Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Freer (3rd nomination)

Carl Freer

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

Pure attack page. This was closed 6 months ago prior to being able to place a rebuttal on comments left by editor who seems to want to add information that is not neutral to the subject of the article. Requested to have it sent back to AfD and was advised to wait 6 months. Here we are again, and this is still an attack page. If this guy is known for anything, what is it? If it is a criminal, then he does not meet the criteria for being a criminal (WP:CRIME). JakenBox (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an attack page, as all of the negativity is well-sourced, and even if you think he doesn't fall under the exception in WP:CRIME, he's notable per WP:GNG. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and not defamatory. Six months after the last AfD JakenBox still has not named a single defamatory statement. Huon (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't believe this to be an attack page. This person does not fall under WP:BLP1E, because of his legal issues (which are well-sourced) The person meets WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an attack page. He is notable only for two things: Gizmondo and his legal issues. His relationship with Gizmondo is covered extensively in Gizmondo. The only thing that necessitates this article is his criminal past, but the article does not meet WP:CRIME. WP:GNG is also suspect, considering he's only really notable for Gizmondo and, again, that information is covered in Gizmondo. No one else would get a page for being a passenger in a Ferrari crash (per the LA Times) or being involved in criminal activities as a youth. It just doesn't qualify for Wikipedia. gargleafg (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Gargleafg. The bulk of the article is not biographical, but simply lists his encounters with the law. As such, a redirect to one of the other pages mentioned here or on the previous nominations would seem pertinent. His name is only associated with said acts, and he remains non-notable generally speaking (in my opinion he thus remains a low-profile individual). A severely skewed biographical article that only discusses a person's business and criminal activities is detrimental to the encyclopaedia's role, when all of that can easily be elaborated in relevant sections of the articles about those events. CesareAngelotti (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mirroring previous comments, I'd say he's got a fringe claim to notability. 3rd AfD and still no consensus. Here are my efforts towards ending this discussion once and for all. A simple google search churns out sources referring to his criminal activity; even his first image comes from a Swedish article comparing him to Leonardo DiCaprio's character in Catch Me If You Can. Following that motif, the Wikipedia article's almost entirely dedicated to his dodgy activities. I'm not saying these shouldn't be discussed in a biography from a neutral perspective, but when the bulk of a BLP yields constant negative coverage (there's media sensationalism to blame, of course), then it needs to be judged from the person's perspective. This obviously refers to a fringe personality, in other words: it wouldn't be the case if the person was already notable and the criminal allegations were simply a small fraction of the Wikipedia article. As such, I'll cite WP:NOT, WP:PERP and WP:ATP and call for a deletion, if only to bring closure to this 3rd nomination. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note – While I have not seen any comments from at least one user who is adamant about keeping this attack page going, I am going to assume that he/she will come at the last minute with a delete vote in an attempt to tilt the scales without leaving enough time for an ample counter-response. As a closing thought, I would like to point out that although this is the article’s 3rd nomination, the 1st was a no consensus. The 2nd was a keep which included a vote from a now non-existent user who voted that “I came here to look this guy up.” While this 3rd nomination may seem like I am disrupting Wikipedia, I am simply trying to point out that this article is detrimental to the overall goal of Wikipedia. It does NOT meet WP:GNG. If it did, then anyone who commits a crime and ends up with an article in the L.A. Times should be included in Wikipedia. This person may have been someone back in the day, but they are no longer and there are not enough reliable sources to show what his “claim to fame” (notability) is. It definitely is not WP:CRIME and I still do not see how having your name in the L.A. Times meets general notability guidelines. So, sorry to ramble on, just trying to make a case for why the article needs to be deleted as opposed to being used by those who want to take a dispute about things that happened outside of Wikipedia and try to make a case of it on Wikipedia. After all, outside of the 5 or 6 people who voted on this AfD, I am not sure there are enough people who know or remember this guy to even count on one hand. --JakenBox (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]