Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident


 * 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. Well, maybe merge/delete or merge/condense/delete would be a better statement of consensus, but the Michael Richards bio already contains a good summary of the incident, so all that's left is to delete. —Doug Bell talk 06:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident
Please note that the nominator below of this AfD User:Killroy4 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Kgeza67 (a banned user). 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A user who was reverted by multiple people on the main article simply created this new article with his version. This topic is already covered extensively in the Michael Richards article, where it should be. Killroy4 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, the main reason that I've created this breakout article follows the same logic that the Mel Gibson article saw a breakout article created surrounding the Mel Gibson DUI incident. Other editors on this article were expressing the opinion that the section of his article covering this event had become too large and so based upon the fact that this event is still being cited months later in prominent news reports (the latest I'm aware of was a report on the "n-word" on CNN this past week) I created this article. Also, See Google news links as recent as 5 hours ago (as of this writing) citing this. 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Netscott -- No one needs to brush up on their knowledge of the "Mel Gibson DUI incident," in order to exercise their judgement concerning Michael Richards and the Laugh Factory incident. I don't know what you see as your "logic" for creating this page. If, as you point out, other editors of the Michael Richards article were arguing on the Talk page that the Laugh Factory incident needed to be trimmed back, and blunted down -- that was your opportunity to argue your point of view on that. And I don't accept your argument that recent news stories focusing on the "n-word," with mention of the Michael Richards incident, is reason for a separate article on the Michael Richards incident. The simple fact is that the Michael Richards incident is over. Of course they mention the Michael Richards incident when they discuss the "n-word." They are mentioning something that has been over since November 2006. Bus stop 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Netscott -- I don't think you have articulated a reason for this article which you have created. You state above that this article is needed because increased space is needed to cover recent news coverage concerning the usage of the word "Nigger." If that is so, then why haven't you inserted coverage of that into this article? Can you please explain why you have created this "breakaway" article? I don't think there is anything in this article that is not in the original article. This article is simply the placing of a subject in incorrect context. The proper context for the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident" is the life of "Michael Richards." "Michael Richards," the person, is not quite properly seen in the context of the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident." One way is preferable to the other. Furthermore, any coverage of the use of words, such as "nigger," would best be served in an article covering that subject -- either an already existing article, or one created for that purpose. The argument can be made that the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident precipitated the discussion of such words, and the possible banning of the use of such words, but it is hardly the specific cause for any such discussion. The term "Michael Richards" is inextricably linked, linguistically, to the "Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident." It is not as though someone is not going to be able to find the Michael Richards page. I consider this page which you have created to be entirely redundant. It creates incorrect context, which in the final analysis is unfair to Michael Richards, because it creates a perspective in which Michael Richards' life is seen as an appendage to one evening in which he had an emotional outburst. Bus stop 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge after condensing. Wikipedia does not need to include every detail about a news incident where a comedian raved at a patron in a club, any more than there should be an article about an actor being rude and insulting when stopped while driving under the influence. A shorter version of this in the main article on the performer is sufficient. The amount of detail kept should be proportionate to the overall importance of the topic. We should not allow "recentism" to dictate that things in the news today require a longer article than if a similar thing had happened 40 or 50 years ago. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Jackie Mason made a controversial finger gesture on the Ed Sullivan show in 1962 which got a great deal of attention, and made controversial racial comments about a black mayor of New York, but these are not and should not be breakout articles any more than this one should be. Edison 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Firm Keep The information in this branch article is well sourced and contains information regarding a potential lawsuit which is not really covered by the main article. With the large amount of news coverage this incident still gets (especially in relation to the coverage on anything else Michael Richards has been up to lately) I see no reason for the article's deletion. If the original section was getting "too long", as some editors were claiming, then that is precisely the reason why off-shoot articles were implemented to begin with. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Lankybugger -- Editors were not claiming that it was "getting" too long. Editors were claiming that it "was" too long. It would not likely get any longer because it is over. The law suit that you describe as "potential" is just that -- potential. It has not taken place yet. Why this preemptive move? If a lawsuit takes place in the future, maybe this article will be called for. But -- why the move now? You make the same error in reasoning that Netscott makes in referring to the "large amount of news coverage this incident still gets." In point of fact there is no new news coverage. Almost nothing new has developed since the incident took place, and the cell phone video was made public. Michael Richards made a couple of apologies, the offended men appeared on television, a publicist issued a couple of statements, a lawyer issued a statement. It was all over by the time the month of November ended. Unfortunately gossipmongers need juicy material and this suits the bill. The information in "this branch article" is no more "well sourced" than it was in the main article on Michael Richards. Any recent developments in discussions concerning the "n-word" are only tangentially mentioning the Michael Richards incident. That is not a valid development in the incident of November 17, 2006. Mere mention of the incident does not constitute a development in the incident. Bus stop 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is well referenced, evidently a most notable incident. Also, as there seems to be a lot to say, and all of it on there seems to be relevent (plus the fact that more information will come, due to the law firm) a merge would not be appropriate. Cover it mildly in the original version, but keep this as a 'main article' to that particular incident. Edison, please see this. J Milburn 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * J Milburn -- This is no more "well referenced" than the same material was, as part of the Michael Richards article. You do not know that "more information will come." A lawsuit may never take place, and this discussion could easily be reopened if sufficient new developments take place to warrant it. Bus stop 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not wikinews or wikitrivia. The event is more than amply covered in the main Michael Richards article. Agent 86 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Parent article has roughly the appropriate amount of subject matter, and can be edited if new developments of lasting significance (not just news-of-the-day) occur.  Most or all of the "well referenced" stuff is just news sources with no more than superficial analysis of any impact on censorship, law, etc. comparable to how Lenny Bruce is viewed forty years after some individual "incidents".  Even in Bruce's case, or Jim Morrison's on-stage obscenity arrest, individual events belong in a subsection of the bio article (and in an article on the general topic), not in their own articles.  Barno 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well put. I wish I had said that! Agent 86 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Merge it back into article on Michael Richards. Uncalled for emphasis results from breaking the Laugh Factory incident out into a free standing article. It is still an article about a living person, even on this page, except that separating out one incident from a person's life gives enormous emphasis to it. That is totally uncalled for, and unfair to the man Michael Richards. Wikipedia editors are supposed to exercise sensitivity in writing about living people. Highlighting one negative incident by breaking it out into a free standing article is nothing if not insensitive to the person being written about. Michael Richards is to racism as Marilyn Monroe was to sex. They were (and are) symbols. But they are hardly representative of anything that they symbolize in some people's minds. Michael Richards is more representative of the term scapegoat. Michael Richards has become a convenient figure on which to hang all the ills of America's several hundred year long dilemma with racial inequality. Wikipedia shouldn't be a participant in characterizing Michael Richards as the quintessential racist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not lynch mob. There already exists an article on Michael Richards, as well as one on the Laugh Factory, which also mentions the November 2006 Michael Richards incident. Any reader seeking to know what transpired can easily find information at either of those articles. And they can do their own research on their own. There is plenty of shrill commentary to be found, out there. Wikipedia does not have to participate in that shrillness and the resultant uncalled for emphasis on one man's outburst, one evening. Bus stop 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge It should be condensed to remove some of the details and merged into his article. This article only existed due to the massive amounts of controversy around the time it happened, which has appeared to cool off now. --Nehrams2020 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [removed - User:KramerCosmo is the banned User:Mactabbed] The article was only created by one person who said, "Go ahead and revert me and I'll just go ahead and start a proper article on this event." The creation of this article goes completely against consensus, and a separate article is not necessary for a minor incident.  I can remain on Michael Richard's article. KramerCosmo 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KramerCosmo -- Netscott said "Go ahead and revert me and I'll just go ahead and start a proper article on this event," but in fact, no one reverted him. Bus stop 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

MY CORRECTION: I WAS MISTAKEN: NETSCOTT WAS REVERTED, BEFORE HE CHOSE TO START THE "BREAKOUT" ARTICLE. I STAND CORRECTED. Bus stop 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's unfair when it's trivial to verify this very same person you're replying to reverted Netscott: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Richards&diff=104419966&oldid=104384183. Furthermore, a WP automated bot has identified this indivudal KramerCosmo as a possible sockpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KramerCosmo.  Tendancer 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny, I don't see a sock tag on his user page, and it looks like Netscott (who continues to edit war on the Michael Richards article) has asked an admin to look into it. . Cleo123 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things need to be noted: 1 Bus stop either was being dishonest or did sloppy research that "no one reverted Netscott, when the very same person--a proven sockpuppet-- he told that statement to reverted Netscott. As all he had to do was look at the history of the Michael Richards page, I have to suspect the former.  2 Cleo123 you made what is known as a strawman argument: I stated "a WP automated bot has identified [KramerCosmo] as a possible sockpuppet"--a fact.  You responded with some random statement trying to be sarcastic "Funny, I don't see a sock tag on his user page".  Where did I state I saw a sock tag on his user page?  The best part is, 1 day later now there is a sock tag on his user page.  Needless to say I shouldn't hold my breath on you apologizing to me and Netscott after eating crow.  The pro-Richards bias camp has been a bit too willing to intentionally misstate facts/pretend facts didn't happen. Tendancer 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tendancer -- Could you not suggest that I acted out of dishonesty? Bus stop 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be said that User:KramerCosmo was only targeted as a sock because he disagreed with User:Netscott. It didn't seem to me that he was doing anything improper. However, I am more than happy to appologize to both you and User:Netscott for my error in my assessment of him as a sock. I assumed, at the time I made my statement, that the matter had been investigated by an administrator and that he had been determined to be innocent. I was wrong and I appologize. I will say, however, that there is reason for concern on the part of the community. From what I can see, User:Netscott has a veritable host of pupeteers creating socks which are apparently following him from article to article creating conflict and disruption for everyone. There have been a minimum of three on the Michael Richards article alone. Statements User:Netscott has made on Wikipedia seem to indicate that these people are specifically targeting him. One has to wonder what he is doing to inspire such anger in people that they would be creating these accounts just to bother him. I know I don't have any socks folowing me around! Cleo123 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously because Netscott exposed them so the socks created more socks to retailiate against him. Vandals tend to be vindictive. Is this germane to the AfD? Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tendancer, before you go accusing User:Bus stop of being "dishonest" or doing "sloppy research" you may want to take a look at your own research. You are both wrong. The revert which User:Netscott has given for his excuse for starting this article was made by User:Killroy4, not User:KramerCosmo. Cleo123 23:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it fascinating several times now you like to present links that goes against your own arguments, either hoping no one will click it or follow the thread and understand the facts. e.g previously you provided a link and claimed Netscott attacked BusStop, when all it showed was Netscott defended him.  Now that BusStop and I were discussing who merged back the section Netscott split out into a new article, you showed a totally unrelated link where another sockpuppet reverted some sentences, and lie and claim that was the rv of article split was being discussed.  Your dishonest tendency to do this reflects quite negatively on the general believability--or rather lack thereof--of your arguments.  Then again, likely it's just a Tendancer 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your remarks are uncivil. You are also mistaken. I suggest you re-read the talk page discussion titled "Time to Reduce the text?" which is where the "break away" article was created. If you will correlate the time stamps of the conversation and look at the edit history, you will see that I am correct. Moreover, Netscott himself cites this particular revert as his rational on the article's talk page.


 * The reference to which you refer, was given regarding 's Netscott allegations of sockpuppetry against TechJon contained on the same page. Please, read my responses more carefully. His talk page contains an entire Michael Richards section that hosts negative counter productive conversation about Bus stop in which you are a participant. Wahkeenah's talk page history also contains similar inappropriate material. I hope that clarifies things. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith and stop making personal attacks. Thank you! Cleo123 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are appreciating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. May I suggest then you strike out your lengthy attacks below against Netscott which contained provocative words like "BULLY", "BIAS", "ACTED IN BAD FAITH", "should be BANNED" etc.  That'll help a lot per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Avoiding_constant_disputes and also make this nAfD far easier to read.  Thanks! Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC


 * So we concur when you cited that reference against Netscott, the reference really did not contained anything that should be used against him and was inappropriate, as are the accusation that he "ACTED IN BAD FAITH" or was a "BULLY". I encourage all posts below starting with your "Firm Delete" containing those personal attacks against Netscott be expunged then per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and be rewritten. I am also very glad you're coming around to appreciate the importance of assuming good faith and stop making personal attacks.  Thanks! Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem very confused. I stand by the statements I have made on this page. I believe I have provided an accurate description of Netscott's behavior in this particular situation. The article's talk page contains a clear cut written record that supports my statements. As the editor who introduced the proposition to trim back the text, I made every possible effort to try and circumvent potential conflict. I believe I have every right to be upset by Netscott's behavior.
 * Little did I know, that he apparently has a history of disruptive behavior as seen in the block log. . I find your fierce defense of Netscott and his record to be extremely curious. Apart from saving him from 3RR on the Richards' article and supporting some of his arguments, your contribution history doesn't indicate an extensive working relationship with the editor you are so vociferously defending. Your edit history does demonstrates an uncanny knowlege of Wikipedia from the very first edit. You are also apparently fond of the unusual phrase "alot of vitriol" which is also used by Netscott on the Michael Richards talk page. Well, I must say Netscott is lucky to have found a kindred spirit to speak out in his defense. I will make the AFD page easier to read by not responding to any more of your attacks. Cleo123 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for volunteering to cut down on your posts to improve the quality of this nAfD. In closing I suggest you read the WP guideline on unacceptable behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable.  esp 1. No personal attacks (e.g. calling Netscott a "BULLY", "acted in BAD FAITH", "should be BANNED" and many many other ad hominem attacks in your long diatribe below). 2. Don't misrepresent other people (e.g. reordering my text to take them out of context as you just did and which I just fixed).
 * Furthermore, since you are concerned anyone who disagrees with you must be the same person, then unless you're just slandering in another violation of WP:NPA, please ask an admin immediately to checkuser either me or Netscott or both and post the results here so everyone know whether only one person finds your communications objectionable. Here's the link to help you get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.  Thanks! Tendancer 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article appears to be well referenced and the incident in and of itself received a great deal of notable published media attention. Seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate for a seperate article. Dugwiki 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and expand. Major event that received lasting, international coverage and reaction. Can certainly justify a separate article and there is very ample precedent here for this type of spin-off. Having said that, this clearly results from editorial differences that should be hashed out on article talk pages. AfD is not the proper forum to address the issue. Since the nom, User:Killroy4, is a confirmed sock puppet, I move that this "nomination" be immediately closed. --JJay 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never checked the nominating editor before commenting, as I assumed it was a GF nom by a user I hadn't heard of. That said, whatever or whoever the nom might be, I'm happy to nominate this article if the nomination is an issue. The identity of the nominator does not change my opinion on the merits, or lack thereof, of this article. Agent 86 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly would be the point of your nomination? AfD isn't meant to solve every editorial issue at wikipedia. Why don't you participate in editing the Michael Richards article and/or familiarize yourself with the very ample talk page commentary on the issue (which at the very least would provide some insight on the situation)? --JJay 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay -- I would also nominate this article for deletion. I happen to be fairly familiar with the Talk page commentary accompanying the Michael Richards article. Many people there want to demonize Michael Richards. I don't happen to be one of them. I don't want to give undue emphasis to one emotional outburst in a man's long career. There is actually NO reason for this separate article except to give extra emphasis to the racist facet to looking at this man's life. Can you tell me even one other reason for having a separate page for an incident that is already covered in the Michael Richards article itself as well as in the Laugh Factory's article? Bus stop 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop -- I am well aware that you would nominate this page for deletion. I am all too familiar with your vast admiration and sympathy for Michael Richards. In terms of "undue emphasis", there is little that wikipedia could do to overshadow the uncounted thousands of articles and commentary that have been written on the subject since the event. Nevertheless, I reiterate my view that these are editorial issues that should be worked out on the article talk page. --JJay 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay -- I don't think I ever expressed "admiration" for Michael Richards. My "sympathy" grows out of the demonization I see other people engaging in towards Michael Richards. He simply doesn't deserve it. He had an emotional outburst. No one is in a position to judge him because no one is aware of what stresses were at work on the evening that he engaged in his racial tirade. But only words were exchanged -- no one was hurt. Wikipedia is not in the league of "tabloid journalism." Why are you comparing what is ostensibly an encyclopedia to the lowest dregs of journalism? I don't know why you and Netscott are so concerned with Google hits. Beyond a certain point that sort of statistic becomes meaningless. It doesn't matter how many articles are written about, or mention, Michael Richards or the Michael Richards incident. No one is arguing that the incident is NOT noteworthy. You say that the editorial issues should be "worked out on the article talk page." On which article's Talk page? This discussion was taking place on the Michael Richards article Talk page. Netscott can answer for himself, but the real question is: why the creation of this separate article? Bus stop 04:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I Nominate this Article for Deletion, if that's what's necessary. The creator of the article under discussion, Netscott, has nominated this AfD discussion for speedy deletion because it was originated by a banned user (it is not visible on the version transclued onto the AfD log; you need to view the AfD itself). This is despite the good faith contributions of everyone else to this discussion, and two offers to "cure" the nomination by nominating it in the place of the banned user. While the originator of this discussion may be banned, even "wrong" people can be right from time to time. It would be a pity to stifle discussion on the basis of a technicality. Better to let this discussion run to completion rather than to have it start all over again with a fresh nomination. In addition for my reason for deletion, above, I would like to adopt what Barno said as part of my reason for nominating. Agent 86 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, JJay has since removed the SD tag; however, I stand by the nomination so that there can be a discussion on the article itself so that a consensus on this article can be achieved. Agent 86 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Firm Delete The "article" is merely a copy paste of information already contained in the Michael Richards article. A consensus had already been reached some time back on the article's Talk Page that a seperate article should NOT be created. has created this article as form of RETALIATION against other editors who disagree with his POV, which he can't seem to stop pushing. Rather than responding to legitimate requests from other editors for NPOV sources and addressing editorial policy concerns on the Talk Page, he chose to enter into an edit war and create this article in an attempt to BULLY other editors out of reducing the text.  has demonstrated extreme BIAS and has ACTED IN BAD FAITH contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Not only should the "article" be deleted, but I believe  should be BANNED from editing any information pertaining to Michael Richards on Wikipedia. The closing admin is asked to review the article's talk page discussions prior to rendering a decision. Cleo123 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete? Under what WP:CSD? Be specific. --JJay 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * * Well, I could say that it qualifies as an attack page, because it gives a disproportionate amount of Wikipedia "space" to negative information about Michael Richards and could be construed as defamation of character. Also, as was discussed on the Talk page, the text contans POV statements by Doss, which have been presented as fact. But I see your point. I have changed my vote above from speedy to firm Delete. Cleo123 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, please strike out your previous vote. --JJay 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted my vote from speedy to firm. Cleo123 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the right way to do this is to strike out your previous vote and add your new one, not to edit it. Also, that's a lot of vitriol for Netscott who in my observations has been one of the more neutral editors I've seen on WP.  Though I'm also voting for a merge, I want to note for other editors: contrary to the above claims there had been NO consensus, ever, to not create a new article--there was a brief tangential discussion and exactly two people, namely Bus Stop and Cleo123 who are rather well known to be biased pro-Richards, voiced their objections while two others (I, who wanted to throw the idea out there and didn't care either way; and another editor whom I think is anti-Richards).  I wouldn't call 2 vs 2 consensus, rather indifference.  In any case, that amount of vitriol for Netscott is uncalled for as he has done nothing against consensus, and branching was perfectly fine per WP:SS--I rather admire his ability to maintain civility in his responses in light of these uncalled and extremely uncivil accusations.  Some folks are too thin-skinned and take impersonal edits personal. Tendancer 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is history of Tendancer engaging in personal attacks against Bus stop and myself. The fact that I have simply ignored his last diatribe on my Talk Page may well be what is motivating his commentary. Well over a dozen editors have expressed concerns about the amount of text Wikipedia should dedicate to this incident. A review of the Talk Page Archive reveals that early on several editors expressed the view that the incident did not even warrant its own SECTION, never mind a seperate article. My understanding was that a consensus had been reached. I'm sure Netscott has demonstrated nuetrality on many articles in the past. In general, I respect his work. Unfortunately, he appears to be a bit too personally invested in this particular situation. He actions, in this case, are rash. It appears that he became angry when other editors attempted to engage him in discussion so he attempted to "punish them" by creating a seperate article to serve as a platform for his POV. I am not "Pro-Richards". Myself and other editors are engaging in a good faith effort to create a NUETRAL & UNBIASED section in accordance with WP:BLP Cleo123 05:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how Netscott's intention to branch the article and shorten the Richards article (to be only about Michael Richards) is not "NUETRAL (sic) & UNBIASED"? As far as I can tell, the main POV-pushers are some pro-Richards editors who are paranoid that branching the article would draw attention to the incident.  You are tossing out an unbelievable amount of vitriol against Netscott who's been an invaluable and neutral editor on the article, and I am starting to think you pile on him because he's too civil to stoop to respond in kind, and instead of recognizing that, like most bullies you instead take it as a sign of weakness and license to continue to lie about and attack him.  I think we only need to look at the sheer number and length of the missives by a couple pro-Richards editors here to see who are the ones "personally invested". Tendancer 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ufortunately, in this particular situation, Netscott seems to have been unable to maintain his objectivity, and he appears to be without remorse. Only hours ago, he was "campaigning" on another editors talk page, attempting to influence their vote on this AFD by misrepresenting the facts. His has encouraged other editors to "gang up" on those who oppose his POV . His talk page is chock full of inappropriate commentary and speculation about Bus stop  and he has accused pratically every editor who disagrees with his POV of being a sockpuppet.. When all his campaigning failed and the article began to finally take a more nuetral form, rather than engaging in a rational discussion, he got angry and created his "own" article. I believe several editors on this page have adequately explained why a seperate article isn't warranted at this juncture. Cleo123 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP policies does not forbid people from campaigning. He created an article and campaigned for a vote to keep it, just as you advocated trimming the section and campaigned for people to weigh in, that's perfectly fine.  You can accuse him of campaigning if that's such a crime, but not of bias.  On the links you've given I see him _defend_ Bus Stop against accusations that Bus Stop is a POV-pusher and a troll, it's disingenuous to twist it into a claim NetScott commented inappropriately about Bus Stop.   Furthermore, every editor NetScott has "accused" of being a sockpuppet has turned out to be a sockpuppet: TechJon, Kgeza67, and the latest KramerCosmo who shares the same IP with a known sockpuppet of the Michael Richards article, and was reverted by a bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KramerCosmo.  In short, he has yet to make a false sockpuppet accusation in violation of WP:NPA unlike e.g. Bus Stop who rather hilariously think I'm the same person as Wahkeenah.  In short you are perfectly entitled to believe he created the article out of anger, but please keep in mind that's your POV and not a valid reason for deletion.  All of us here should read over WP:AADD which would trim down the verbosity in this discussion. Tendancer 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm not a sockpuppet nor do i like that accusation very much, reverting netscott's edit, which went against consensus, does not make me a sockpuppet neither does getting an automated bot warning prove that i have the same IP, i'd like these ridiculous accusations to stop, just because I stumbled into this debate and I don't agree with netscott does not make me a sockpuppet, what is this mccarthyism? KramerCosmo 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Campaigning? Give me a break... contacting one seriously involved Michael Richards article editor over this is not campaigning... it is normal for fellow editors heavily editing on a particular article to contact each other regarding editing/content/AfDs surrounding that article. Removal of all of the material from The Situation Room interviews of Kyle Doss and Frank McBride effectively cancels out any of the details that led up to the cameraphone recorded part. Regardless I agree with the editors (including Cleo123) who've said that this previous section of the Michael Richards article was too big... that is ultimately why I created this breakout article. Perfectly normal course of events. 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Let's not be dramatic. The nexus of this entire dispute was other editors' desire to omit ONE STATEMENT which read : "According to Kyle Doss (one of the targets of the tirade) the incident began when his group of about twenty people entered into the Laugh Factory after Richards' performance had started and proceeded to order beverages. He stated, "[...] I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'" Your commentary on the Talk Page would seem to indicate that this statement must be retained because it somehow "justifies" the heckling. All anyone has asked you to do is provide an NPOV source for what started the incident. Without a secondary unbiased source, it is opinion and cannot be presented as fact. User:Bus stop is correct in saying the "incident" starts when the cell phone camera footage starts, unless you can provide a reliable source. If your version of the article is retained, the same editors will undoubtably follow you to the new article requesting a source. Content disputes are not resolved by creating your own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cleo123 (talk • contribs).
 * Cleo123 please read over WP:NPOV. That Doss stated that is already a fact and a sourced fact from CNN less.  The article does not claim what Doss stated has to be true.  Netscott and anti-Richards readers can choose to infer from that quote Richards started it, you BusStop and the pro-Richards readers can choose to infer from that quote that Doss is lying/feigning victim.  Regardless, that's a sourced statement from a main participant in the incident.  One can debate removing it if there's e.g. undue weight issues (which there isn't because deleting it actually created undue weight as now we lost all perspective from one side).  Citing WP:NPOV or lack of source however, is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.  By that butchering of WP:NPOV, any statements Richards made in defense of himself should be omitted because Richards does not have NPOV.  Tendancer 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tendancer, presenting ONLY point of view, as to the cause of the incident is misleading and constitutes a misrepresentation of facts. It may be a "fact" that he said this, but the statement cannot stand alone. With no facts, we cannot publish ONLY the opinion of one interested party as to what "started" the incident. If you will read the Michael Richards Talk Page discussion you will see that a good faith attempt was being made to remove all POV statements, including Richards quoted appology. If you'd like to discuss this I think that talk page word be a more appropriate forum. Cleo123 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great so we agree NPOV is not at all an issue on Netscott's creation of the new article and should be left to the Richards talk page. If there're no objections then I'll strike out this whole section starting with the Firm Delete which you can rewrite due to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA concerns, that'll also make this monstrousity of a nAfDa whole lot easier to read. Tendancer 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who's being disingenuine here? Now you're double talking. The original removal of this material was done (ostensibly to reduce the size of the article)... intially by a banned user and subsequently by yourself. Now you're giving another reason for having removed these details. As I expressed here removal of these details is what is known as "deception by omission" (meaning that section ceases being factual)... I started a breakout article to reduce the size of the overall parent article. Why is that so difficult to understand? 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not being disingenuous. My reason for taking it out was simply to reduce the amount of text. The "dispute" occured when you reinserted the material and Bulbous and Bus stop questioned you. I happen to agree with their rationale. Cleo123 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * -- You had your opportunity to argue that the material that was being taken out of the article (the Michael Richards article) should not have been taken out, or even that it should have been increased in either quantity or detail. You would rather start a new page because you would rather not engage in that debate as to how well balanced the Michael Richards article should be. But starting a new article devoted to the incident of November 17, 2006 is imbalanced in and of itself. The act of starting a separate article for a relatively minor incident that is already covered on both the Laugh Factory page and on the Michael Richards page amounts to the placing of undue emphasis on a negative incident that occurred in one man's life. We are talking of 5 minutes in a 40 year old's life. We are talking about an emotional outburst that only took the form of words -- it is not as if physical violence was an ingredient in the evening's events. We are talking about an incident for which the man apologized, profusely, multiple times. America needs to fry a white man for America's past injustices. That is the only reason the subject remains in the news. It is a psychological need that our society has. Gossip-mongers can't get enough of the story. This, despite the fact that there have not been any new developments in the story in 2 months. Bus stop 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * -- The present stories concerning the "n-word" are not necessarily about the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident, though he might be mentioned as an introductory element, to catch the reader's interest, or to create context. That discussion might very well be a subject whose time has come. If the Michael Richards incident had not taken place then something else perhaps would have sooner or later precipitated that discussion. I do not accept that every time Michael Richards is in mentioned in the news in relation to a discussion concerning the "n-word," that that constitutes an ongoing presence of the Michael Richards incident in the news. Bus stop 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above. Already sufficiently covered by main Michael Richards article. Section there can be expanded if people want (though I absolutely agree with User:Bus stop above that efforts to turn Wikipedia into an obsessive/shrill celebrity gossip and trivia site should be opposed). No need for separate article. Bwithh 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, for now. As noted prior someone (who happend to be a bot-identified sockpuppet) has already merged the content back to the main article and at some point the length may cause undue weight issues.  There may well be merit for a new article per wp:ss should this event stay in the news, but that's not enough reason per wp:crystal. Tendancer 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot does not prove that i am a sockpuppet i dont know where you got this from, the bot reverting my edit because i am a new user, stop calling me a sockpuppet because im not its annoying and uncivil KramerCosmo 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet of User:Mactabbed.  04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back into the Michael Richards article This is where it was, and this is where it belongs. It does not need to have its own article. I, and a couple of other users said that the incident does not need its own page. Acalamari 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As is normal when creating new articles it is typical to search for logical areas to wikilink to the new article. I followed the What links here? link for the Michael Richards article and was a bit suprised to find over 20 links from articles to his article specifically making mention of the "incident" (which is the actual word used in a number of articles)... some of them included: Jesse Jackson, Late Show with David Letterman, Nigger, Heckler, Paul Rodríguez, TMZ.com, List of The Colbert Report episodes (2006), Cryme Tyme, and MADtv: Season Twelve (2006-2007). As I do more and more research on this subject I realize more and more that this event has had a significant enough impact in the world to warrant an article about it. 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: -- All of those articles that link to the Michael Richards article should link to the Michael Richards article. This event has had "impact," but this event is over. The "impact" of this event is on the wane. The Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident is a touchpoint for other issues and considerations. Yes, the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident comes up often when people discuss, for instance, banning the "n-word." But they are not discussing the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident. They are discussing a subject related to the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident. In point of fact the incident is quite over, and as such, resides quite nicely in the original Michael Richards article. Bus stop 21:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Netscott -- What you fail to understand is that the context of the article is Michael Richards. The context is not racism. You are putting the cart before the horse. Logically, the distinction is not significant. But meaningfully, it is very different. The same article gets written either way, by and large. Maybe a few more details get left out of the racism-oriented article concerning Richards' earlier personal history that are included in the Michael Richards-oriented article. But even the racism-oriented article has to provide some context as to who this man is who is on the stage and saying those words. The difference between the two articles is significant. In one there is a man leading a complex life who has a bad evening and says things that he regrets. In the other article there is a primarily racist incident with a man added on as an appendage. Michael Richards is not a lifelong racist. The proper context of that incident is the lifetime of Michael Richards. Wikipedia should not be misrepresenting that fact. Bus stop 14:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Commentary: I accept a degree of responsibility for the present dilemma because I encouraged Cleo to reduce the text pertaining to the Laugh Factory incident in the Michael Richards article. But Netscott did not allow for sufficient discussion of the subject of starting a separate article before doing so. I understand Netscott's adamant refusal to allow the details of the Laugh Factory incident to be pared back. I accept that he is right about the need for a thorough coverage of the Laugh Factory incident. But I part company with him concerning the advisability of a separate article from the perspective of the incident. I should not have urged Cleo to remove material from this article concerning the Laugh Factory incident when she asked me what my thoughts were about that. I gave her the wrong advice, as I now see it, with hindsight. My revised feelings are that the Laugh Factory incident should be thoroughly covered, but from the perspective of Michael Richards' life. To cover Michael Richards' life from the perspective of the Laugh Factory incident is to put undue emphasis on that incident. Bus stop 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but strongly revise for NPOV. This article is heavily biased and places undue weight on the 'victims' POV. With enough collaborative and balanced effort, it can be repaired. Bulbous 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Bulbous, I admire your idealism. However, we must be mindful of the fact that User:Netscott created the stand alone article because other editors, including yourself, wanted to omit inflamatory POV material. You, yourself have said that the he/she said quoting everyone format has to go. If that material is deleted, the article will be no more than a stub. Hence, a seperate article is not required. I suspect that User:Netscott and his supporters will use a free standing article as a platform for adding MORE biased, defamatory "tabloid" material contrary to WP:NOT. Cleo123 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bulbous -- I comprehend that you want to "keep" this article. But I am unclear as to why you want to keep this article. Can you tell me why you are in favor of this article? Bus stop 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on the main page is significantly skewed in favour of the "victims". In order to properly balance it, we either have to eliminate the POV or balance the article. To balance it, we would have to expand it by adding the point of view of Richards and/or Richards' supporters. However, the overwhelming opinion seems to support a reduction of the text there - with some significant opposition. The best way to reach a consensus would be to reduce the main article, and expand the discussion here. But no matter what happens, the main article has to be repaired and improved. Bulbous 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Bulbous -- I don't think you are addressing the question. I think the most pressing question is whether of not to keep this article which was just created just a few days ago. Obviously any article has to have a neutral point of view. You say that "the overwhelming opinion seems to support a reduction of the text there," but I do not count myself among that group. I am in favor of putting whatever is called for in the Michael Richards article to fully tell the story in appropriate and balanced terms. I don't agree that the original article is skewed in favor of anyone. But if you or anyone else feels it is, that is a valid subject for debate. I feel we are talking in circles. I think the issue to be addressed is whether or not to have this article. I think that calls for reasons, and not just reasons that apply to any article. Bus stop 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully all sides (and I think there're more than two) can agree on that and specific policies and guidelines do already exist to assist on this. A couple related points are the WP:NPOV section on "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, also several paragraphs down, "Avoiding constant disputes". Tendancer 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant info back into Michael Richards page. Certainly notable, but doesn't need a separate article. DB (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Michael Richards. Breaking this out into an separate article give it undue weight.--Isotope23 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment A seperate article would effectively label Richards' a racist, which could be construed as defamation of character and is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People. Also, WP:NOT discourages the creation of articles surrounding current events, which may become obsolete. Once created, it may be difficult to have the article deleted, as the Mel Gibson DUI Incident article should be. This event is too recent and cannot be put into its proper perspective, yet. Potential defamation of character of this living person outweighs any perceived need for a seperate article. Cleo123 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Cleo123 -- In my opinion the problem does not quite rise to the level of "defamation of character." But it is illogical, and not useful. But you make a good point. Richards is not a lifelong racist. He doesn't have a history of hate speech. The evening's melt down is out of character, for Richards. Had he been a frothing-at-the-mouth racist he wouldn't have likely risen to the level in the theatrical arts to which he had risen. He actually had a show -- the short lived Michael Richards Show, that had many black members in the cast. He was a part producer of that show. He responded improperly to black people on November 17, 2005, at the Laugh Factory. That doesn't make him the quintessential racist that this separate article can be construed as implying. That was one incident in his life. This article serves no purpose, except to imply an improper perspective on one person's life. Bus stop 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge This data should be folded into the parent article. Spreading out informatiopn that at its core involves only one man should be at his article. These types of articles now, along with the Mel Gibson DUI incident makes the encyclopedia harder to navigate, more awkward and interferes with the ability to quickly gather information about somebody. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)—
 * Merge This vote is based solely on a what would people be looking for basis. The navigational consideration is that people will look to the main article.  In a few years the incident will be of less importance as a stand alone issue. TonyTheTiger 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the amount of media coverage this received and the ensuing debate in the states over racism and the use of the racial epithets is significant enough to merit its own article. KazakhPol 05:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:KazakhPol -- Ensuing debate? Do you think the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident has sparked a debate about racism? Bus stop 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per above, to the main Michael Richards article. This may seem notable at the moment, but over time, its impact will decrease. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  22:59, 5 February 2007 (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.