agavtouch, let's hear why a response to one of your sockpuppets violates WP:3RR. Feel free to respond, or have one of your sockpuppets handle this one for you. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In addition to violating SPAM, 3RR and NPOV policy on this article, 5W Public Relations has been paid to author and has spammed other articles in Wikipedia including: Joe Francis and several others. Just connect many of the users on this page who have voted Keep and their history of "contributions." These "contributions" match clients listed on 5W Public Relations client page. 5W Public Relations is an established and documented spammer on Wikipedia. Agavtouch (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stirring stuff, Agavtouch! Just connect many of the users: Thanks but no, I'm too busy/lazy. "Many" is vague, but surely means more than ten; let's halve that and call it five, and you specify which five these are and explain what their histories show. Also, show us the proof that this outfit has been paid to write articles. We're all holding our breath! -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't hold your breath, you might just hurt yourself. Here is just one example: 00:46, 29 October 2007 Judae1 (Talk | contribs) (19,269 bytes) (→External links - Francis is absolutely not Jewish) 5W Public Relations is a documented spammer which ignores NPOV policy on Wikipedia authoring its own and client's articles. Agavtouch (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boring! Come on, Agavtouch: we knew about Judae1, who has been upfront about his activities both on his user page and here. You wrote many of the users on this page (my emphasis). Judae1 aside, who are they? And where's the proof that this outfit has been paid to write articles? -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Agavtouch that one needs only to match just a few of the users who voted Keep here with the client list of 5W Public Relations which is listed on Wikipedia as adverts. It is a sad sham. Also transparent spin tactics used by the employees of 5W Public Relations to attempt to divert attention and attack those who have voted delete from the many gross and documented violations of SPAM and NPOV committed by Torossian and his paid employees. Lastly, please note how Torossian & Co. continue to delete any mention on this article of the New York Post news story illustrating malice and bad faith created by Torossian against the NYC PR industry. Not very objective.[2] Heathspic (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material that was added from NY post earlier was not fit to be in the article because of the reasons mentioned in the edit summaries no source copyvio and unencyclopedic tone again a copyvio and unencyclopedic tone by 3 uninvolved users, 2 of whom have abstained from giving an opinion and one has opined that the article be merged. Please stop making these allegations about "Torossian & Co". (And funnily enough, if you claim that the NY post article is significant enough that it should be mentioned in the article, it should mean that you accept that the article should be kept in the first place. Hence your argument that the article be deleted makes no sense.) The NY post info, in its current form appears to be ok and has not been removed from the article. Stop bunching everyone that says "keep" as an employee of this PR guy and stop these mangled attempts to try to get the article deleted based on spurious reasoning; you are only strengthening the case to keep the article by doing so. Lack of NPOV by itself should not be the sole reason to delete an article (unless the subject of the article itself is inherently biased); Instead, try to make the article more NPOV by adding/removing info that balances the POV, but in a way that follows wikipedia policies. And articles are deleted at AfD based on the strength and coherence of an argument and not on how many times something was said or how many said it. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staying focused = Torossian wrote this article and has his employees voting Keep on it. Wikipedia is not PR Newswire. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which illustrates those who have truly earned nobility. Torossian lacks this status even with the dozens of news releases he issues about himself. Heathspic (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It ultimately doesn't really matter if the guy started an article on himself, if it can be decided that he is notable. So, staying focused = determining the notability of Torossian (and not nobility, which is a different thing altogether. Wikipedia is not Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage to insist on the nobility of the subject). - TwoOars (Rev) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twooars, you have an excellent point. One may be notable even if they do write their own article. Not exactly NPOV. But let's examine SPAM. That is the business of Ronn Torossian and thousands of other PR CEO's! One only needs to view O'Dwyer's Guide to Public Relations Firms [3]. Does this mean that every PR and SEO pro who has optimized their name on the Net, who reaches hundreds of media outlets every day for themselves and their clients are now notable? If so, we will need to enter not hundreds but rather thousands of PR CEO's into Wikipedia from New York to Hong Kong. Remember, the job of a public relations firm is to make themselves and their clients notable. Perhaps their clients may qualify after the PR firm has created a Website, Facebook, MySpace and blogging entries. Perhaps after they have been written about on AP and Reuters on a daily if not weekly basis. But to allow PR firms to SPAM Wikipedia (and even admit that is what they are doing) in their mission to create one as notable, is defeating the mission and goals of Wikipedia to provide objective information to the world. Batright (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, no one has argued that the article's subject is notable simply because of his profession or title. While you have a legitimate argument that not every PR CEO deserves an article, this particular article provides multiple reliable and verifiable articles from independent sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Even the New York Post article cited as reason for deletion is further evidence of notability. I'd strongly suggest reading the article in question and providing an explanation for why the sources provided are invalid, instead of a knee jerk rejection of notability based on a particular animus to the article's subject. Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2007 (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.