Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10

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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Curtis

Solomon Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

A rather obvious autobiography (several separate

• delete for obvious lack of political notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-promotion and lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of notability.
  AutomaticStrikeout 21:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-notable "Youth Parliament" member. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly a self-serving bio for an unelected politician. Fails GNG and the SNG low bar (high bar?) for politicians. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2014 (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.

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.

Bregal Sagemount

Bregal Sagemount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing but press releases. accepted at AfC nevertheless. As a very general guide, private equity firms with assets of less than $1 billion are very unlikely to be notable--not that this is a guideline precisely, but most AfD discussions have ended up that way. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments on the Bregal Sagemount article. Always happy to be working to make this a better article and would appreciate some feedback on how to do so. A few things to highlight:

• The reviewer mentions that there are nothing but press releases in the article; I'm not sure where this comes from, as the only references (save one link to the Bregal Sagemount website) are to articles written in the reputable financial press (for example, Bloomberg). No press releases included.

• The other comment relates to the size of the fund, with $1 billion being a guideline for whether or not a fund is notable. I'm not sure how this guideline has developed over time or how it originated, but I do think it is somewhat odd. Many firms that do not raise $1 billion+ funds would be considered notable to those familiar with the industry. To take an extreme example, Sequoia Capital, one of the worlds most well-known private equity / venture capital firms, only raised a $1 billion+ fund in 2009 after investing across several smaller funds for years in companies such as Apple, Google, Cisco, Zappos, and PayPal.

Thanks much!

Michaelkosty (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg references says only that Yoon left his previous position. It does not even mention this company. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards weak keep is not an example of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? The $1 billion cutoff seems completely arbitrary. If this fund is allocated and they add a second of equal size (meeting the $1 billion threshold) will the firm then be deemed notable? Listen, it's a new firm led by significant people in the industry and it's making some waves. $500 million isn't chump change and it will be interesting to see how their investments pan out (or don't). I think the subject is worth including and will almost certainly become more notable as there are additional developments and coverage of their investments and funding operations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Candleabracadabra. According to
  WP:CORPDEPTH, I think it passes notability. The 1/5 Billion line is not set in stone, to garble my metaphors. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2014 (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.

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Tercera División

2011–12 Tercera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No attempt at prose; non-professional football competition. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable sports competition. GiantSnowman 19:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - per nom, in no way a "top professional league" as required by NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. –
  Jay 20:19, 11 February 2014 (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.

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HappyBird

HappyBird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete- False claims and copyright infringement Fails to explain why page can be included as an encyclopedic subject. Seems to be promotional in nature than encyclopedic value. With further research it is clear that manufacturer of company is ANGEL (https://www.iamhappybird.com/) where page creator has listed Digital Angel (http://www.digitalangel.com/) of United States which can be copyright infringement as they are two different companies. Ireneshih (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Copyright infringement is not handled through AfD as a rule, nor do I see any copyright infringement here. What text is being improperly copied and where? Nor do I see any "false claims". If there is an error in the name of the company, that should be corrected. Is "Angel" simply short for "Digital Angel" or is it an error or are the two related in some way? we should find out if possible, but none of those are reasons for deletion. The article as it stands is stating apparent facts, not making promotional claims. It may be that those facts do not have sufficient relaible sources supporting them, in which case we should correct that if possible, and if that is not possible, THEN and only then would deletion be appropriate.
  WP:BEFORE prior to the nom? DES ^(talk) 14:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • follow up The page https://www.iamhappybird.com/terms/ lists the firm's legal name as "Angel Digital Pty Ltd". So does the page <https://www.iamhappybird.com/warranty/ >, and I don't find any page on the iamhappybird.com that uses just ANGEL. Where exactly does this form appear? DES ^(talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2 of 3 references are press releases and the other one may be as well. Fails to come close to demonstrating [WP:Notability]]. Even if notable, promotional tone suggest
  WP:STARTOVER may be best. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as per davidwr. No copyright infringement as far as I can see, though. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page should stay, it is about a company which manufactures devices which are intended to facilitate student and especially designed to replace there school bags.

  Check references which further elaborate it

  http://www.independentschoolparent.com/health/help-protect-your-childs-back-with-a-digital-backpack

  http://www.mobile-ent.biz/development/android/the-digital-schoolbag-that-banishes-back-pain/042817

  it has been discussen on BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01ph4pc

  Olexazale (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally extended until 18:30 17 February 2014 (UTC) due to improper original listing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Olexazale: regarding the 3 references above: 1 is already on the article. The video is unavailable to me. A link to a working copy or transcript would be very helpful. I have commented on these references and on the 3 existing references in the article on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are at least two sources - one that is in the article and one that is not but which is mentioned above - which may help demonstrate notability, provided they are truly independent and reliable. Unfortunately, both include quotes from a press release and both seem promotional in tone and purpose. The video source listed above is "to be determined" as I am unable to see it and do not have access to a transcript. See the article talk page for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 01:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This may be a mistake, as I included it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10 in the cleanup yesterday. I will notify Cyberpower678 (the bot owner) on his talk page shortly. I have no objections to a further procedural delay of the close until Feb. 18th. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article reads like advertising copy, and the company doesn't have the substantial third-party coverage I'd expect from a firm that met
  WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:59, 16 February 2014 (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.

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. slakr^\ talk / 14:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This was an extreme case of

1. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg
2. Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC on whether or not to include File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg
3. Wikipedia:DRV#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg

Tarc (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you at least see the massive AGF fail? Why didn't it occur to you that I honestly assumed that the issue with contextual significance was remediated by the creation of a stand-alone article, which I still say is justified? Also, if the premise of your accusations of pointiness is that creating the article was an "end-around" way of saving the image from deletion, then don't you also see that deleting the article is an "end-around" way of getting a FFD mulligan? You shouldn't be deleting this article to jeopardize the image anymore than I should write an article to save it from deletion; not that I did that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It wasn't a minor event; Hendrix faced 20 years in prison for smuggling heroin across international borders! Further, virtually all sources agree that the drugs were planted on Hendrix and that the bust had been set-up. So, I fail to see how the biggest star in North America being framed for drug smuggling is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Per
  WP:POINTY is irrelevant if this incident meets the general notability guidelines, which it absolutely does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge and Delete - Tarc's reasoning is spot on for the pointy-ness of the article's creation. On a more technical level, most of the content was originally part of Jimi Hendrix to spin out here, but I don't know how well the trail of attribution is. That said, as the article title is not a reasonable search term, so a history merge may be appropriate here to keep attribution, even if the bulk of the content is removed later (ala to the pre-meddled version). It may barely meet the GNG, but there was no reason to separate it out from the Hendrix article just to justify the use of NFCC (and where its use is still of highly dubious nature since the mugshot is not a significant subject of discussion). --MASEM (t) 18:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. There are numerous interleaved revisions (e.g., GabeMc's edits) that will appear in the page history as large additions or removals. WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history works well with few contributors – predominantly GabeMc with edits from Cullen328 and a few others. This spin-off article does not comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge and Delete Can we put this to rest, and just delete the image? This fork causes UNDUE and a host of other issues. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article not only easily satisfies the
  WP:POVFORK, as it written from a neutral POV to begin with. I do not believe the creation of this article was "pointy" - it certainly is not disruptive. Doc talk 02:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The Wind Cries Keep: A clearly notable and well-covered incident in the life of one of the most important personalities in rock music, who was well known for his history of drug [ab]use. It warrants a
  pointy as the editor who created the article. Ivanvector (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There's no forumshopping here. This article was created under pointy terms. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if the editor's intent is judged as pointy the created article no longer meets
      WP:GNG? That's some pretty pathetic logic, Masem. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The Hendrix article passed FAC just fine with 2 para + change about the trial and without this article existing. That's a pretty clear sign that the level of detail then was more than sufficient. The only reason this article exists is that those fighting to try to justify a NFC image added tons of information of trivial detail beyond those two paragraphs as create this much information. This doesn't merit it appropriate because it is written like news line (a timeline of events and less about the impact). Two paragraphs were fine before, you don't need a full article for that. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's your personal opinion and as far as I can tell you have never read more than a few lines about Hendrix, so how would you even know? You should not be giving content advice on topics about which you know absolutely nothing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why was the article fine at FAC and not now? Again, I need to stress that the bulk of the information was added to Hendrix' article by those fighting to keep the image and weighed it down there. And it doesn't matter what I do or don't know about Hendrix, I'm looking at the overall quality and process going on. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Masem, a topic like Jimi Hendrix could easily justify 25,000 words or more, but if you know anything about FAC, then you know that's simply too long per
              WP:SPLITTING, an article of this size is a good candidate for sub-articles, of which Hendrix has a few. So, just because an article passed FAC does not automatically mean that there isn't anything more notable that could possibly be written if the total words were not an issue, as they aren't at the new article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • No, there's no size issue here. 50k is where one can start considering but it is not required (that's 100k). The problem is that the extra details far exceed appropriate content for an encyclopedia. The two paras + change was sufficient before, this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think Masem has inadvertently identified exactly what the problem is with his whole approach, to wit, he prefers to argue "process" over the "substance" of the article which he appears to admit that he doesn't actually know anything about. Although I have personally never edited this article, I fully agree with the other editors in here who have been major contributors to it. Process for process sake should never be allowed to trump content which, after all, is what readers come to Wikipedia to get. If material is relevant and reliably sourced it should be included. On line encyclopedias are different than print publishing as they are made available digitally and are therefore are not restricted by the physical constraints print publishing. Masem is, of course, free to argue his position as to his views on process which others are free to disagree with and let consensus prevail. But when it comes to substance he should offer very considerable deference to those who have been developing and building the article for many years when it comes to substance over process. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and more but there are numerous things it is
                    not. Regurgitation of news reports without analysis is one of those things. There is something on the impact of the trial on Hendrix' life, and this was suitably within the original article before the expansion to try to justify the image. If you take out the extraneous news reports (Verifyable but of trivial detail for an encyclopedia), there's little left here. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
                    • Of the 25 foot note sources cited, 22 are to eight different books, one is from Rolling Stone, one if from The Torontoist, and one is from The New York Times. Six additional books and four documentary films are also referenced at the end of the article so I have no idea where you come up with the idea that this article is based on the "regurgitation of news reports without analysis". With respect, sir, this line of argument is completely empty, and this entire AfD strikes me as petty, unjustified, little more than additional forum shopping, and frankly a waste of time. Centpacrr (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP - When Mr. Hendrix was publicly arrested at Toronto Pearson Airport in May, 1969, he was a high profile public figure in the midst of his all too brief lead artist musical career which lasted little more than four years from when he formed his own band in 1966 until his untimely death in London from an overdose of barbiturates in 1970 at age 27. His Toronto arrest, booking, indictment, seven months of being under threat of incarceration if convicted, and his three-day trial were clearly a very significant and personally stressful episode for Mr. Hendrix which negatively affected his life and career. The principal public record documenting any arrest and booking is a legally mandated booking photograph (or "mugshot") taken during the formal booking process, and the image in question therefore constitutes the only identifiable contemporaneous such record of his arrest available to illustrate and augment this article. His arrest received considerable coverage in print and broadcast media at the time, and has been covered in subsequent published books and articles in the years since.

The statement in the somewhat petty deletion nomination above that "If there wasn't a big brouhaha over the image being removed form the main Hendrix article, this spinout would never have been created." is true, but so what? That is exactly how much of the Wikipedia Project is built. Since nobody is "assigned" anything to write in the project, its development depends on individual editors becoming interested in a topic or sub topic, tracking down the reliable sources, building an entry, and then the community adds and expands it. Just because his arrest and the subsequent legal process leading to his trial and acquittal was only a few sentences before the recent discussions is a red herring.

The current Hendrix article is now over 16,000 words long. When it was started in 2001 it was barely 400 words so over the past 13 years it has grown in length and detail by some forty fold! I dare say millions of published words have been written about Mr. Hendrix over the past half century and Amazon alone lists 24 published books about him. That being the case, it seems to me that a 1,500 word article with one illustration about this clearly significant episode in Mr. Hendrix's life is hardly excessive. Instead this proposal seems to be little more that yet another new attempt at forum shopping to find another way to attempt to delete a long standing image for which there is considerable support to retain as has been demonstrated in the many earlier discussions going back as far as 2011 which together have now consumed approaching 55,000 words in length.

Instead of adding another five or ten thousands more words, let us instead just close this thinly disguised attempt to find another excuse to delete this image, be thankful that an editor has been willing to expand the coverage of this element of Mr. Hendrix’s life by taking the time and effort to create and develop this well sourced and relevant sub-article, and then we all move on to other more productive areas to expand and improve the project. Centpacrr (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – As far as I can see, this article easily meets
  WP:GNG and is easily one of the most notable events in Hendrix' life. It is wholly usual to separate notable events from confirmed WP articles into their own page, such as we do with discographies. Cassianto^Talk 20:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This was not one of the most important events in his life--for real. There is no encyclopedic point in having this minor thing in a separate article; merging it back in the main article, seriously trimmed, is the best thing to do. And as for the 14 years in prison--they didn't happen, did they. Besides, as one of the sources notes, "By far the most extraordinary aspect of Jimi Hendrix's drug bust in Toronto on May 3, 1969, was how little press it generated." Drmies (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reading; it generated little press because Hendrix's management bribed people to bury the story. Interesting angle, hey? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, no, sorry. Bribing one AP reporter, ah well. It didn't prevent the NYT from reporting on it. But even with a bribe this is not a notable enough incident to warrant its own article. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • On what basis, Drmies, do you conclude that this was "not one of the most important events in his life"? Unfortunately Mr. Hendrix has been dead for almost 44 years so he can't offer his views personally but if you were arrested and facing charges that could put you in prison for 14 years I dare say that you would not view that as an unimportant event in your life. As a high profile public figure that would only exacerbate the significance of this event to Mr. Hendrix, not diminish it. The basis for retention is not whether or not this was important to you, or any other editor or reader, but whether or not it was important to Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the article. Clearly it was. Centpacrr (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Virtually all sources agree that the drugs were planted on Hendrix and that the bust had been set-up. So is it really your position that the biggest star in North America was framed for drug smuggling, but that is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep. Every event of his life is pretty much significant. Being contractually obligated to produce one more record and churning out Band of Gypsys was a significant event. Setting a guitar on fire in 1967 was a significant event. Playing Woodstock the morning after was a significant event. His military service was significant. All of these can probably be much more extensively sourced than this story. And I didn't say that it wasn't notable for inclusion: you're putting words in my mouth. It should be included in his article, and not anywhere else. Do you want to argue there should be separate articles on the friendship between Hawthorne and Melville? On Faulker receiving the Nobel prize? On SRV getting clean? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, thanks for the thoughtful reply; good points all. At the risk of breaking
              WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think its hypocritical to pounce on this article in the first 24 hours out of principle when 4 or 5 out every 10 random article I see are not any more justified, based on your logic here. E.g., there is a Wikipedia article about almost every footballer who ever lived no matter how inconsequential. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Keep. This is a valid split of extended detail which would otherwise be too much for the main biography. The event was covered sufficiently by the media to satisfy our
  WP:GNG requirement. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Enough to warrant a paragraph or two. That doesn't warrant a separate article. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with a selective merge of the most important elements. This is far beyond "ordinary"
  undue weight. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not "Police News of the Past". Encyclopedias are supposed to provide an overview of major events, not the most minute trivia as I'm seeing here. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In what way does this article fail
    WP:GNG? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Let me repeat: this is massively undue weight, and this much content on the incident is not encyclopedic. I can provide tons of reliable sources for the meanings, etymological development, spelling changes, etc. of the words "rose" and "black" (check the OED on these; they get more coverage than almost any other words), and far more than is necessary for GNG. However, we wouldn't keep such an article because that's the province of a dictionary, not of an encyclopedia; in the same way, this is the province of an actual biography, not an encyclopedia article. Meanwhile, can you provide evidence of this event having any of WP:EVENTCRIT's historical significance, unrelated to Hendrix himself? I quote from
      WP:NOT — Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Meanwhile, consider again what I said above: real encyclopedias summarise what the sources have said, rather than giving every trivium that gets mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Well, per
        Western Flycatcher, Denisse van Lamoen? How many albums or songs can be said to have "historical significance", maybe 10%? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I think this source is very "groovy" and should be used in the article. Doc talk 06:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. It's a pretty substantial article on a pretty substantial event. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete - Although I share
  open channel) 00:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and Delete per above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If one reads the coverage of the arrest and trial in respected biographies such as those written by Shapiro and Glebbeek, and by Charles Cross, and in Noel Redding's autobiography, all written decades after Hendrix's death, it becomes clear that this was a traumatic event that greatly affected him for seven months. It was vastly more than a "match played, goal scored or hand shaken". And his career as a big star only lasted four years. Since GabeMc strongly supported deletion of the mugshot image, I fail to see how this is somehow his ploy to keep the image. The article should be evaluated on its own merits and its potential for improvement rather than being tied to the image debate. When Jimi Hendrix became a featured article, there were only three poorly-referenced sentences about this arrest and trial. Pretty much all of what Tarc calles the "pre-meddled-with version" was added later, mostly by GabeMc and I, who were disagreeing strongly about the image at the time while collaborating on improving the text. I believe that this article is appropriate under these specific circumstances, and do not see its creation as "pointy". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - JH is a music icon, a virtual Messiah, across the world. Ordinarily this might be trival but not in his case. S.O. went to a lot of trouble, including apparently to carefully cite sources, in creating this. My main reason to keep is it gets cumbersome to read the JH article if this is all stuffed there. It's much more manageable and the conventional way to do it on WP, to have a little "See main article" link and only a dab about this at JH. Paavo273 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Who will save us from this terrible peril of editors expanding articles?Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an issue with expansion - it's expansion written to far too much detail for an encyclopedia, with most of the text there trying to justify the use of the mugshot non-free image (the whole reason the article was created to prevent its deletion off the Hendrix page). That is both abusing the purpose of non-free, as well failing to be an encyclopedia. This event was well covered in the original Hendrix article (and reviewed at FAC) by 2 paragraphs + change prior to issues with the mugshot. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, Masem, this continued line of argument of yours has already been fully debunked by multiple other editors in this thread and has thus gained no traction. For one thing the creator of this article had opposed keeping the mugshot. His creation of this entry was instead done for a very different reason, to-wit, with further reading and consultation of reliable published sources (including eight books he cited in the 25 footnotes) the creating editor found that the arrest and subsequent seven month criminal legal issues were far more significant in Mr. Hendrix's life than were then reflected in the main article's original material.
    • As has happened many many thousands of times on WP in the past, this led the editor to take the initiative to create a "daughter" article on this complex seven month episode and link it to the main article. Far from being an "abuse" of process, this is one of the main ways in which the project is built. If you are not personally interested in the subject of this particular article you are, of course, free to ignore and not read it. That does not mean, however, that your personal disinterest in it is a valid reason to deny access to this information to those who are. Wikipedia is not designed to only appeal to only the lowest common denominator of interest, but instead to the broadest. So let us just close this ill conceived and pointless AfD now, stop additional forum shopping to delete the original image, and move on to more productive activities like growing the project instead of trying to diminish it. Centpacrr (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this article was specifically created so that the mugshot image would no longer be an issue on the Hendrix page, effectively off-loading the problem to here; there it was considered a compromise but without input of NFCC consideration. Prior to that, the editors on that page created an incredibly detailed account of the trial and arrest (beyond what would be called for in an encyclopedia) to try to justify the image under NFCC, beyond the original tight version. If the FFD had closed delete, this article would have never likely been created and the extra text added removed for the condensed version. We do not write articles to justify NFCC, it is supposed to be the other way around. And this "this complex seven month episode" is hyperbole. He was called out at the airport, they found drugs, he was booked, bail was posted, a trial date was set, and the trial took all of a day 7 months later, with him acquitted of the charges. Four total days out of his life. And given everything else that has been said and the full extent of what's there on Hendrix, yes, the weight of the charge was an impact on his performance art, but that easily can be (and has been) described in a few short paragraphs prior to this expansion. We are not a newspaper, which the bulk of this article is, and more importantly, is better covered in context of the overall life of Hendrix. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you really think that is the way that Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the main article, viewed this seven months? Really? I hope you are never put in the same situation Mr. Hendrix was. If you were I think you would have a whole different perspective on this! With respect, Masem, you are just plain wrong here and your argument is thus not gaining any support or consensus. So please just drop it. With respect, sir, you are now just making yourself look foolish. Centpacrr (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure it weighed heavily on him. But to say it has that much significance given how little the sources cover this period is OR and undue weight. We do have choice quotes that can be used, but they worked just fine in context of the overall biography of him before this article was created. That part should be kept. But a full detailed documentation of the short arrest and trial which is the bulk of this article is improper. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Masem, once again you have your facts about Hendrix wrong. The sources cover this period in just as much detail as any other in his life, so I'm not sure where you got that idea or why you keep repeating it, but its not at all accurate. The sources absolutely cover this period. Centpacrr is correct about the enormity of this event in Hendrix's life. For one, all he ever wanted to do was make a living as a professional musician. Had he been convicted, his music career would have been ended. Also, he toured incessantly from 1967, but after completing the scheduled engagements after the bust, he didn't perform for more than 6 months, the longest such hiatus of his entire 6-years career. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • You were the one in the discussions before complaining that suddenly the content dedicated to the trial in the article (before this was split) in word %ages far exceeded what the sources had about it. That tells me right there this is undue weight. If he was convicted, yes, it would have affected his life, obviously. So are people who are arrested for anything with potential jail sentences - but we don't create articles on every one of those trials even if the people are notable. And all these details you give should be in his biographical context, as they are important and show the importance of the trial on that, but you had that fine in the FAC version with 2 paragraphs and change. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are confused; I said that the actual image wasn't discussed, not that the incident wasn't. Re: Masem's repeated assertions that reliable secondary sources do not cover this incident in any detail. In 2003, author and Hendrix biographer Keith Shadwick wrote: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident." (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books.
                  ISBN 978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) My sentiments exactly, which is precisely why I created the sub-article. His bio should be primarily about his music. Not his drug use as Masem has insisted. For Masem pushing for more material devoted to drugs, look here and here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                • So, why complain about
                  WP:UNDUE here, while pushing for a build-up of material relating to Hendrix's drug use in an effort to justify the picture? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • (ec) That's not what I said (about the image and the incident). You were saying things like "Either way, we currently devote 3–6 times as much space to the incident as these two bios do..." in trying to show why the mugshot and expansion wasn't necessary, and shows why this is undue weight on a small incident on his life that easily was summarized in a few paragraphs before. And his bio should be about his biography, since we have separate articles for all his studio albums and other music works (though a broad overview of his musical talents and influence of course should be in the main article). Whatever aspect about Hendrix and his purported drug use should be part of that article, not separate. To off-load anything about his drug use to a separate article seems extremely POV-ish (to make Hendrix appear more "saintly" (for lack of a better word) than what sources give). Yes, we have to cover the bad about a person as well as the good as long as its reliably documents, that's what NPOV requires. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • See, that's the point that you aren't getting. The coverage of his drug use in the dedicated article is already ample, but you suggested that if we "build-it up more" the image would be justified, which isn't at all how you write a good article. You keep repeating that I made Hendrix out to look good regarding drugs, but I still think that you haven't even bothered to actually read the article, or at least that section devoted to drugs and alcohol. In the article, I detail at least three bad acid trips, his marijuana and hashish use, his use of speed, cocaine, and LSD, and his propensity for violence when he drank too much. Oh yeah, and also his overdose on sleepers. Still, you push for more detail regarding drug use so that his article is more about his substance abuse then it is his life and music. No, I am not trying to make him look "saintly", and anyone who reads the article will see that. IMO, it is you how wants him to look like a junkie that he never was. That's the NPOV issue here, not the opposite. Really though, you think that "build-up the story of his drug use to justify a non-free image" is good advice? Really? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Per BDD's explanation in closing the FFD: "Does the presence of other images in the Jimi Hendrix make this image superfluous? Perhaps. I note that there aren't other images related to his "drug use and violence." It may be fruitful instead to treat this as a content dispute, discussing on the article talk page what this image contributes to the overall article rather than focusing on its copyright status". That suggested looking at expanding out the article to talk about drug use and violence even if this shines a negative light on Hendrix (as long as that's sourced). Not the trial. If you trim out the details of the arrest and trial, you have something that slots right back into the bio in the right place. And I was also trying to say "expand to debunk the urban legends that he was a junkie, such as the oft-cited claim that Purple Haze was about drugs", all which should be part of this article. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That's also bad advice, Masem. Details regarding the meaning of the lyrics to "Purple Haze" absolutely do not belong in the dedicated bio as an effort to discuss his drug use. That's a detail for the song article, and that's good article 101. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No it's not. It is a clear urban legend that Hendrix was a junkie, with one common example being that Purple Haze lyrics were about drugs. This should be addressed and debunked as best as the sources allow for on his bio article (citing some examples which may include some of his musical works) to make it clear how false the urban legend is. This seems completely appropriate to address in a biographical article as it would be the first place I'd look for checking the validity of that legend. Importantly, though, this urban legend is documented (and some cases, perpetuated) in reliable sources; if it wasn't, FRINGE is over that way and I would agree to completely ignore it. But that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Masem, the article currently has 900 words devoted to Hendrix's drug use and problems occurring thereof. The article is 11,595 words long; therefore: 7.8% of the article is devoted to his drug use and less than 10% to his three studio albums! Why won't you acknowledge this point? How much coverage of drugs is enough, because you keep saying that there isn't enough, but its one of the main focuses of the article that you apparently have never even read. Will you please acknowledge that you understand that almost 8% of the article's prose deals with Hendrix's drug use? Why, IYO, is this not enough? Have you even read a book on Hendrix? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Just because only 10% of the biographical article is dedicated to his music, there's several sub-articles that goes into his music in more depth via his studio albums, so the net volume of information on his music is much larger. And the text that is in there about his history with drugs is too detailed at some points, and not broad enough. The fact you have it separated out from his personal history (falling after the section of his death), it should be approached as a broad picture of whatever troubles and ways to rid himself of such troubles with drugs and alcohol use. It focus much much less on the details and more on the larger picture. That's what the issue was when people started filling in all the possible details they could about the trial to justify the mugshot - it lost sight of the larger picture of how this section should have been structures as to force NFCC. If I go back to the version promoted at FA, I don't understand why any more is needed as long as it is understood that the present text there would not support the mugshot. If you start to go into any more detail, then you need to cover all the basis and that's where the problem lies with the current version and this article. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                                • You seem to operate under the notion that whatever was there when it passed FAC is set-in-stone. I don't share this view; I continue to improve my FAs long after they pass. At any rate, I have no respect for your opinions on content; sorry, but I seriously don't think that you know what you are talking about in that regard. I think the article is absolutely the best on Hendrix currently available online. Find a better one, or find a better Wikipedia article about any rock star from the 1960s. I'd love to see what you think is better. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep valid sub-article of
  jimi hendrix, which by itself easily meets the GNG, also decently written. Nomination seems to be little more than a disagreement on the organization of the main article.  The Steve  09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and delete Okay, I'm trying not to get too distracted by the apparent suggestion that somehow this non-conviction on a drug charge is more notable than the Kennedy assassination, for heaven's sake. But after following all the back and forth, I do agree with the position that this could be summarized quite adequately within the main article, and does not merit a content fork.
  talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I was in no way comparing this incident to the Kennedy assassination; I was merely debunking Masem's assertion that the Hendrix sources don't cover the arrest and trial, because every single one of them does. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After a lot of thought and careful reading of this page as well as the new article, I agree with the reasoning that this material stands on its own as a separate article. It is well-sourced, written and presented. The arguments to delete are highly unconvincing, and the arguments that deletion is justified because the article was created to prove a point, while superficially plausible, can just as easily be "boomeranged" around. The article improves the 'pedia. Let's move on. Jusdafax 23:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now there's the Tarc I remember. Regardless of any speculations about motives, the bottom line is that the article passes
  WP:GNG and does so with flying colors. The comments of Andy Dingley and Centpacrr ring very true. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No one is saying it doesn't pass the GNG. But meeting the GNG does not assure a stand-alone article is appropriate, particularly in this case where the coverage of this detail fails
    WP:UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Well-written article about a little-known but scarring incident. Rothorpe (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The arguments for deletion are not baseless, but I actually think there is plenty here to live in its own article. Calling content creation pointy should be done with extreme care and with irrefutable proof, neither of which I see here. The encyclopedia benefits from this coverage, and there is no reason to dilute and merge it other than possibly arguments for undue weight, which I don't find compelling. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gabe contributes a great deal to Wikipedia's music pages and I find all of his articles to be well balanced and meaningful. --Kingslove2013 —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-written and well-sourced article on a notable event in one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century. Although I think it will need to be renamed to meet naming conventions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 05:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• WP:POINTY? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Tarc, are you sure it was a "minor incident", if so, where did you get this information? Hendrix faced 14 years in prison; is that really minor, IYO? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  My reasoning is that I witnessed what is IMO a bad-faith end-around done because an NFCC-related discussion wasn't going your way. The claim that this is "one of the most notable events in the life of Jimi Hendrix" is just...I don't know what to call it, either it's severely uninformed regarding Hendrix and rock history in general, or it is intentional (and very transparent) hyperbole. It doesn't matter how long the potential sentence was, it doesn't justify the word bloat that you're giving it. And please stop pinging me, I have the AFD on watchlist. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't bad-faith, Tarc. The major concern was that the image didn't belong at

  WP:GNG. Can you make any cogent argument that it does not meet these guidelines? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Saying "The major concern was that the image didn't belong at Jimi Hendrix..." is an admission of guilt as far as I am concerned, and the meandering into

  other topics only reinforces that. My nomination rationale was two-fold; your bad-faith end-around of a non-free content discussion, and the fact that there isn't enough to say about the event itself to justify forking off of the main article. The prose at present reminds me of a junior high-schooler fluffing up an essay to make it reach the required number of pages the teacher asked for; a lot of words to say very little, a lot of excessive detail beyond what is warranted for an encyclopedia topic. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "an admission of guilt"? Am I really on trial here? Why are my intentions a factor regarding the notability guidelines? As far as the current condition of the article, its less than 24 hours old. Tell me it sucks after I get it through FAC! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As a note, Jackson was charged with *14* counts involving minors; I can't find an exact number of what the maximum sentence would have been but were he found guilty he would have been spending several decades in prison from some of these charges alone. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Werieth, what part of our notability guidelines does this article fail? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I never stated that this issue shouldnt be covered, however I think that creating a separate article for what in the big picture is a minor event, places undue importance on the event. That undue importance violates
  WP:NPOV. Werieth (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I strongly disagree. There is all kinds of stuff to go into. Like speculation that Hendrix's manager Mike Jeffery had him set-up to control him (Redding's book). Or that Hendrix purgured himself under oath, or how about the possibility that he was set-up by the authorities. He faced 14 years in prison, so to say this is a minor event in his life is ridiculous. What about
  1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• One of the most fascinating things about the nuances of this project for me is that there really is no room for die-hard "wikibuddies" if you approach it honestly. Things can turn on a dime, and editors can literally co-exist as "frienimies' without breaking any rules. I've never once met an editor that I agree with 100% across the board on every single edit and/or opinion. AGF is a big thing, and I extend it to everyone except blatant trolls and vandals. I don't give a rat's ass what someone says to me in frustration, and I don't dwell on it. Compromise is important in life, and on WP. People disagree about stuff vehemently, and that doesn't make anyone bad. But I digress! I don't see the creation of the article as "pointy", as it is not "disruptive" to the project. Doc talk 05:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FTR, I think its a misrepresentation to say that I wrote the article for no other reason than to "justify the use of a non-free image". 1) I'm not a big fan of the image in the first place; I !voted for deletion at the last FFD, 2) There was a building consensus that more needed to be said about this notable incident, but too much detail at
  WP:UNDUE situation. 3) If the image was not removed or deleted when it was in Jimi Hendrix, how can its status be less now at a dedicated topical article? 4) I was only trying to rectify the situation at Hendrix, which required a) that the image be removed, and b) that more detail be written to address this notable incident. Even if the image is inappropriate, the article isn't, so inclusion of a non-free file is absolutely not a valid reason to delete an 1,800 word (and growing) article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

moral♪♫ 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. - Is it common to have these discussions about an article that was created less than 24 hours ago? Isn't there anything in the guidelines that affords article creators some time to develop new articles, because it seems wrong to criticize the quality of such a newly started article (as Tarc did above). Also, am I really on trial here, because Tarc keeps using words like guilty? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a "new" article since the content was pulled out of another. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its really difficult for me to AGF with you. You seem to like arguing about meaningless distinctions. You know what I mean, but FTR, I pulled 700 words out of Hendrix and the new article is now 2,100 words. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept I would suggest per
  talk) 20:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sounds good to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Ivanvector (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again we have now wasted over 7,000 words (more than four times the length of the article) in just two days in the pointless, omphaloskeptic AfD that does not have a chance in hell of being successful. The article is relevant, accurate, not specious, well written, and heavily footnoted with citations to eight reliable sources. Let's end this foolishness now and get on to doing something constructive on WP. Please. Centpacrr (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is much better to have 7000 words on talk/discussion pages than edit warring battles so there's no reason to belittle discussion. Plus, the fact this is unresolved from an NFCC standpoint still. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is going to be closed 'keep'. Best to have that happen asap, and the article renamed, to allow more specific content discussion to proceed without the distractions of the AfD etc.—Aquegg (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding Masem's assertion: "how little the sources cover this period"; a Google search of jimi hendrix drug trial turns up almost 47,000,000 hits. On the other hand, a Google search of kennedy assassination yields just 23,000,000 hits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it's four words. Do the same search for just jimi + hendrix and you'll get less, only 19 mil hits. Searching for "jimi hendrix drug trial" in quotes nets just 4 hits, none of which are relevant.
  talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Good point, but president john kennedy assassination yields less than 15 million hits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you adding "president"? "john kennedy assassination" nets 15 millions of hits. This is getting silly.
  talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yeah, this has been silly for 6 weeks! At any rate, in 2003, author and Hendrix biographer Keith Shadwick wrote: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident." (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books.
  ISBN 978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) So that really should be enough to de-bumk the "no sources cover this" theory, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• A Google search for the combined terms "jimi hendrix", arrest, Toronto and "may 1969" returns plenty of relevant hits. Centpacrr (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At any rate, Google hits are irrelevant. The sources section of the article has 12 reliable secondary sources, which is more than enough to justify the article in terms of sources. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. Centpacrr (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't look at ghits for AFDs. We look at the coverage actual reliable sources give, and GabeMc even said that its very little in the actual biographical books about Hendrix, making this undue weight. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. You keep twisting the fact that I said to go into this much detail in the bio was
  WP:UNDUE, because it was overshadowing other important aspects of his life. I never said that the sources don't discuss the incident; ALL OF THEM DO. There isn't one Hendrix bio that does not discuss the incident. You are having trouble keeping your facts straight, but how can there be 15 reliable sources in the Toronto article if the sources do not discuss the incident? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Most of those are primary sources. This article is redocumenting a news story and while you can find a lot of sources to document the events, that's not what an encyclopedia should be doing. There's major events that happen in the world each day reported by hundreds of sources, but we don't document them to any degree unless they have a larger impact. This is why source counting, outright, is bad, because it's not considering what is covered by the sources. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, you are wrong. Only two of the sources used in the article are primary (Mitchell and Redding), all the others are secondary. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was pointing to the 15 sources you mentioned in the Torontoist, which are all pretty much newspaper articles at the time of the trial. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 12 reliable secondary sources in addition to the Torontoist, Mitchell, and Redding. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Masem I am constrained to observe that your posts here are fast reaching the level of those at the
  Argument Clinic which you can find here. Centpacrr (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Arguably, the arguments before by those fighting to keep the mugshot image were worse. I am pretty confident we wouldn't be in this position if the mugshot was removed as it was back at the FAC (or any point thereafter). The image is still a problem, and has now created an article that is far too undue on a small detail in Hendrix' larger career. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Its interesting to note that there are reliable sources that suggest that Hendrix was framed, and possibly as part of a larger government crackdown on subversive rock stars. The FBI opened a file on him after the bust. That's pretty notable, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are entitled to keep parroting that position, Masem, however the consensus of the community appears to be strongly on the other side. The majority of respondents have found your argument that this article is "undue", and that Mr. Herdrix's seven month ordeal during which he was under legal threat of being incarcerated for decades if convicted which left him virtually unable to perform for half a year was a "small detail in his larger career" to be abjectly unconvincing. Why not just be grateful that GabeMc took the time and effort to flesh out this significant extended episode in Mr. Hendrix's life? His having done so informs readers not only of the circumstances of his arrest, booking, and being charged, but also why he had this long otherwise unexplained hiatus late in his relatively short career that was subsequently prematurely ended at age 27 by a drug overdose less than a year after his trial. That seems like a pretty legitimate encyclopedic function to me. Centpacrr (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Masem really an authority that we can trust regarding the relative importance of these types of events? He is on record stating that, in his opinion, Justin Bieber's recent clash with the law for DUI is more consequential and serious than was Hendrix's for heroin smuggling. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are twisting my words. I never said Beiber's arrest was more consequential. I said it had more coverage. Huge difference. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if you continue this, that will be considered a personal attack. You're avoiding the content issue - that this is undue coverage of something that easily (and already was) summarized in the main Hendrix article. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think its relevant to the conversation. Your primary position is that the incident is not notable, yet you seem to think that Bieber's arrest is notable. Why do you think that 20 years in prison is a minor consequence? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here you seem to argue that Bieber's incident is more consequential, as if I'm playing-up the Hendrix heroin bust while down-playing the Bieber ordeal. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point there was to consider the type of coverage that Beiber was getting, compared to the limited amount of coverage that Hendrix's arrest had, for a similar type of crime in terms of how it is seen by the world at large. I never trivialized Hendrix' arrest, only that you can't trivialize Bieber's at the same time. They have, for all purposes, the same weight of how we should cover them in an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Masem you are completely ignoring the fact that in 1969 there was no internet, social media, cable and satellite TV and radio, wifi, iPhones, Androids, Blackberrys, iPads and other "mobile" devices, Twitter, Google, Facebook, syndicated entertainment TV shows, etc. Instead there were just three national over-the-air TV networks (ABC, NBC & CBS), and local radio, TV and newspapers. The difference between news and media coverage in 1969 and 2014 is just night and day so your argument here conflating the two is just another red herring. Really. Centpacrr (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTR, the New York Times published a story about the incident two days after the arrest, which was a big deal back then. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Rolling Stone, publication of record for hard rock music in 1969, published three detailed articles about the arrest and trial back then. The first was a joint effort by eminent rock journalists Ben Fong-Torres based in San Francisco, and Ritchie Yorke, based in Toronto. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were wire services, there were telephones; there was ways for news to be transmitted across the world within a day of events at that time. No, I realistically cannot expect the same full coverage that Beiber got but I would expect more than the handful of stories reported at that time if the arrest and trial was really that significant. As has been pointed out, the details of trial are barely covered by the biographies of Hendrix. All this together tells us that the details of the trial are verifiable but overly detailed and trivial and out of scope for an encyclopedia per NOT and UNDUE - note that I would say the same if someone were to try to create an article on Beiber's court date despite the many more sources available. This is what I was trying to get at during the RFC on the Hendrix page - the aggressive effort to force the use of the mugshot created too much detail on one tiny aspect and lost the larger picture - that, as some of those sources that talk about the trial say - Hendrix was aware of the issue with using drugs, and yes the arrest affected his musical career for seven months, and that he felt vindicated after his acquitted. The whos and whats of the trial do not matter to tell this story for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The New York Times covered it briefly right after the arrest, the Rolling Stone covered it three times at length over those months, the Toronto dailies covered it many times, perhaps as many as 15 times according to citations in the Torontoist, which ran a major story 42 years later, his best biographies offer many pages of coverage, his bandmates' autobiographies cover it, and we have evidence that a wire services was bribed not to cover it. Does that amount to "barely covered"? I don't think so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • One really has to wonder, Masem, why you are so bound and determined to delete this article. Its creator, GabeMc, has done an excellent job in researching and writing it, it is extremely well sourced with 39 footnotes from eight books and other publications, and directly relates to an important series of events affecting the life and career of Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the main article. Now you may personally think this is "undue" and was a "small detail in his larger career", but the evidence of how it negatively affected his life and career over a period of seven months from May to December, 1969, demonstrates that is not the case. If the information it contains does not personally interest you, that's fine. You are certainly not required to read it. But again your personal lack of interest in what it contains is not grounds to deny access to others who may be very interested in this material. As I pointed out above, the Wikipedia project is not designed to serve and appeal to just the lowest common denominator among its readers, but to the broadest one.

• So please, therefore, instead of constantly ignoring its substance in favor of arguing your interpretation of fine points of "policy and guidelines" as grounds for deletion, honestly answer these two questions about this article: What specific substantive harm do you claim that the existence and availability of this article to those who may wish to read it do to the Wikipedia Project, and how and on what basis do you claim that it's deletion would benefit and/or improve the quality and value of the project? If you can't come up with clear and convincing answers to those two questions supporting your position with which you are able to persuade the community that Wikipedia would be better off without this article (and you certainly have not been able to do that so far), then I think it is time for you to accept that this article is an appropriate and valuable addition to the project on its substance, and that there is therefore no valid basis for its deletion. None at all. Centpacrr (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree completely, Centpacrr. Well said. Jusdafax 07:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ...And we are now up to 11,200 words on this pointless AfD exercise.

• Just guessing, cumulative copyright infringement? I.e. the more details we take from books and put in WP, the less incentive there is for folk to buy the books.—Aquegg (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Historical and other facts in and of themselves are not copyrightable. Footnoted sources that are quoted (either verbatim or otherwise) are what most of Wikipedia depends and is based on for its reliability and are either in the Public Domain or if copyrighted fall under the fair use provisions of the US Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 107). From both personal experience and empirical evidence, I also find that the contention "the more details we take from books and put in WP, the less incentive there is for folks to buy the books" is not only false but the exact opposite result is more often true. Centpacrr (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Aquegg was speculating about Masem's possible response to your questions, not arguing the point per se; of course I could be wrong. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) IMAGINE A WORLD where the first person to record information gained private ownership & control of that information forever .... Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I expect you are right, GabeMc, but just in case these were to be his answers I am just providing a preemptive strike reply. I suspect that it is far more likely, however, that he will not attempt to answer these questions at all. Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. The article gives
  N4 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• N4 see my last two paragraph comment (begining "One really has to wonder...") immediately above. In that context how then would you answer the two questions I posed there? Centpacrr (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you have misinterpreted the deletion policy. Very few articles of any sort (with the exceptions of say vandalism and hoaxes) cause harm to the Wikipedia project but we don't keep articles because they don't harm the project, we keep articles for the benefit they provide. You need to explain why the article provides benefit, your two questions are irrelevant to the argument I made. The bottom line is Hendrix is NOT notable for his drugs trial in the same way, for example, that
  N4 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In what way am I biased? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly there's the
  N4 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Timeline of the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I guess I can understand some of the delete arguments, and if Wikipedia wasn't so chock-full of needless articles I might agree more. We have
  Bethel Robinson. Or how about thousands of articles about obscure non-English language movies that 50–75% of English speaking people have never, and will never hear about let alone watch. E.g., 2030 – Aufstand der Jungen. Nearly every video game has an article, but I seriously doubt that a printed encyclopedia would include them. E.g. Me & My Katamari. Is Lost in the Chamber of Love really that notable? In fact, if you do a random article search ten times, I'll bet that at least 4 or 5 of them are obscure or unnecessary based on your logic here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• not a collection of indiscriminate information, and we use notability and sourcing to gauge when a stand-alone article is appropriate. Is this event "notable"? It does meet the GNG, but as stated there, meeting the GNG does not require that we have a standalone page as other policy and guideline may suggest differently. In this specifically, the issue is that there's no reason why this aspect of Hendrix's life should be covered in this much detail and outside of the article of Hendrix himself. At the time it happened, it was a media blip and even future sources glossed over it, noting it happened but avoiding excessive details. It is much better suited to an article on the person it affected than a standalone. (To contrast, consider the media circuses around OJ Simpson's and Michael Jackson's trials, making the actual event of the trial well established as notable and separate from the person affected) Compare this to footballers or the like, where there's no other real context to otherwise document them, so standalones make sense. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

N4 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Try this sentence from the nominated article, only substituting in another man JH would be worthy to be compared to: "The incident proved quite stressful for Jesus, and it weighed heavily on his mind while he awaited trial." There are also many who see no significance in that great visionary either, or the events in his life. There are some who would say his arrest, too, was inconsequential. “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” :-) I do think the article could stand a little tightening. Paavo273 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said that we shouldn't mention this event at all - it was important as documented. But the impact on his career is easily summarized in two paragraphs (currently in this article) that can be brought into the main Hendrix article where it is more appropriate for discussion in context of his overall career, particularly at that stage in his life, and without having an affect on SIZE. The details of the arrest and trial are excess and can be summarized in a few short sentences. That's the issue here. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I see your point here, Masem, but can't the same be said for almost any spin-out? What about First inauguration of Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies, Bill Clinton pardon controversy, and Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates? Or is this a bad comparison because everything "Clinton" is notable? Why can't President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site be properly summarized in the main article? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address the Clinton things beyond looking at the much larger media coverage of those points (in addition to the fact that a President is going to have vast volumes of information written about what they did in office); in terms of the Historic Site, consensus has determined that nearly every National Historic buidling is presumed notable; counter to this, we do not say every trial is notable. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about John Lennon Park, John Lennon Museum, John Lennon Educational Tour Bus, John Lennon's jukebox, or John Lennon Songwriting Contest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of things are "media blips" (or no "blips" at all) when they happen, and their significance does not become clear until later. (The Christie/George Washington Bridge scandal, for instance, garnered very little coverage when it first happened in September, 2013.) That is exactly the case here. This arrest and its subsequent events later proved to be very significant in Mr. Hendrix's life resulting among other things in his putting his career on hold for six months and otherwise negatively affecting his life. You claim it is insignificant because he was "not known as a drug abuser" and yet he lost his life less than a year after his trail when he died in London at age 27 owing to abusing drugs (barbiturates). If this subject is so insignificant how did GabeMc manage to come up with so many published sources (including eight books) for this article?
• The burden in an AfD is is on those who propose and support it to achieve consensus of the community to concur in that view. That has clearly not happened in this case as is demonstrated by 17 editors who have already spoken in here in favor of keeping it. The question I asked above was "on what basis do you claim that it's deletion would benefit and/or improve the quality and value of the project?" (i.e. addition by subtraction) which remains unaddressed. N4 claims that the article should be deleted because GabeMc posted it out of "bias". Well every contributor to WP has bias which is that they are interested enough in the subject to contribute the content. Such "bias" is not the same as a personal conflict of interest or POV, and unless you can prove that something another editor contributes is invalid for such a reason then WP requires that you "assume good faith" on the part of the other editor.
• Nobody here has provided anything that challenges the good faith of GabeMc so that "charge" should be withdrawn forthwith. I make these observations as an editor who has never contributed any text or images to either this or the main article themselves, so I come to this this discussion with no conflict of interest but as as a neutral party. My only "bias" is that I strongly believe that this article is well written, well sourced, relevant to Mr. Hendrix as the subject of the main article, provides significant information about his life, was created and posted in good faith, and benefits the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Centpacrr, there are now 16 books used to source the article and 4 or 5 newspaper articles. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Masem, how about
  Lady Gaga and the Muppets' Holiday Spectacular? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I gladly stand corrected, GabeMc, and that just bolsters my point of the value and validity of this article. Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4 RE: "Please explain why this is notable independent of 'Hendrix's speculative personal feelings'", 1) there is good reason to believe that this was a frame job that was part of a larger effort by right-wing interests to silence rock stars, and 2) all sources agree that he was set up, and I truly believe that the highest-paid performer in the world and the biggest star in North America getting framed for drug smuggling is pretty notable. At least as notable as

Religious beliefs of the Beatles? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

N4, read my and the comments of the other 16 editors who favor keeping the article. The reasons are all laid out in great detail there. The burden in an AfD, however is on the proponents to convince the community that it is not notable, not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]