Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Layshock

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 merged. Done. Ifnord 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Layshock

American high-school student who pulled a stupid gag and filed a non-precedent-setting lawsuit when he was disciplined for it. Not notable: fails not just the 100-year test, but the 100-day test. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Calton | Talk 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that a comment was supposed to be left with removal of it. I removed it because this article holds relevance and significance to controversy over MySpace.com and was an example of negative implications of the site. --Twitch 04:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Coverage of the incident only garners a handful of Google hits (274 total). The person isn't notable. The court case isn't notable at all. While it might hold some relevance as a minor example of a subtopic on another article, that hardly merits an article of its own. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakest of weak keeps, subject apparently skirts by WP:BIO ("the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person") due to the incident and subsequent trial. But this is one of those cases where meeting the bureaucratic definition of "notable" isn't necessarily the same as being notable. It wouldn't be inappropriate for this to be deleted on non-notability grounds, meeting WP:BIO aside. -- H·G (words/works) 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete (vote change). I think I was being overly wikilawyerish in accepting the subject's notability due to an arguable meeting of WP:BIO criteria. I accept GassyGus's view of the situation (expressed below)--a kid did something bad and was caught. The MySpace tie-in is incidental and isn't incredibly significant. To bring up my analogy below, if he had used Geocities instead, would he still be notable? Does the fact that he used MySpace automatically confer notability? In my opinion, in this case it does not. -- H·G (words/works) 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per HumbleGod's comments. Subject seems to be a one-trick pony whose media coverage stems from a single event. Barely notable, but in the context of MySpace and those researching legal issues related to it, I think this does just squeak by. I wouldn't be opposed to condensing this and merging it with My Space Legal issues. Scorpiondollprincess 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I second the motion to merge this article. It belongs in My Space Legal Issues because of it's size and small impact. --Twitch 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about that earlier...my view is that the Legal section of the Myspace article primarily focuses on issues where MySpace is one of the major parties involved in a legal dispute. In this case, though, MySpace was merely a conduit for this kid's actions, and was never really held liable that I can see. If he'd posted his fake material on Geocities ten years ago, for example, I doubt it would merit a blurb on the Geocities article. -- H·G (words/works) 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If an appropriate merge target can be found, it may merit mention. Barring that, delete the student who went too far and was then shocked to incur consequences. This one's only slightly better claim to notability is his coverage, but I can't see him passing the 100 50 25 10 5 year test for being remembered. GassyGuy 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with MySpace Legal Issues, coverage was primarily because of the MySpace connection, not because subject had done anything notable. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided but considering a merge somewhere. The content itself is interesting but I'm not so sure the article should focus on the individual. RFerreira 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant info into MySpace article, either Legal Issues, Educational Setting or new section. People doing stupid things on MySpace (e.g.) is worthy of some attention in that article, but there's absolutely nothing to this 'bio' except his MySpace exploits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Schaich (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 July 2006
  • Merge- MySpace in educational settings looks like the place for this. The incident does not merit a separate biograghical article. --Wine Guy Talk 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into a Myspace-related article. Not notable enough to warrant an article of his own. Paddles TC 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into a Myspace-related article. --Peephole 13:16, 27 July 2006 (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.