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


 * 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. SpinningSpark 15:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Carl Freer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * 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)
 * Comment - All negativity is well-sourced, but they are not all from reliable sources. In addition, the article is written from a non-neutral point of view, using terms like "raided" which is not even used in the article used to source the comment. This is why it falls under definition of an attack page. I also do not see how having an article in the L.A. Times meets the definition of WP:GNG. If that were the case, then there are several thousand articles that we could write on Wikipedia.--JakenBox (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If NPOV is the problem, then fix it. Deletion isn't cleanup. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Comment - I did not know I was required to prove that anything was defamatory. An attack page is one that "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject." In fact, one thing about this article that has been removed but keeps coming back is about his company and it being the "worse selling handheld console in history." What about one its games being the forerunner to guitar hero ? Nothing is mentioned in the article about that. So, my point is basically proven that this page is set up as an attack page. It uses everything negative that can be found about this person to bunch together and make him look like a notorious criminal. If anything, he is a failed businessperson whose article should be merged into one of the company articles, especially since 90% of his personal page is about the company and NOT him. --JakenBox (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment From your external link: "This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff." So, an unsourced opinion piece by a single author on a community board. That would not be allowed on this article anyway. There is a reason why the article currently has links to long-form articles in well-known secondary sources instead. The reason I bring this up is to explain why more than one person on this page feels you have exhausted WP:AGF on these deletion attempts. When you could not succeed in deleting the page or appealing the decision against you, you began inserting questionable sources with promotional language into this article. The page was protected as a result. Further attempts suggest frivolity on your part. Universaladdress (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * 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)
 * Comment The above user joined Wikipedia less than a month ago and since then the user's contributions have been solely comments on deletion discussions, and creation of a couple stub pages. Again, I need to point out that the article under discussion has a history of promotional edits friendly to its topic, frivolous NPOV templates and frivolous delete nominations and required confirmed edits as a result. Universaladdress (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This person may have been someone back in the day, but they are no longer That goes completely against how notability works. Once something becomes notable, it's notable forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not exactly true as you are parsing the statement. People may gain attention for something they did (such as riding in an expensive car that was wrecked) but this does not mean that they are notable. He may have been front page news as that was the story of the day and that is what people at the L.A. Times thought was the most notable news for the day, but this does NOT make him notable under Wikipedia WP:GNG. So while he may have been "someone" for one event (his 10 seconds of fame in the L.A. Times), this does not mean that he meets WP:GNG.--JakenBox (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Every few months you attempt to get this page deleted. Why? What is the point? I agree with Jackmcbarn; it is impossible to assume good faith from you at this point. Universaladdress (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Attack page or not, this would not meet WP:GNG. An example would be the article for Fifth Harmony. Despite being mentioned in WP:RS, the article was redirected multiple times until the band actually released a single  . Despite being mentioned (and featured) in multiple reliable sources, the band simply did not meet general notability guidelines and they had a hundred times the references that this guy has. Looks like he wrecked a car and ran a company into the ground. If that were notable, then we need to rewrite notability guidelines to include criteria for "Failed CEOs." Even if all the sources were reliable, they are mainly about the company and I would agree with those above who state that we can easily redirect this into the company article. This is another 15 minutes of fame article that Wikipedia doesn't need.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the history of constant attempts to get this page deleted, the deletes appealed, ad nauseam, I don't feel at all reluctant to point out that the above editor has a long history of suspect promotional edits for various articles on private individuals and companies. This article has been protected for good reason. Universaladdress (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not sure why you decided to comment about my editing, but I have been here long enough to know that you don't accuse someone of something because you disagree with their point of view. As such, you need to assume a little good faith. There is nothing promotional with my edits as I stick mainly with two types of articles (tech and music) and like to chime in at AfD from time to time. From YOUR edit history, it appears that you are a hit and run editor who makes very few edits. Nothing wrong with that, and you won't see me calling you "suspect" for doing such. So, why attack someone for disagreeing with your point of view? Seems to be quite a bit of that on the talk page for this article as well (from all editors on the talk page including the nominator). So, maybe everyone can stick to the AfD and give their reasons to keep or delete; and, if you feel my edits (mainly new articles) are promotional, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Other than that, WP:AGF.--CNMall41 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I offer to anyone who doubts what I'm suggesting here the article Nutanix, created completely by the above user. I don't want to derail this further into a discussion of the editors chiming in here, but I find language such as "provides the highest performance" suggestive of what is going on here. Universaladdress (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, you have already derailed the conversation. Since you don't see to like to assume good faith, let's look at this do you don't have an "doubt." Actually, you're an idiot as you made an accusation without doing your homework. Here is the article that I created on Nutanix and the content that I put in the article . Everything else within that article was done from different users so maybe you can go to their talk pages and make accusations as well. You may also notice in the "see also" section that I created an article on one of its main competitors --SimpliVity. So, do your homework before you start to make accusations about anything. "created completely by the above user" is far from the truth. Finally, maybe you can vent some of your frustration into making Wikipedia a better place as opposed to attacking people your don't even know. And stop "suggesting." State what's on your mind as opposed to trying to get others to  see  something that simply isn't there. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional - I'm getting ready to start an article on the company LibraTax if you would like to comment about that one too. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I can assume from the personal attacks such as "idiot" that direct conversation with you will no longer be fruitful. In any case I think this discussion is likely to close soon with the same result as before. Universaladdress (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has anyone checked the history on this? We've been over this ground before. Every few months someone tries to get this page deleted, the notability under WP:CRIME is clear from the well-sourced popular press articles in the references, and then the page is subject to a series of malicious edits attempting to extract sources from the article and insert biased representations. At one point the delete was appealed and it was still kept. Please, let's not do this all over again. The page has been so well-sourced at this point that the text in that section rivals the article, which is sparing and descriptive. Please just let it be now that it's unobtrusive and accurate. Universaladdress (talk)
 * Keep. Color me unimpressed with the massive gravitation that Wikipedia has toward "controversy" sections in BLP articles, this isn't really one of those, and the subject has more than enough coverage to suggest notability.  Silverfish8088 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.