Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Josephs

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 speedy delete. Author requested deletion + clear consensus Favonian (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Josephs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable as per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS CET^TALK 20:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Article has been translated from another edition, which contains more Informations about the reaction of the internet community which makes the issue interessting. The arrest of Courtney Winkels is not so interessting, but the case has caused a hughe series of discussions in the internet, including a lawsuit and many Media Reports about the case and the Discussion itself. The bad thing about the article is, that he doesn't mention these things. The article has been created by a bad translator or a normal translation programme, however, it's been in a terrible state.

In brief, the problem is that the article does only mention the arrest, but not the turmoil it caused and which makes the issue relevant. The few things, which are mentioned in this article do really look like simple news, but the issue goes beyoud that.

CharlieEchoTange has claimed, that this article was written as a hate page. This is completely wrong. The german version of this article has been written by at least three senior editors, there have never been any attempts to publish threats or something like this. As already mentioned, this article is a bad translation. The german Edition inculdes more Informations, especially those about the things which make the subject relevant. I can supply them if they are needed. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment:Nothing said about threats, only "attack page" meaning consistent POV and negative bias. CSD was declined. As for "news", I don't think it is a notable event, although some media outlets published the story, it is carried out and amplified mostly by groups with strong political objectives, hence the current lawsuit. I also think that WP should be very careful with this BLP as a lawsuit is carried out specifically targetting internet coverage of this "event". CET^TALK 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also written this in the articles discussion, but the article itself seems to look as if was making Josephs look bad because of its bad quality. The article does only mention the arrest, but there has been a major media response to this issue also in non-english media which makes the issue relevant, allong with the response of the internet community. As you seem to fear the terrible censorship of the lawyers guild: Josephs has filled lawsuits against persons who harassed him or made him look like a fool with some animations. The article is bad, but its not bad in this way, so I do not see any problems. I have seen persons who wanted to take wikimedia to court (due to the laws in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, the project can not be taken to court, just the editor) and these cases were really differnt. In brief we are on the safe side if we do use references. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fits WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." NW (Talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to state again, that this is a failure of the article, but not the issue. The article is in fact really bad. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, which is not a failure of the article: however you write the article, this man is famous only because of this single incident. Also delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This is a trivial incident of no long-term importance. In so far as coverage is continuing, it is because it is being pumped up for partisan purposes. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid any missunderstandings: I did not commit that terrible translation. And compared to the materials I found its somehow really bad, as it does not state why Jospehs should be relevant. It does not cover the discussion about the incident, which has been coverd by media all over the world (I just googled ist). The main problem is the bad quality, so the article would need a major review. Writing the thing again or somewhere else would not be more work, so this article could be deleted, as I have collected some material about the thing I could look after it for example in the articel about the G20-Summits as User:CharlieDeltaEcho suggested. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This single incident that this person is known for is not a notable event. If you look at the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests wikipedia page, it wasn't considered notable enough within the larger protest to be mentioned. Even a few months after this protest, there doesn't seem to be any longterm historical context for this video (other than getting a number of hits on YouTube).DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because some internet yahoos are making this constable a whipping boy for the events of the G20 summit protests does not make him WP material. As there is no other information I could find on this person, BLP issues alone make this a non-starter for an article. I thought it was a clear WP:G10, myself. Bielle (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2010 (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.