Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey William Hardison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 userfied to User:Sambc/Casey William Hardison per user request; there is an apparent consensus that the article, as currently written, is inappropriate per WP:BLP1E; however, WP:BLP1E considerations do not apply to the user namespace. WP:BLP does apply to the user namespace, but only to the extent of requiring all controversial information concerning living persons to be well-sourced, and prohibiting the creation of outright attack pages (well-sourced or not); the content of this article is acceptable in the user namespace, meeting the limited requirements of WP:BLP there. Userfication is favored in light of the fact that Sambc credibly claims that the content of this article may be useful in another article, in a context not offending the requirements of WP:BLP1E. Per the author attribution requirements of the GFDL, the page history of this article must be retained for its content to be merged to another article. John254 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

note: cross-namespace redirect deleted after userfication. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casey William Hardison

Casey William Hardison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject's court case and appeal were reported, according to gnews archives, but that reporting appears to be limited only to the days immediately following those events. It seems that there has been no reporting since. If the case results in significant changes, which it has not to date, an article may be justified. For now, when we discount the trivial news reporting, there's nothing much left. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note - I went ahead and blanked the article. The last full version from the history can be viewed here. - Crockspot 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I unblanked it as there was no consensus to make an exception to the "don't blank when under AFD" rule. SamBC(talk) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to invoke WP:IGNORE and reblank, per the spirit and intent of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP1E. If no one else has an objection, I will do so. - Crockspot 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that 1 person on each side of the question doesn't really make anything like consensus, and WP:IAR is only about improving the encyclopedia; I would suggest a review of WP:WIARM. I can see the arguments for blanking, and I can see arguments against, and I think there's no need to be hasty as there's no suggestion of anything being untrue. The links provided aren't to reliable sources, admittedly, but that doesn't mean there aren't any, and the fact that there's several gives one the clue that it may well be accurate. I'm currently reviewing a very large number of google results to find reliable coverage, and it would seem premature to blank without this check. Remember, assume good faith SamBC(talk) 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your good faith. I'm thinking of WWJD. (What would Jimbo do?). He would blank it. This article should have just been speedied, and very nearly was. The text is available at the link above, and WP:V requires us to remove any unsourced material, and WP:BLP guides us to do it without discussion or consensus-building. Those things override any instruction stated in a template. - Crockspot 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Some are guided by WWJW. (What would Jesus Wiki?). -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Neutral pending improvements - NN, no sources, attack page, no good history to revert to. - Crockspot 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are links to a variety of things online that indicate that the essential detail of the article is true, and unless I've misread the BLP complaint the problem isn't that it's defaming the subject. I'm not saying keep, nor delete, but it doesn't seem to be fair to call it an attack page. SamBC(talk) 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a variety of things online that indicate all sorts of things. That does not address the fact that not a single reliable source is cited in the article. It says a variety of things that if untrue, are very very bad. Even if it were to be magically well sourced, it would still violate WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've found two BBC reports, and I'm on the trail of at least one from the local paper, establishing the facts of the case (the arrests, the court judgement, and so on). I will edit the article to be much more NPOV and as verifiable as I can once I've rounded them up (in the coming hours). SamBC(talk) 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll hold off blanking then, so you can work on it. But unless you can get the article to assert that it is not in violation of WP:BLP1E, I'm still supporting a speedy deletion. - Crockspot 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the fact that he has written lots of (ethically dubious) articles on the subject of the right to take mind-altering substances ought to help with that... along with the fact that his arrest made the news, and then it was still thought of as important by the time he was sentenced, as that was reported as well. SamBC(talk) 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, he's not really an academic, so any judgement under notability guidelines will have to be a bit fudged as he doesn't really fit into any boxes. I've made some progress: assuming that I source most of the pointful stuff marked as needing a source, what do you think of it so far? The activism and research needs expanding, but I'm working on that now. SamBC(talk) 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm done for the night; I've removed the inuse tag, but I imagine I'll put it back at some point tomorrow to finish off, or at least to do enough to address concerns as best I can. SamBC(talk) 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the changes do anything to address the problems that led to this being here. The reporting remains fairly minor, still limited to the case and appeal. What we need is something showing that Hardison's case has garnered more independent interest than that, otherwise BLP1E is very much relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not simply an article about a dope head but covers a man who is notable because of the court case he chose to fight. He fought this case all the way to the House of Lords using novel, and ultimately unsuccessful, legal arguments about the nature of drug taking. This article is well sourced from the BBC and others and does not defame the subject in any way. He is an outspoken advocate of drug use, this is hardly libel to point that out. This BLP blanking of articles is getting ridiculous in my humble opinion, the details of the court cases and legal appeals are matters of public record. The legal ramifications of this case go beyond the simple facts of the man's imprisonment. Wikipedia is not censored. Nick mallory 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In Crockspot's defence, when the article was blanked there were no inline citations or real references, apart from a few external links; I've since added the BBC reference, and others, and made substantial edits to change tone and improve NPOV, and Crockspot has agreed not to blank while it's worked on. SamBC(talk) 03:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article says he is big in the (undefined) "entheogenic" movement, but the only Wikipedia article related to that is an article about a band. Even the reference cited does not define it. Being known for an unknown and undefined neologism is not impressive. Being a doper is not inherently notable. Edison 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Please check out entheogen for at least a basic idea. That should be what's linked from the article. It's not ideal, but it's the most appropriate current link. SamBC(talk) 04:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete From reading the article, I do not think this is "historically notable" per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Representing himself, Hardison made a bunch of crazy arguments regarding the criminal charges against him. He's definintely not the first to do that. Cap'n Walker 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete non notable person, as per WP:BLP1E. We do not need an article on every single person that got arrested for a drug-related offense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment not every single person who's arrested for a drug-related defence: a) makes the national news more than once, b) attempts to appeal that the law in illegal, c) has had work on psychadelics and entheogenics published. Look back at the article in a couple of hours for explanations and sources (nothing else is eating my WP time tonight). SamBC(talk) 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I will take a look, but the article as written is about an arrest, and about a person who is not notable besides that.A worthy speedy candidate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Just on a point of order (in the debating sense), but it might be a worthy deletion candidate (per WP:N, as you imply), it just doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria for speedy deletion, which (as the policy states) are to be applied narrowly. Suggesting that this article is speediable just encourages misunderstanding. As an admin, you really ought to know that. SamBC(talk) 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe there's now enough to satisfy WP:N and WP:V concerns (and thus by implication WP:BLP), but I'm happy to hear more concerns. Given the change in the article since first listing at AfD (and thus since I got going on it), I would also suggest starting the AfD process again to be clear of arguments that (arguably) no longer apply. SamBC(talk) 01:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. The person is not notable, the arrest is one of thousands, and the article is as unencyclopedic as you can get. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral pending improvement - The article is not a biography. There is little to no early life information or career infomation. Most of the text in the article relates to the illegal activities events, which gives undue weight to the events in the context of the individual. This, in turn, raises WP:BLP1E issues. However, I don't think Casey William Hardison is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, so WP:BLP1E is not a reason to delete the article. There are enought references cited, so it is clear that the topic meet WP:N. That still does not make the article a biography and I am concerned about giving undue weight to the cirminal convictions in the context of his overall life. For those desiring to improve the article, please use Template:Biography to improve the article. Once that is done, please feel free to post on my talk page to revisit my position in this AfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sources indicate notability. Everyking 07:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move. Explanation: Is the case R. v. Casey Hardison notable? If so, then the page should be moved there, and adequately sourced to demonstrate notability. Casey William Hardison himself is not notable, even if his criminal case is. Compare: Roy Pearson (not notable, and thus a redirect) and Pearson v. Chung (notable). However, R. v. Casey Hardison is not notable. The House of Lords refused to consider the appeal. Perhaps the European Court of Human Rights will issue a landmark ruling striking down every drug law, in which case this case will be notable, but this is also exceedingly unlikely and, in any event, WP:CRYSTAL. THF 10:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm switching from neutral to delete, because as a biography, it does not meet notability guidelines. THF makes a very good point. The court case may or may not be notable, but the person certainly seems not to be. - Crockspot 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question I'm a little puzzled that people seem to be missing the second aspect of notability, that of activism and writing in the entheogenic (or, to put it another way, pro-psychadelic) community. Does this section need to be expanded, or better sourced or something? The court case is not the only claim to notability. SamBC(talk) 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, if there was notability asserted outside of the drug arrest, I would be inclined to keep. I have stated this several times, but that notability still is not asserted, either to WP:BIO or WP:PROF standards. - Crockspot 17:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • On further consideration of this, I do not oppose deletion, but request userfication for use in developing a better article on the modern entheogenic movement (not currently covered nontrivially but such things as Cognitive liberty and Entheogen), which it will make a good section for. If people think it makes sense, I'll userfy it myself and the redirect can be speedily deleted as housekeeping, but I won't do that before an admin talks to me, because the article shouldn't be blanked before closure. Someone else might still bring up something relevant that I haven't found. SamBC(talk) 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to userfy. Just copy the text of the current article and save it in your computer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write the whole thing, so it would seem to be a GFDL requirement to keep the article and build the new article around it, to maintain contribution attributions. There seems no reason not to userfy, seeing as there seems no longer to be any serious BLP concerns (like verifiability) - it's just notability at issue. SamBC(talk) 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The history can be merged back later. That's not a problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It would seem easier to just move the article to a subpage of my userpage in the first place, and delete the redirect. Is there some reason not to? It's easier from my point of view for it to be userfied, because I can edit it and actually see what I'm doing, rather than editing raw wikitext. SamBC(talk) 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Let;s wait until this AfD is closed and ask the admin closing to enact that move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. - Crockspot 23:33, 13 August 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.