From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. T. Canens ( talk) 02:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Rob Monster

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rob Monster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO Alex.osheter ( talk) 18:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Rob Monster is the CEO of Epik (domain registrar). His only claim to fame is his company, which was covered by reliable sources for about a month last year for giving a hosting Gab's domain. Part of that coverage focused on his personal bigoted views. That's it. He was the CEO for 10 years, and has no other notable achievements. Might as well be a single mention in the Gab article, which it is. Alex.osheter ( talk) 18:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
What is he notable for besides being the CEO of Gab's domain registrar? Alex.osheter ( talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Please read the GNG, if you haven't. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. There is no caveat that they must be notable for multiple things. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
How significant is significant coverage? 10 sources, of which only 4 talk about him specifically (the rest are about his company or Gab), and only 2 about something notable? (HuffPost, PPC Ian, The Inquisitr, Domain Name Wire). Alex.osheter ( talk) 21:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I suppose that is what will be determined in this discussion. I think it's sufficient, though clearly you disagree—hopefully others will weigh in soon enough. In the meantime I can see if there is additional sourcing I can add. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article has enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE should have been carried out first (however, the nom may not be fully familiar with WP:AFD). This reference is WP:SIGCOV Huffington Post (important for a BLP). It would make no sense to merge this BLP into Epik as it is sufficiently developed, and references material on the subject's wider views and details outside of Gab. A basic google search on this subject produces material results, and therefore I am sure that our readers would find this BLP useful and interesting. Britishfinance ( talk) 08:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE - Or merge with the company article. I don't see enough here to justify both pages (or either really). Most of the articles referenced are compelled to justify why he's even in the article. His wider views and details don't qualify as significant. The reason his name is mentioned at all is because his company is a domain registrar. This is what the articles from the SPLC, Seattle Times (local company), Vice, BBC are about. The SPLC has a single article on the company, zero on him. With the PPCian interview, the author is a shareholder in his companies. Is there a COI concern with having an investment advisor interviewing one of his investments? TheConversation merely uses him to illustrate a point on a technology. As I understand it, there is no consensus that HuffPo is a reliable source. The Inquisitr does not appear to be. In ten years, the significance will be seen as being with the shooting (and secondarily the social network) and the subject here is three steps removed (and many orders of magnitude less significant), after the fact (which is why all of these articles were written when they were). Do any of the searches generate results of him but not the company? I don't see how you can separate the two and justify both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note that this user also signs themselves as "user:ogenstein" (see below) E.g. "Mothman" and "ogenstein" are the same editor. Britishfinance ( talk) 10:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I count almost 30 references between the two articles (BLP and company), but you want to delete them both I don't see enough here to justify both pages (or either really)? Have I got that right? Britishfinance ( talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This is kind of a false argument I'm having to deal with but here goes.
Of the eleven BLP citations, only two use his name in their headline. One is a dubious reference since it is for an interview with an investment blogger who owns shares in his companies. Incidentally, while 'epik' does make into the tag cloud on the site, the subject does not. The other is a wire release of a change in his other company's CEO.
If he were more notable than his company, then his name would be in the headlines. How notable would he be without the company being in the headlines? He founded the company in 2009 but as far as people who watch extremists are concerned, he didn't exist until late last year and that was because of what his company did. He still doesn't exist to the general public. Otherwise, what is there? His tweeting? He didn't have an article until two weeks ago and that was well-justified. Yes, you have that right. ogenstein ( talk) 00:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This is kind of a false argument I'm having to deal with but here goes. This is not the way to handle yourself at AfD. Again, you fail to engage or discuss that we have two WP:SIGCOVs here, as well as coverage in other RS such as Wired and Vice – that is GNG. Adding personal opinions, and other tangential content, will not have any bearing on whether this BLP is deleted or not. He still doesn't exist to the general public; have you even pressed the "news" section on the "find sources tool" above. It is clear from your comments (above and below), that you don't like this BLP (you feel it is a "hit-job"). Rather than engage on the content in the Talk Page, you are trying to just get it deleted. Inserting a "wall of text" (below) that tries to dismiss every reference in the BLP on poor arguments, is unlikely to meet your aims. Britishfinance ( talk) 08:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - To clarify, there are two HuffPo articles: One discusses Epik/Monster, the other does not. You stated that there were almost 30 references supporting keep. Was that a valid argument for an AfD? This is what I described as false, especially when the majority were duplicates or on an entirely different subject. And, FWIW, it's not really a wall of text. There's a nice list and paragraphs and everything.
If you look at the text of this article, what is significant and notable is focused on the shooting, the social network (SN) and its users. The majority of those references are to support that text. If that's fundamentally what warrant's this page, then the page shouldn't exist because that information is covered better elsewhere, and the entire 'politics' section doesn't justify a page (or there would be a page for every user of the SN and others. The subject should be a footnote on one of those pages (as Epik is on the SN page).
I did not dismiss the SPLC article but I believe the article (all articles) needs to be examined and I don't think that it is sufficient to indicate notability. The gist of the article (and others) is to point out that the subject is beginning to associate with people and organizations which they feel are notable. They didn't write that the subject is the same as David Duke, they wrote that the subject spoke about Duke. All of the issues raised in the article are treated similarly. How is that encyclopedic? HuffPo, I did dismiss. By the way, where is the national coverage? Is there any? People favouring the article could provide significant national coverage of the subject. That would make me reconsider but I don't believe it exists. WP:NEVENTS requires multiple reliable sources with national scope. For example, the NY Times has many articles on the SN and the shooting, but none on the subject.
I spent considerable time searching for news. That's why I could write that none of the referenced sites have sustained coverage of the subject but most have written extensively on the SN. Notability requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. That doesn't exist. All of the non-trivial coverage was triggered by one event. This is why I don't put as much weight on the Vice or Wired articles as you do. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTWHOSWHO both clearly specify that we need to examine how issues would best be covered and it may not be in a standalone article. If the SN hadn't lost its earlier domain registration, would any articles have been written about the subject or the company? SIGCOV doesn't obviate the requirements of NEVENTS or SUSTAINED.
As regards the company page, there are perhaps a handful of references which are relevant to that discussion, which I described as one warranting consideration. I'm willing to discuss and I don't have a firm opinion yet but that is extraneous to this page and AfD. My concern here is that this page lacks justification. As an aside, the SPLC article states clearly that they spoke with the subject so I never thought that it was a hit job and you're just making crap up here. I do believe that the subject is insufficiently notable for his own page. I also believe the material belongs on wikipedia but in a way that provides the appropriate context (without having to duplicate it).
Finally, I have no inkling as to what approach would work on Gab and if I read your intent correctly, casting such aspersions destroys your own credibility when it comes to 'handling yourself'. ogenstein ( talk) 21:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. You said above: You stated that there were almost 30 references supporting keep. Was that a valid argument for an AfD?. No it is not, but that was not my reasoning for Keeping, which I have noted separately at this AfD using WP:PAG to show WP:GNG. It was my question as to your original dismissal of notability, and it still applies to your subsequent and largely non-PAG based dismissals of the individual references. Your text above is also nothing really to do with whether a BLP should be deleted; it is around bias and other issues in the article, which should be addressed on the BLP's Talk Page. Britishfinance ( talk) 11:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As far as the company is concerned, well, 5 of their 18 references are also on the BLP and 2 are internal links. The first reference is simply to the list of ICANN registrars so we're down to 10. But I'll walk through all 15 so this will be longer. Sorry for conflating them here but I think your concerns are worth addressing.
  1. The NPR article doesn't mention either BLP or company. It's really about the social network and shooting which to my mind, is where meaningful notability lies. But, there's no reason it should have as it is a 2017 article.
  2. The Verge's article mentions neither. No reason it should as it's a 2017 article.
  3. The two Times' articles mentions neither. No reason they should as they were from 2015 and 2016.
  4. The LA Times article mentions neither. No reason it should as it's a 2015 article.
  5. One HuffPo article mentions neither. No reason it should as it is from early 2018.
  6. The Atlantic article mentions neither. No reason it should as it is a 2017 article.
  7. The Columbian is a small city paper writing about the purchase of a local company. Note it covers all the issues and is well-written but it's really about the purchased company BitMitigate.
  8. Seattle Times has another 'local company' article. Note that in their headline, they use 'Gab' and 'Pittsburgh synagogue shooting' but they identify Epik as 'Seattle-area company'.
  9. The Vice article refers to the company as, "…A little-known domain registrar called Epik."
  10. The AP article is a wire report about Epik having received a subpeona requesting documents related to the social network following the shooting. The Ars Technica story is also related to this request but is really about whether this was an appropriate request from the AG.
  11. I don't give HuffPo assumed RS. They can be strident at times and I think this article's headline is a good example of that. And they haven't written since on either subject.
  12. The Wired article is a mix. It begins by talking about Gab (the headline company) and then discusses CloudFlare, before getting to Epik/Monster. And it covers some pretty shallow stuff, e.g. "…Monster described the actions of the other internet infrastructure firms as “heavy-handed…”. Again, Gab has many articles on Wired, but this is it for Epik.
  13. SPLC is RS but it does indicate under their entry that care should be taken with BLP and undue weight. Incidentally, neither Monster nor Epik is on the SPLC extremist list. The article describes Epik as a 'small domain registrar'. While they also have not written again on Epik/Monster, they have written five times since January on the social network.
So what exactly is Epik notable for? It's a reflection of their clients and really just for a single event. If you do a search for 'epik domain' on google, you'll get less than 5% as many hits as the social network gets. And of those hits, most are of the mundane sort, e.g. is Epik good for hosting?. The first page of results actually has wikipedia's page number second, but nothing else mentions any contraversy. The great bulk of the writing that you feel makes this obviously notable is actually about other companies and people. Do they inherit the notability (or notoriety) of their clients?
Incidentally, over the last 30 days, the BLP has <500 page views and Epik has <700. Gab has 30K and the shooting page has 57K so their daily averages exceed each (or both). So what I said previously still holds for me but I concede that the company warrants consideration. BLP does not. As is, the shooting holds the most notability, then the social network, then the registrar/host, then the BLP. If things change, they change, but that's where it's at now. ogenstein ( talk) 01:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Per my comment above, there is little in the above that is a WP:PAG discussion on the refs. For example, the SPLC WP:SIGCOV is dismissed because neither Monster nor Epik is on the SPLC extremist list. The HuffPost WP:SIGCOV is dismissed because it mentions neither, when it clearly does [1]. You dismiss the Vice article because it says: "…A little-known domain registrar called Epik.". Other refs are given an even more trivial dismissal. You are demonstrating that you are not familiar/comfortable with WP's WP:PAG or WP:GNG, and what constitutes a valid AfD argument, and what is not. Your overtly strong bias to get this BLP deleted means that editors will be less inclined to help you resolved these problems. Such an approach may work on the Gab (social network) (the network that Epik (domain registrar) and Rob Monster are associated with), but not here. Britishfinance ( talk) 08:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep subject is GNG and nominator should have WP:BEFORE per Britishfinance Lubbad85 ( ☎) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Epik (domain registrar) or speedy delete per WP:G10 as a wholly negative BLP. The PPC Ian interview fails WP:COISOURCE as the author has a COI with Epik. The HuffPost article should be taken with a grain of salt as Monster has called it a "hit-job" [2], per WP:BLP. The other references are routine coverage and passing mentions. WP:NBIO is not satisfied, and the only significant coverage is in a HuffPost article that Monster disputes (meaning WP:GNG is not satisfied). wumbolo ^^^ 21:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • These are not arguments regarding whether this BLP should be deleted (or redirected), but rather around the content in the BLP which should be discussed on the BLP talk page. The issue here at AfD, is whether this person is notable enough to have a BLP (e.g. does he meet WP:GNG). As well as other references, the subject has a long article from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) [3], which is WP:SIGCOV, and the SPLC is also regarded as a Perennial reliable source on WP. He is also the subject of another long article (e.g. WP:SIGCOV) from the HuffPost [4], and the Huffpost is regarded as a PRS by some but not all. Combined with the other interviews in this BLP, for AfD purposes, he does meet GNG. Britishfinance ( talk) 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The PPC Ian source is only being used for factual, uncontroversial claims, since as an interview it's largely the subject speaking about himself. If you look how it's used in the article, it's just supporting basic factual information about his family, his pre-Epik work history, and his involvement with DigitalTown. He is not notable for having a wife and kids or for working for P&G or DigitalTown, nor does the article imply he is; it's general biographical information. As for the coverage of him being largely critical, or him disliking how a source portrays him, that is not an argument against deleting the article or using an otherwise reliable source. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Monster&oldid=898811488"