This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Does this guy really need an article separate from MediaDefender? He appears to have no other claim to notability, and a merge might serve both articles well. Otherwise this one in particular seems irredeemable without simply stubbing. - toh07:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems to cover material that mostly belongs in the MD article, as well as becoming a soapbox for his opponents. It needs to be trimmed down to become a genuine potted biography, or merged. I've added the merge-proposal templates since you presumably forgot to do it. --kingboyk17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The guy hasn't done anything of note, his company has (unless you count what could be regarded as bad management as noteworthy). Incidentally, shouldn't this discussion be taking place where the "Discuss" links in the merge template on both this and the mediadefender page lead to [1][2] (which is the Talk:MediaDefender page). It makes sense to me that if the template says "Discuss" and a user clicks on it they should be led to the discussion on this page rather than no discussion on the md page Neververyvery16:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, seem's silly to merge a person with an article about a company, I mean, he is not the company is he, he is the MD. There is already a link to his page, so why bother merging them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.65.113 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree, the Mediadefender article is specifically about the company and the Miivi.com incident. Even though Randy Saaf as a person is heavily linked with this, I don't think merging the articles into a single article is viable. I fear what we get is an article thats 2-sided, one about the company, and the other about the person. Instead, I think wikifying the article is a much better idea. Fransw14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read the article and the references and in my opinion, they're all in the context of mediadefender, even down to the donation. Could you list which topics you mean please? Thanks. Neververyvery (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge - The MediaDefender article can reasonably include information on its founder; there doesn't seem to be a need to have two separate articles. If an uninformed user were looking for this information it would be rather inconvenient to have to go to two separate articles to get the brief overview that the two articles provide. --Lquilter (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to delete this article because the only important thing about him is that he is a ceo of that company. If the page about the company already mentions him then this page should just get deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.87.175 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The article is dealing more with the miivi incident as pointed out by Fransw and the email leak controversy; merging the two will split the article in a way, with one part for the incident and one for this guy, it will look sloppy. (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This person is notable and deserves his own article. Merging the two articles will likely result in loss of information about him. --AB (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
