Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latarian Milton


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Latarian Milton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A poorly sourced article about a young adult who did stupid stuff when he was a minor. I had moved it to draft and discussed it with the article creator on my talk page, but they prefer to have it AfD'ed instead.

Something like "biographymask", the first source, is absolutely terrible and should probably be blacklisted (the same goes for "celebritygossip", source 5, whihc is very similar and seems equally computer-generated bullshit). The remainder are mostly "funny" articles from long ago, when the subject was a child, plus a bunch of unreliable sites (geni and so on) and copyvio links (youtube). In any case, per WP:BLPCRIME and general "do no harm" principles, we shouldn't have articles on such minors who have become the subject of media and internet fun and did some stupid stuff, but who aren't actually notable otherwise. And we certainly shouldn't have them with unverified claims about his current supposed jail sentence or criminal activities, as some of these "sources" claim.

If anyone wants to G10 speedy it as an attack page instead of having a full AfD, be my guest. Fram (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree, the very idea of a 'notable' juvenile delinquent is worrying. I'd argue he doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep He is an adult now, and currently incarcerated. Well, I can remove the juvenile delinquent statement. There are numerous juvenile's with articles including the 2019 Goodfield arson and Cayetano Santos Godino.  Although he did commit further crimes such as carjacking and robbery later on.  He was though an internet sensation.  The Youtube video has 14 million views.  Additionally, he was on Tosh.0, as well as a The Boondocks (2005 TV series) episode being based on his actions.  A testament to his fame was the appearance on the Megan Thee Stallion commercial mixtape, which peaked at number 10 on Billboard 200 in 2019 (a full 10 years later).  Additionally, his statements are as timeless as "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" or Hide Your Wife, Hide your kids with Antoine Dodson or the Numa Numa (video) . BlackAmerican (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The first article you give as an example is about a crime, not about a criminal. The second article is not about a WP:BLP but a long-dead serial killer. The person here did some "funny" stuff when he was 8 years old: his later antics got less and less attention, his current prison sentence is sourced to an official document and not even to some newspaper reports. There is no indication that he is now in any way notable, and documenting the life of a troubled young adult because he had some internet fame when he was 8 years old is not what enwiki should be used for. Fram (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So two major television shows, and being the subject of a song by a top 10 Billboard album, from artist Megan Thee Stallion who won a multiple Grammy Awards isn't notable? Regardless of when it was, the serial killer was a child. Additionally, 2019 Goodfield arson names the Child and if you look at it List of youngest killers and is a redirect from the childs name of Kyle Alwood. In fact most of the names are given. There are also multiple news articles that give details about him. He is another internet star as is Bhad Bhabie, Star Wars Kid, David After Dentist, Charlie Bit My Finger, David Bernal, Dramatic Chipmunk, and Judson Laipply. BlackAmerican (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Dog poop girl - a meme, right enough, but her life (at the time, not sure about now) was ruined by it. And WP, rightly, declines to name her. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC) I understand that you feel that he has been fully named for years. He feels no shame for it and as you stated he embraces it. Your very argument can be made against Bhad Bhabie, who hadn't done anything famous except for the quote, "Catch me outside, how about that?", which became a viral video meme and catchphrase. She was age 13 at the time she became famous for that. Is her behavior the message you want to bring across? Probably not, but its still generally notable. Her article survived an AFD. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alexandermcnabb and Fram. The references are unreliable, and there is no source for the Boondocks claim. But most importantly, there is absolutely no need to practically name and shame someone for a crime they did in their youth, and even if they're embracing it and not improving (as this guy seemingly is), not only does this make regular delinquents sound "notable", but it also comes with the implication that, in order to get a Wikipedia article, you should just commit a crime and be funny while doing so. Not the best message to bring across, no? AdoTang (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for the response.  Now the Boondocks claim is pretty obvious.  You can google it and see the cartoon and see that it is him. .   You can see it here  One reference is IMDB, which says here [ ] "Lamilton Taeshawn is based on Latarian Milton, a 7-year-old Florida boy who became an Internet sensation due to news reports of his run-ins with the law. In one incident, he took his grandmother's SUV for a joyride destroying property in the process. In another, he attacked his grandmother when she refused to buy him chicken wings. "It's fun to do bad things" and "He smokes with cigarettes" are direct quotes from the interviews with Milton."  Or maybe [[WorldStarHipHop]] which has a whole video ]on him Since you might want a strong reference, is [[Jet (magazine) good?  If so, you can see it here  where it says "the ‘docks is known to rip from the headlines, mocking everything from the Booty bandit to bad seed Latarian Milton, the latter boldly bragging about stealing and crashing his grandmother’s car"
 * Bhad Bhabie had released a single which had charted in the Billboard Hot 100 at the time of that AfD. On the other hand, Milton has been used by others, but hasn't done anything himself to be considered a notable person. That some parts of society have no qualms in abusing a troubled youth to increase readership, laughs, ... is their problem, ut hardly something we should emulate. Our BLP policy is there to protect people, to "do no harm": while this doesn't mean that serious criminals shouldn't have an article, it does indicate that someone who did some stupid small-scale criminal stuff when they were young should be included here. Fram (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fram, you are putting forth a moral argument rather than GNG. Bhad Bhabie, peaked at 79 on the top 100, while Latarian, was the subject of multiple shows including comedy central, and the boondocks, as well as a Grammy Award Winning artist.  In fact the album that he was the subject of peaked at number 10. .  His coverage passes GNG, which states, "General notability guideline

Shortcuts WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encomp"ass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you were comparing someone who hasn't searched notability (or hasn't achieved it as such) with someone who did succesfully aim for fame, which is a false or unfair comparison. In this case, the person fails WP:PERP, with the additional aspect of being a minor when most of this happened (well, everything that made them "infamous" in some circles at least). BLP considerations overrule the basic standards of the GNG (not that the GNG no longer needs to be met, but solely meeting the GNG isn't sufficient). Fram (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I read BLP, it states, "Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)" Where did you see that it trumps GNG?  If you don't believe its a good comparison, there are articles that compare them and call them kindred spirits.  It's in the article.  Perp doesn't apply, GNG Trumps Perp.  He is known for his commentary not his crime. BlackAmerican (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The GNG does definitely not trump WP:PERP: as explained in WP:BASIC (at the top of the same page as Perp), "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." (emphasis mine), and PERP is one of these exclusionary criteria. Fram (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at WP:BASIC you will see that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject" Can you tell me which one that Latarian does not fulfill?  I also saw WP:PERP, and that clearly states a number of things including, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.  Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.  Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:  Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11]  Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured."  So essentially, what does PERP have to do with this IF GNG has been established?   BlackAmerican (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perp is one of the exclusionary rules that may override Basic. "Historic significance" of a crime, and sustained coverage of the crime or the event in reliable secondary sources, for me isn't the same as being sampled by a musician and being mocked indirectly by some TV show. The crime is not historically significant, it is not the topic of sustained indepth sources, factual reporting, ... things which would actually support a biography. Fram (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What you stated simply isn't the case. Additionally, it states "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:.....For perpetrators,....The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy"  Based on this, it should be included.  BlackAmerican (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per "be kind to one another". My opinion on BLP duty of care varies; there are positions on it I think counterproductive. Nonetheless, Fram's last sentence If anyone wants to G10 speedy it as an attack page instead of having a full AfD, be my guest is coming from a very real place. It does not improve the encyclopedia to have this. It does not improve anyone's life to have this. It is not an article where significant negative coverage is due and justified (there are plenty, but it isn't one). Vaticidalprophet 02:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing on the page that is really do no harm. There are plenty of people on wikipedia just like him.  I am wondering why is he excluded.  People like Bhad Bhabie, Antoine Dodson, Success Kid,   Scumbag Steve etc BlackAmerican (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not sure what I could say here that would be clearer than Fram's explanation of policy or (maybe more importantly) Vat's explanation of decency above. Add in the questionable notability, and it becomes an even clearer delete !vote for me. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 09:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2021 (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.