User talk:TreyGeek/Mugshot Publishing Industry

Independent review by Hasteur
Here's what I see This is just my thoughts. I think I know what your hesitation is about. Hasteur (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably should rename to "BustedMugshots (website)" to make it more standardized.
 * Good point. This can be resolved in the move to main space should that happen.  Perhaps it should be "Busted! Mugshots (website)" or just "Busted! Mugshots" if we accept their naming/marketing conventions.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ALEXA I would be cautious with adding this information is probably not a good idea
 * I only added the Alexa rank because it's part of the Infobox website template. There was no motivation other than trying to fill in as many of the infobox parameters as possible.  Reading the infobox's talk page it seems that it is intended as optional, so I have no qualms removing it if the article goes to main space.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Why we should be able to do this" belongs in the company description section.
 * ✅ --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people claim Who?
 * Fair point. RipoffReport.com isn't a WP:RS (and there are a ton of claims there).  The Reuter's article (citation #6) discusses the extortion claims.  Is the citation too far away from that sentence?  I'm sure I could find yet another news article covering the extortion claims or is it the wording in general ("some people claim" vs "there are claims")?  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The criticism section feels like it's being padded for the sake of being padded. It could probably have several of the lines removed and still be reasonably complete.
 * I'm not sure how to address this point. I've read it over several times with the other sentences moved up out of the section.  I can understand a feeling of the criticism section being padded.  I'll admit to intentionally trying to fill out this section in attempt to address any possible WP:POV issues with the controversy surrounding the site.  I guess if anything the Ohio lawsuit information could come out and make a more general reference to the 'publicity rights' issue.  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a number of 'secret' hesitations about this possible article. If you, or anyone else, can guess my primary one I would be amazed (and frightened).  But considering the controversial nature of the site, it would be subject to a good degree of vandalism.  I was actually surprised in the brief period of time that Google ranked this sandbox'ed version highly that no one edited it.  Also as a Deletionist I hold articles to a high standard and I'm not convinced this meets my high standards.  It would also be the first ever article creation for me (versus editing and improving existing articles).  --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that it's on that marginal threshold of notability. I'd wait until the lawsuit/class action moves further. Hasteur (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)