Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan, crazy screaming guy

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 keep, cleanup, and possibly rename fishhead64 00:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juan, crazy screaming guy

Juan, crazy screaming guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person exists, we can see that. He's been mentioned in a handful of news articles. But is he really notable? I serously doubt that a man who yells unintelligibly at traffic in Seattle is really someone an encyclopedia article is to exist for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep well I said the same thing about Zanta and got a mention in the Toronto Star over that deletion listing.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject passes WP:BIO according to the sources on that page. --Charlene 07:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, I don't think screaming at a street corner and getting a couple of news articles to mention you over the course of 20 years qualifies as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I wouldn't be surprized if hundreds of people like this exist in big cities. If kept needs to be stripped down to what is actually sourced. I've identified several sources that need to be removed on the article's talk page, and it looked like there were several other sentences in the article that I don't recall being supported by the sources provided. VegaDark 08:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Crazier and more interesting people ride my bus. JuJube 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic, and borderline attack page IMHO: the "crazy" in the title is severely inappropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't care how many refernces you plaster on that page, a guy screaming at people is not notable. If he lived in New York, he'd be normal. --Cyrus Andiron 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If multiple independent reliable sources have written about this person, then he passes WP:BIO and is notable. We do not get to choose what our external sources review. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-20 14:46Z
  • Delete per Starblind. Naconkantari 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seattle does have hundreds of homeless and buskers and insane screamers. They aren't notable. This guy is. Everyone in Seattle knows who this guy is because he's always in the same place and always saying the same things. He is a well-known local, which is why several independent credible sources wrote about him. Read through Category:Homeless people. This guy is about as notable as about half of them, and less than the other half, and some of those are really good articles. SchmuckyTheCat 14:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Unlike most crazy people, he has been written up to a substantial extent several times in newspapers of the city. The parody Myspace sites prove nothing and should be deleted, since apparently anyone could create a similar site for anyone else. Some wit once suggested giving each person who raves in public an old nonfunctioning celphone, because we expect people to rant and rave when they are on one. Edison 15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I don't care how many sources this cites, this article is a vicious attack page on someone who's in no position to defend himself. Just because a bunch of local newspapers think laughing at mentally ill people is somehow funny doesn't mean we should, and if this article is to be kept, get that "crazy screaming guy" out of the title. Would we have an article on George W. Bush headed "George, President with big ears"? This is like using a bunch of references from Der Stürmer to justify creating List of babies eaten by Jews. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's not making fun of him. It's just noting who he is. Neither are the sources making fun of him. The Stranger goes out of their way to try and give him a voice and make sense of what he is saying, since nobody in the city understands it. The Weekly's article was a lead on a multi-part piece about how our public health care system is failing the mentally-ill and putting them on the street. That's not an attack on the man, it's an attack on our social system that put him where he is. SchmuckyTheCat 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The man is noteable. He's been mentioned several times in multiple reputable newspapers. Both the Stranger and Seattle Weekly are large circulation papers, and the inclusion of him in SeattleNotables tops off the cake. Furthermore, the claims of any sort of "personal attacks" on the page are unfounded- the article attempts at every opportunity to both source its documentation AND to attempt to portray the person in an NPOV light. Note that there are at least 8 verified links to almost every statement put on that page, which would directly fall into Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Let the man have his Wikipedia article- he certainly has a right to be noted. Ex-Nintendo Employee 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Multiple independent credible source. The article is not making fun of the man. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Juan may not be as notable as say Frank Chu, but he is easily as well known as Zanta if not more so, plus the article provides enough sources such that it meets the A, B, Cs of Wikipedia to be featured. Burntsauce 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sweet Jesus I'm actually arguing Keep. The guy is a known local. The fact that he's known for screaming at traffic is...interesting but he is a notable person, being covered by news agencies and even spawing local lore and merchandise. Passes WP:BIO and WP:ATT and therefor does not meet the criteria for deletion. May the deletionist gods forgive me. NeoFreak 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notable as a local of Seattle. And notable as a homeless person who is something of a very minor crazy local celebrity. Ridiclous article and ridiclous person but if we follow the guidlines that we set than we have to keep it.St.daniel talk 21:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If there is a problem with the references, like they aren't reliable or they are trivial (it doesn't appear that way to me) then, that's one thing. But given that he does seem to pass WP:N can we exclude just because we personally don't think he should have an article? I don't think so. Changing the title of the article may be in order, though I'm not sure what it would be changed to.Chunky Rice 21:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems to me that the only worthwhile citations are in the Seattle Weekly and The Stranger, both of which are register-shelf tabloids. Blast [improve me] 21.04.07 0427 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and rename or delete per WP:BLP. The tone is inappropriate and disparaging at points. Sometimes the negative statements are poorly attributed. All of this necessitates either a speedy rewrite or deletion. In any case, changing the name of the article to Juan (Seattle personality) or something is necessary ASAP. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 06:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does appear to be fairly well sourced, and although it's difficult to see why, he actually does seem to have achieved some local level of notability. I've moved the article to Juan (homeless man) because calling him a "Crazy screaming guy" in the title violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and is also unencyclopedic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a weird case: someone who is basically famous only for being visible. I'm sure more Seattlites (and certainly more visitors to Seattle) would recognize him than would recognize the mayor. (I'd always referred to him as "the Frye Apartments guy" because his written rant starts by complaining about his eviction from there.) I could go either way on whether he deserves an article, but he certainly meets our standards in terms of sufficient numbers of generally reliable and reputable sources that have written about him. Frankly, I'd rather see an article about this relatively harmless crazy than another article about a serial killer whose name I'd rather see blotted out entirely. - Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep please the person meets bio guideline and the page is verified too yuckfoo 01:03, 24 April 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.