Talk:Larry Seidlin

message: I don't know who created this article, but it was blatantly riddled with POV problems, and the article needs immediate attention given that the article is about someone of current importance in the news.  (The article subject might also be lacking in notability.)  Chicken Wing 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't confirm the details of his life prior to becoming a judge, though I am loathe to remove them without making this article more of a stub than it already is.  I already attempted to remove some of the POV of the article, though it needs some polishing.  The only thing that is consistently inferred whenever I read about Seidlin is that he likes drawing attention to himself, and gives more credence to the idea that he might want his own television show.  That aside, I hardly think he's notable. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the reports that are being shown on the news, the man is obviously just trying to get attention, and I don't think there is much that is notable about that.  That aside, what other notable or extraordinary things has he done in his life (and that separates him from other Florida judges) to merit being listed on this site?  Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't just serve to indicate the man exists, it also reinforces the fact that he did something important.  Short ofpresiding over the Anna Nicole Smith case, I daresay he isn't unlike any other judge out there with far-fetched dreams of having his own television show; he simply was lucky enough to get the case. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues in February 2007 

message: I listed this page for deletion as being a non-notable "10 minute of fame" type person. Hallibrah 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and think this article should remain. If nothing else of interest happens regarding this guy after the Anna Nicole Smith crap fades away, maybe this article can be condensed into a paragraph under Anna Nicole Smith, but deleting it completely doesn't make any sense. He's certainly met the "notability" requirement for wiki, and his name is bound to appear in small references for years to come, prompting people to wonder who he is. Prgrmr@wrk 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I do think the article needs to be deleted if he doesn't get a show (as there's nothing else very notable or important that he's done, aside from presiding over this case and "acting out", which PLENTY of judges do), I don't really think that his article should be merged or integrated with Anna Nicole Smith's; though he "put on a show" during a trial over her body, I find it hard to find reasoning behind why people's reactions to his actions and statements should be in someone else's article. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to stay, you're crazy to think he is not notable.  I've had conversations with multiple people over the past few days about Seidlin, many of which have brought the topic up with me.  If Judge Lance Allan Ito has a page Seidlin should have one as well.  Really we are talking about the same notability with both, the only difference is that Ito was on tv for a longer period of time.--Jragozine 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ito may have been on television longer, in what I believe was a much higher-profile case, but aside from presiding over the OJ case, there isn't much about him that is notable or separates him from other judges.  In a way, the same goes for Seidlin; he simply chose to shorten (and sensationalize) the trial, and draw more attention to himself.  The result is that this article has fluctuated in terms of quality, with much POV or opinion-based information being included.  I don't completely agree with Hallibrah's notion to delete the page (hence my voting "Keep for now"), but at the same time, there is not a lot of coverage in the article about negative consequences or controversy for his actions and statements; without that, the article just doesn't seem fleshed out enough, and gives off the appearance that there aren't any consequences for what he did (save for being parodied on SNL). --PeanutCheeseBar 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is that if Ito has a page Sheidlin should too, if you don't want Sheidlin to have one than Ito shouldn't either.  You say that they have no distinction over other judges besides presiding over a particular high profile case...well isn't that enough distinction?  Isn't that what makes them household names?  Famous or infamous they are still famous.  There are pages for far less noteworthy, spend your time getting those deleted and I won't be as frustrated with this topic.--69.209.158.39 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When considering whether to delete an article about someone, I think you have to ask "How many people may want to look up info about the person on Wikipedia?" Right now, for Judge Seidlin, the answer is "a lot". I vote to keep it. --JHP 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger/Deletion (old discussion in February 2007) 

message: I checked on birthdatabase.com, and it seems Seidlin's real DOB is May 24th, 1950. It is the only person who even fits his name and age within 10 years, not to mention it has him listed as living in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.141.237 (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday 

message: An episode of Law & Order had a character obviously inspired by this man.  --164.107.222.23 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: Let's talk about a compromise and merge this old current news article into Anna Nicole's article.  The nomination of this article for AFD (Articles For Deletion) that was rejected was done many months ago and was based on arguments made when this article was indeed newsworthy, but those arguments are now very old.  It's no longer current news and it's definintely not a historical article that requires preservation now that 6 months have passed since this guy's name has even been uttered in the press.  There's only been one person besides me who cares enough to even leave an opinion her since February 2007.  He's no more important than any other judge handing down a decision in a celebrity case with the exception of Judge Ito, and even Ito should be merged into O.J. & Keating's articles.  For chrissakes, Andy Warhol is tapping on this guy's shoulder and pointing at his Rolex!  I love to hear what everybody else has to say about it now in September 2007, pro or con, to my specific point that this person is not a historical figure and the proposal to merge it into Anna's article under a separate subheader.  As food for thought, consider this --- how important will this guy be to history 50 years from now?  If you believe he'll be long-forgotten and not noteworthy, vote for merger.  At least Anna will always be a historical article and he'll live on there.
I forgot to add that he gets one little blurb in Anna's article, so apparently nobody there believes he's very newsworthy either, but I disagree only in that context.  There's nothing much there about the custody trial on her page, so why not let's set up a separate subheader/subsection for it there under Anna's death details and call it "Custody Trial" and merge Seidlin's historical contribution to the article and leave out his background, which is not newsworthy or historical anyway and stick to the pertinent facts?
Also want to point out that the rumored CBS TV show for 2008 is just that at this point, a rumor, and no official source has confirmed anything.  It's amazing to me that anybody would sign this guy to a show anyway when 9 out of 10 comments I read about him are negative and it seems the entire legal community hates him.  Also, according to Law.com, he's being investigated for "asking a lawyer for gifts and financially exploiting an elderly woman". Sounds like he might become notoriously newsworthy again, or should I say infamous?  Surely CBS investigated this before they considered offering him a contract; it could be why we're not hearing much about the alleged show.
Obviously, here in September 2007, this guy is not worthy of an encyclopedic article and his news worthiness as a mini-celebrity is long gone; i.e., his 15 minutes are up.  Like the users below, I have once again nominated this article for speedy deletion (as I did months ago) and good riddance.  Dear Anna Nicole fans: Please get over it, or do the right thing and post an article on Sugar Pie, the dog, who at least had more TV time than Judge Larry, although Sugar Pie wasn't nearly as good an actor as "Cryin' Seidlin".--Bamadude 03:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From nothing more than the fact that this has been AFD'd and kept, this is not an article that should be speedy deleted. Sorry. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say "keep", but not very strongly. It's not like wiki is running out of space, and this article is at least clearly written, even if it's short. At worst, keeping this article around will save somebody the trouble of rewriting it if this guy does something else interesting down the road. Also, could you keep new comments in the same part of the page, instead of placing them around the old conversation? It makes it hard to follow. Prgrmr@wrk 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's obviously best to make rebuttal underneath the statement you're rebutting if you want clarity.--Bamadude 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick search on google brings up this article  , which seems to be pretty sure he's in the process of creating a show, and it's less than a couple months old. Guess we have to "keep waiting" for him to become non-notable again. I originally suggested the idea of merging it with the anna nicole smith page, but I no longer think that's as good an idea, since this page has gotten longer in the meantime. I really just don't see the point, her article is long enough already. Prgrmr@wrk 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Rather than making an insult against somebody who disagrees with you, why not provide new facts, or a link of your own proving that MSNBC was completely wrong? Saying that AH (whom I didn't even mention) is usually a terrible source doesn't really mean anything. You seem to be the only person who currently has a hate on for this article, and I seem to be the only person who cares enough to disagree. And in response to one of your previous comments, I'm not a fan of anna nicole smith, I barely even knew who she was until the media circus around her death. I'm just not a fan of deleting information simply because it might not be very useful, or because it's only interesting for a stupid reason. Prgrmr@wrk 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I reread the discussion page again, and you're still the only person who currently says to delete this page. Also, most people's idea of being nice doesn't include calling the other person gullible or foolish (whether or not that's true). It's bad form to refer to the other debater's attributes while defending your argument. Regardless, there's currently no strong reason to keep or delete this article, other than the fact that it already exists and may become more important in the future. There are plenty of much shorter stubs about people who didn't even have his brief fame, and those aren't deleted. A google search for "Larry Seidlin" gets about 65000 hits, which is a large number for a "non notable person". The first hit is this wiki article, but that's normal for most topics the last couple years. Prgrmr@wrk 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I initially found Seidlin to be non-notable, and just a sponge for attention; however, given that other events and stories are arising considering his rumored television show and his legal issues, I'd say we should keep the article for now.  If nothing else, Lance Ito still has an article, and I don't think he's generated any publicity since the OJ Trial.  If nothing arises from the show, then maybe this can be deleted. PeanutCheeseBar 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll be happy if this guy fades completely into oblivion by then, but it probably won't happen. As a point of interest, I'm not sure why you complain about "users sympathetic to the man at this point in time", since nobody here has actually said they like seidlein. Actually, everyone I've noticed (including myself) has said the opposite. So next time this topic comes up, try not criticising the other side, it doesn't help. Prgrmr@wrk 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Curious that you claim to know what motivates anyone who wants to keep this article.  And I don't think that talking about deletion is productive, if you think it should be deleted, put it up for AfD.  Though last time it was up, it was about 30 to 3 in favor of 'keep' and closed after only 2 days. As far as I know, notability (or lack thereof), is arguable, and lack of editor interest in editing this article is not germane to whether it is 'kept' or not (despite what the banner says at the top).  Withholding 'keep' opinion until it matters, R. Baley 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the civil response. Now this is even more of a time waster, if that's possible.  See ya at the AfD (assuming that's necessary). Bouncing out, R. Baley 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: If the above exchange is confusing, the page/conversation has been re-factored by Bamadude here.  R. Baley 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: R.B., you dolt --- that's not a reformatting!  Look at the edit and you'll see that I only moved the 1st edit down and inserted a new paragraph in front of it; the previous wording is still there word-for-word with an added sentence actually APOLOGIZING for going off on your earlier ignorance, which is not nearly as bad as this last statement you made.  And it makes perfect sense in full continuity as edited.  Why don't you come up with an argument or point that make sense instead of trying to find fault --- are you a Republican?--Bamadude 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I stand by removing the tag about "deletion being discussed". At best, it's being argued about, and that was my way of making it clear that I don't want to feed a troll. If nobody says anything new (and useful) on this topic, and it's not actually up for AFD, I'll remove that tag again in a couple days. Nobody wins arguments, not even with the help of sockpuppets. Prgrmr@wrk 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The user FirehoseYoMama above is not a sockpuppet of mine; it's an apparently new user who failed to sign properly, so I added the tag for him.  Just because there are others who are weighing in against you doesn't mean there's foul play --- only a little sanity being submitted for a change.  His IP address is in Virginia and I'm in Alabama, so it's definitely not me.  You could have looked that up if you cared to in checking your facts before making accusations, but of course, that would be going against the grain with the typical Wikipedia user verification proces of opening the mouth and making a fool of yourself instead.  And you if remove the tag until a substantial amount of time has passed to allow for other users to weigh in on the subject, I'll put it back up.  
Right now the count is 4 to 2 in your favor, which isn't an overwhelming lead, and with all of the KEEP votes either people who are obviously biased fans, or using misinformation to make a judgment (the Feb 2007 AFD vote), or on the borderline in their feelings to keep or dump it.  YOU even state you don't care for the man having his own article, so isn't this really just a power play for the sake of argument so you can win it?--Bamadude 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that I don't like him having any attention, and the fact that I think this article is worth keeping are completely unrelated. My personal opinion of the man has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the article. Seriously, stop telling me (and everyone else who doesn't agree with you) why I want to keep this article, it's very annoying. I am not a "biased fan", a "gulla bull", a "rabid fan", an "anna nicole smith fan", or making a "power play". The only reason I'm even here is because this page happens to be on my watchlist, which I never clear out. Prgrmr@wrk 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Telling you to be civil and stick to the debate does not impinge on any rights of free speech. I don't need to cite sources when telling you what things are not true about me, and explaining your own incorrect opinions about me does not count as citing a source. The only thing I'm a "rabid fan" of here is not removing information without a good reason. The last thing I have to say regarding this topic is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which I believe still applies to your desire to delete this article. I won't respond again on this topic until the article is actually put up for AFD, or somebody actually posts new information instead of new noise. Prgrmr@wrk 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger/Deletion discussion as of September 2007 

message: The 1st section below is the current discussion to merge Seidlin's article into Anna Nicole Smith's article with his own section there.  This is a different discussion from the premature discussion of this subject which was done in the 2nd section below back in February 2007, and it's been generally accepted that he was indeed a notable person in February 2007 and the article shouldn't have been been proposed as an Article for Deletion at that time; it was kept, of course.  Most people who vote to keep the article do so because of a rumored future national TV show, but currently there is no official word from either the alleged TV producer (CBS, through its syndication wing, CTD) nor Seidlin himself that a deal has been reached and no official confirmation that screen tests are even being done, just rumors.  Please read the entire section including each argument/response and leave your own comment about your feelings over the merger proposal.  If enough people propose a merger, it will be sent to WP:AFD again.  Since Seidlin is no longer in the news and arguably not a historic figure, the comments for or against make take some time to show a broad consensus one way or the other as only 6 people have weighed in over a 3-week period, which in itself may be considered indicative of his non-notoriety.  If you believe the article should be kept, please indicate how long you feel we should wait for the rumored TV show to be announced officially.
The comments are currently running 4 to 2 to keep it, though mainly to see if Seidlin's rumored show becomes reality. It is proposed that only logged-in users leave a comment so it eliminates the possibility of sockpuppets and so you can stand behind your words in name.--Bamadude 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger/Deletion proposal 

message: The article doesn't currently state that he was the Judge in the Anne Nicole death, paternaty suit thing - surely this is important as it's what he's notable for. Guest9999 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: I think we need to revisit the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.235.4 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to delete again?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Larry Seidlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929095854/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cseidlin23feb23,0,3083996.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines to http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cseidlin23feb23,0,3083996.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified