Talk:Tim Buckley (artist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

1 Where'd the old talk page go?
2 Picture
3 Protection notice
4 Is this page necessary?

[edit] Where'd the old talk page go?

If you came here looking for it, I'm afraid I had to delete it as per WP:LIVING. To summarize the final answer for the debate that took place here, it's very unlikely a criticism section for this article can be allowed. The Foundation has made it very clear it will only accept criticism of living people if it is cited by notable sources. Blogs, personal web pages, and forum posts do not count. None of the criticism sections in this article's history have come close to meeting Wikipedia's requirements. Nor do the events discussed (e.g., the World of Warcraft guild, and the various forum spats) merit inclusion. I know that's not what some of you want to hear, but the policy in this case is non-negotiable. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wait. You have to remove the talk page if it includes 'unfair criticism'? I strongly disagree. If a talkpage is deleted people cannot see what people are debating about and therefore can't help settle the debates. Vaguely 00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is take a look at WP:LIVING. It's unambiguous. There's no point debating it here, though. This is just an article talk page; it's not the place to discuss policy. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I saw whis article a long time ago. What happened to the picture that was once here. Im sure it wouldn't be hard to find a picture of him on his blog at www.absath.com 192.235.1.34 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection notice

Once again we have WP:LIVING violations creeping into the document. Squabbles over internet forums and gaming guilds are not notable. Even if they were, they would have be sourced, and again, not from internet forums, blogs or other trivial web sites. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of which are not merely squables. The premium membership deal is and can be very costly, and critisism over such and item with fact(that it IS over priced when compared to other such shows) is within the policy. People who commit such an item have a right to know that HE HAS in the past pulled out of commitments into which he has invested lots of time and money(the hosting of WoW forums, and so fourth). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.11.3.208 (talk • contribs).

But until someone other than forum posters cares enough to write about this, Wikipedia really can't cover it either. Wikipedia is not for what in this case basically ammounts to original research. --W.marsh 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But it say itself on the WP:RS, that FACTS are reliable sources. If wikipedia is deneying its OWN guidelines, i suggest a review of policy is in order. Forum posting does not have anything to do with the FACT that his premium is more expensive than that of others. I'd like to further add, that a guild full of fans is hardly something to ignore. Fans contribute to him, and his response is to destroy their own work?(the guild in question?). the gaming guild in question is perhaps one of his biggest commitments, and it is ignored although a massive failing on his part. it is a FACT that this guild exsisted and disbanded. again this is allowed by policy. Its also a fact he has recieved a lot of critisism, no matter the subject, and should be reported, in the talk page or otherwise. Critisism is Critisism.

Look, I know it's not what you want to hear, but it's just the way things have to be. Wikipedia is definitely not the place to go if you want to air your beefs, particularly when they involve people who aren't public figures (he isn't one). Our inclusion guidelines for the biographies of living people are very stringent. Jimbo Wales, in no uncertain terms, has said we are to delete anything that isn't in accordance. Because there are legal considerations involved, don't expect our position to change any time soon. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how this isnt within terms? a FACT is that. You have even removed this page so none of it can be recorded. People can't even state hes been a target of lots of critisism. I am aware that this must be followed, but this article should clearly state something along these lines, even if you yourself state it. You of all people should be aware that none of this is unfounded. There is NOTHING in those terms i have broken, and when i have I have worked to achieve sources and correct mistakes. There is a shroud of mist around him. All negative comments are removed. At the very least, please reinstate this page so such issues can be discussed. for a topic that is at a Start grade, it requires a page like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.11.3.208 (talk • contribs).

At this point, my preference would be to turn this into a redirect to Ctrl+Alt+Del. That's pretty much the only thing that makes him notable, and we've redirected numerous other webcomic authors to their comics. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Aside from "teh intarweb dramaaa", there's no real meat here, nor do I suspect there will be, anytime soon. Nifboy 21:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like keeping articles protected for more than a couple days, so I've redirected it to Ctrl+Alt+Del. This just seems like it would be the best option for the long run. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah the troubles of articles on difficult or unverifiable topics. Adashiel has done a good job here, I think. It's always disapointing to "lose" content though. --W.marsh 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The redirect was undone, as I expected it would eventually, but because of the article's checkered history, I put it back in place. The complaint in the summary of the edit that removed the redirect was that the CAD article didn't actually have much on Tim Buckley in it. Personally, I think the better solution is to *add* a section about him in Ctrl+Alt+Del rather than reviving this one. The CAD article has more eyeballs on it, which makes it less likely to become a WP:LIVING problem once again. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 02:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think WP:LIVING mentions anything about removing a good article and/or good information from an article just because it's prone to vandalism. It only says to remove the bad info ASAP. So my argument still stands "just because it attracts vandals is no reason not to allow an article about it, we still have an Israel article don't we?" --62.251.90.73 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this page necessary?

Tim Buckley, apart from being the creator of Ctrl+Alt+Del, is otherwise widely unknown and not notable. There is a complete lack of content here, as well as no real sourceable material about Tim Buckley himself. I don't think that being associated with something notable makes one notable. This page should be deleted. - Phrackattack 01:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)