Talk:Vincent Ferrari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on 23/7/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Why Not Mention 2 Need 3 a New York blogger 4 Internet "Vigilante"

[edit] Why Not Mention

he is one ugly looking fella. why not mention it in the article? ~bob~

Because that view is simply an opinion and is not a quantifiable fact that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Including such does not further the goals of an ancyclopedia article. --Matthew 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need

Why Do we need this Article anyway? as far as i konw he is not a significant figure in history. he is just one blogger who got pushed into the spotlight for his fifteen minutes. all i can say is "cancel the account" ..err article. 84.184.202.135 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons:

• There is no clear consensus as to what should be done with this article.
• It's a good example of customer service in modern times.

If, at some later date, this article is no longer noteworthy, then maybe it'll be a good candidate for AfD. --UNHchabo 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The incident, and hence the person it is connected to, is at present a notable event. The specific incident is many times used as an example of both bad customer service and unethical business practices. The "Ferrari Case" has at present almost become synonymous with customer care disasters in general and "A-O-Hell" in particular. So yes, at present the article is most definitely warranted. Whether unregistered "Bob" finds mr Ferrari attractive or not is, I trust you agree, definitely not something to enter into an encyclopedic article. Unless, of course, it is a notable, verifiable fact that unregistered "Bob" does not find mr Ferrari attractive. --Tirolion 09:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a New York blogger

if a full-time plumber spends 1 hr a week posting to blog is it more accurate to say he a blogger or a plumber? unless vincent ferrari blogs full time his profesion - not his hobby - should be used to describe him. right now its just blogcruft. 72.36.251.234 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Ferrari is a full-time blogger (nor does it say anything about plumbing, for that matter). Calling him a blogger is just as valid as calling someone who spends "1 hr a week" participating in protests an activist or someone who goes for a run in the morning a jogger. In Ferrari's case it makes much more sense to call him a blogger than a plumber since he has a Wikipedia article in the first place because of his troubles with AOL which were brought to public attention through his blog. --Ddawn23 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the "if a full-time plumber spends 1 hr a week" part. 72.36.251.234 isn't saying he is a plumber - he's using plumber as filler for whatever Ferrari's real profession is. Misterdiscreet 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet "Vigilante"

Hi I was reading through the vigilante category and this page came up, according to the wiki article Vigilante is "someone who ignores due process and enacts his own justice". I do not think he ignored due process or enacting his own justice. He did inform the public of a problem but that is more deserving of being in the whistleblower category.