Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Karson

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 15:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Karson

Max Karson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Yet another bio related to the Virginia Tech massacre. This article is about a student from Colorado who got arrested after allegedly mouthing off in class that he "would be capable of killing 32 people" following with "if anyone in here says they've never been so angry that you wanted to kill 32 people, you're lying." While interesting, we don't need an encyclopedia article about every kid that's ever shot their mouth off in class. BigDT (416) 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The notability of this subject is so marginal as to border on a case of briefly-compromised anonymity. I support the call for deletion as per WP:N.--Dynaflow 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I greatly sympathize with all of the victims and families of this shameful incident, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Ali 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, this person is not even a victim. He's just some college student who got suspended for saying something grossly impolitic about the VT shooting. His primary involvement, and indeed his secondary involvement, in anything of remote significance is approximately nil.--Dynaflow 19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah ... I was just about to say that. I'm sorry if my nomination made it sound like this was a victim - this is about a student from Colorado. I have reworded the nomination to make that clear. --BigDT (416) 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  Woah, woah, woah. Did you read the entire article? E.g. the parts the come before his arrest for making inappropriate comments in class? The controversy over his newspaper was big news in Boulder for a long time. Moreover, see WP:NOTE, Notability is NOT SUBJECTIVE. If someone becomes notable for whatever reason, they are still notable. -- Craigtalbert 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is not just another "Virginia Tech massacre bio" though I'll agree it is the largest part of the article. But the subject has been written about in reliable sources before over The Yeti and The Crux. This meets the criteria in WP:NOTE. Is substantial as the source material covers the topic in sufficient detail, there are multiple sources, source material is credible and reliable. There's much more than what I cited in the article, see google news archive results. It took me six hours to do the research and writing for the article and I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons. I wouldn't have written it if it didn't meet notability requirements. -- Craigtalbert 19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We will similarly try to not factor in your apparent stong emotions about the article. As for the Google test: In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive.--Dynaflow 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, my "apparent strong emotions" about the article? If you spent as much time on a wikipedia article, on a topic that is more than notable, and it got axed because of other editors proprietary emotions on the topic, wouldn't that make you a little upset? Don't talk down to me. The article meets all the requirements in WP:NOTE, the google test isn't perfect but in this case it is further evidence in it's favor. You haven't produced a shred of evidence against it's notability except your own judgment. Yes, that makes me angry, and it's wrong. -- Craigtalbert 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referencing this statement: "I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons." Neither anger nor excessive emotions should come into play here. Your personal investment of time has nothing to do with whether an article is notable or not. We want to be objective here.--Dynaflow 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true, they shouldn't be apparently they are -- on both sides. So, let's get back to the basics of notability. If you don't trust google news archive, then do the search on highbeam or lexis-nexis a la carte. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Multiple sources are multiple sources. You still haven't produced a shred of evidence otherwise. You don't get to ignore WP:NOTE, or pretend it say something it doesn't, just because it doesn't support your point of view. -- Craigtalbert 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My main objection is that this is pure recentism and its already low significance will most likely fade even more over time. The article also suffers from a local myopia. If the article could be rewritten in such a fashion that the lasting significance of this person in a context meaningful to users of Wikipedia is made clear, I wouldn't object to it. the problem is, I can see no way that can be accomplished. Voltaire couldn't make this guy seem significant beyond Boulder, and perhaps not even in it.--Dynaflow 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't read WP:RECENT before, and I agree according to the definitions in the essay, this article does have a lot of "recentism." But, as the essay points out, WP:RECENT is not a guideline, and is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Maybe Max Karson is significant outside of Boulder, but there is nothing in the notability requirements about that. I don't know why you're pointing out things that aren't guidelines and even if they were aren't sufficient reason for deletion in AfD nomination discussion. Maybe you can explain that to me? -- Craigtalbert 21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My main objection is the recentism; my criteria for judging whether the article suffers from a recentism bias is WP:N, and specifically WP:BIO.--Dynaflow 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you understand WP:BIO and WP:NOTE better than I do. I've been editing wikipedia for awhile now, and I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on them, and like I said, if the article didn't meet the requirements in both of them I wouldn't have wasted the better part of a day on it, and a few hours on it now. So, could you kindly point out the contradictions between this article and WP:BIO and WP:NOTE so I don't make the same mistake again? -- Craigtalbert 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete this is ridiculous. If we had an entry on every schoolkid who got in trouble for acting like an idiot, we'd be up to ten billion pages by now. "The Yeti & Crux controversy" are nothing of the sort, they're a minor spat about a kid getting in trouble at school with no significant coverage - those "references" are to the schools website and the student law centre (and incidentally, are dated in the future). The only part of this whole saga with any non-trivial coverage is the Virginia Tech bit, and I'll bet nobody except his family and his principal even remember the story now three days later. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WHAT? The controversy over The Yeti was covered in The Rocky Mountain News (three times), The Colorado Daily, The Westword, The Daily Camera and Salon.com. Now, maybe you don't know how to use wikipedia real well, but each of those newspapers have wikipedia articles, and you'll notice that none of them are "references to school websites." -- Craigtalbert 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction then - the references are to the school's own website, the student law centre, a local paper, two local freesheets and a website who's lead stories today are "I like to watch The Apprentice" and "The best wet-battered fried chicken in New Orleans". I can provide far better sources for a story about a man who has sex with goats or a bird being eaten by another bird; that doesn't mean I think they pass WP:N. Show me a single piece of evidence that anyone outside Boulder has ever cared about this kid - or that anyone in Boulder is still talking about this now, three days later - and I'll reconsider. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean the pigeoniverous pelican doesn't have its own Wikipedia article? That story was absolutely HUGE after DrudgeReport ran it on a slow news day.--Dynaflow 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. The Rocky Mountain News and the Westword are published state-wide. Unless you're trying to say newspapers in Colorado don't count or something like that? If a newspaper ever writes an article about something that isn't of the utmost importance to the state of the world that it doesn't matter? Maybe you can explain to me what you're getting at. To address your second point, he was publishing the The Crux in Amherst, which seems to be significant enough to show that people outside of Boulder "cared" about him. If that's not, then if you do a Google News Search on "Max Karson" you'll see his story has been published by the Boston Herald, Daily Hampshire Gazette, First Amendment Center, KVUE, The Jawa Report , St. Petersburg Times, WDBJ, The Seattle Times, Inside Higher Ed, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Cybercast News Service. So, it seems pretty clear to me people care about him outside of Boulder. Can I prove that people in Boulder are still talking about this three days later? I'm not sure how I would do that. If you give me your telephone phone number maybe I can have some people I know in Boulder call you. I can tell you there are plenty of people talking about it on the CU Boulder campus. How else would you expect me to go about this? -- Craigtalbert 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For a similar debate on a not-quite-unrelated subject that covers many of the same points as this discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun-Kyung Cho [EDIT], which started, with discussion that is also germane forthis AfD, here: Talk:Sun-Kyung Cho.

In this case this is either whole thing is either a complete waste of my time, or I'm correct in believing that editors are trying to have this article deleted for their own proprietary reasons. Not only have I wasted close to eight hours now on the research, writing, and subsequent debate on the topic, the people disagreeing with me claim to know more about wikipedia guidelines than I do, and won't explain where I'm wrong (if I am). I've made my point, no one has pointed out anything from the guidelines showing this article isn't right by WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. If your motivations for wanting this article deleted can be explained in terms of wikipedia guidelines, I would appreciate a quick write-up about them in my talk page. Finals are coming up and I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this debate. -- Craigtalbert 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to pry, but do you personally know the subject of this article?--Dynaflow 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I am a CU Boulder student, but I've never met him. When discussing his recent arrest with other students, staff, and faculty, it seemed that no one (including me) knew the facts of leading up to and surrounding it real well. So, I decided I'd do the leg work and condense the relevant information in to a wikipedia article, as it more than met the guidelines for one. -- Craigtalbert 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So, it wasn't all that notable on campus, from what you're saying. 132.205.44.134 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant. Our decision whether to keep or delete this article is not based on whether the individual is known about on campus, it is based on the Wikipedia notability criteria. Adambro 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Recentism with no long-term ramifications or true relation to the Virginia Tech massacre. If any mention were necessary at all, a single sentence in that article would suffice. --Mhking 21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BIO. This person "has been the subject of [multiple] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Adambro 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Adambro TJIC 01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete seems like the whole article is here just to promote the guy. I mean, do you know how many nutjobs shoot off their mouths and create a whole fury about it being a "free speech issue", especially at college campuses? Do you know how many people, especially at colleges, "publish" their own "underground newspapers"? What's the circulation of those "publications"? I don't see anything particularly notable about this person or any of the so-called publications he created. Tejastheory 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: No, I have no idea how many "nutjobs" "shoot of their mouths" and "publish" "undergroun newspapers." I don't know that you do either, and since the significant of this article is related to that, you shouldn't pose that question rhetorically. At least this "nutjob" seems to have a lot of people supporting him (see: technorati stats, and blogpuse stats). Moreover, the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia has nothing to do with your opinion's about the topic of the article, and everything to do with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO (which this passes). -- Craigtalbert 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above arguments. --Oreo Priest 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep first of all, notable nutjobs are notable, and much of the news and their interest and present day notability of people could be seen as falling into that general category. Major national newspapers report what is notable to their readers. In borderline cases we can inquire whether it is or is not a major story, but this is not a borderline case. I am not sure of the reason for the attempt to remove the articles about individuals involved in these events. My instinct was strongly in the other direction, and I do not think of myself as particularly sentimental. Are we trying to prove the high quality of WP by rejecting anything that might be considered sensationalism? Frankly, that is hopeless, WP is a representative of the common components of our culture, whatever they may be. DGG 05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Not a victim of violence, just of zero-tolerance. Numerous well publicized incidents, several newspaper articles about different controversial speeches or writings over an extended time and in different parts of the country. Comment Please use the name= technique in the inline references so the same sources do not get repeatedly listed in the reference list. Edison 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering how to do that. I named all the references. I'm not sure if I did it the most correct way. If there's documentation on this (I searched and didn't find any) let me know. -- Craigtalbert 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I teach at a university on the other side of the country from Boulder. Since this story broke I've googled Karson's name every day to find out the latest. In addition to this case's obvious relevance to the (1) First Amendment, the Karson fiasco has wider implications regarding (2) the potential abuse of power by college administrators, and (3) academic freedom, which some might argue includes the right for students to question normative opinions. After the shootings, most instructors initially encouraged honesty and openness in classroom discussions about Virginia Tech. The classroom was a "safe space" where no single opinion/emotion was privileged as "right" or denounced as "wrong." For many of us, the freedom to speak openly about our emotions was an important component to the healing process. Nobody went so far as to support the killer; but some empathized with his pain and loneliness; others said they'd decided to be more sensitive in the future toward social outcasts like Cho Seung-Hui. The tone completely changed, however, when Karson was arrested. Not wanting to be the next arrest victim, students and professors reverted obediently to reiterating the politically correct, "Fuck Cho Seung-Hui" attitude. Karson's situation opens the book on a whole new set of questions: Can professors still allow critical thought? Are all ideas equal, or are some more equal than others? Should we encourage dissent, or should we fear its consequences? In the post-911 era of surveillance and zero tolerance, how can we protect the Max Karson's of the world from being too radical, or from simply saying the wrong thing at the wrong time? These are important issues, and I can assure you people are talking about them a thousand miles from Boulder. That said, I do advocate making some major changes to the article. The only thing newsworthy about Karson is his arrest following the Va Tech massacres. We don't need to know where he went to high school, or the nature of his pissing contests there. We don't even need to know about 'The Yeti' except for its suggested connection to his being arrested. Obviously, more needs to be added to the article as the story develops. I could see the Karson case going all the way to the Supreme Court, but I could also see it fizzling out in 2 weeks. Let's keep the article concise until we know the case's outcome, at which point expand it we can revisit deletion.M. Frederick 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. It's fine that you're interested in the case, your just because you're interested does not make the subject notable. It's also fine that you think the case may one day go to the Supreme Court but understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when the case goes to the Supreme Court, we can revisit adding an article for Mr. Karson and/or the Supreme Court case. --Crunch 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:NOTE. Coverage by multiple reliable independent sources has been clearly established here. Jpo 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's not allow our vision to be fogged by recentism. This character is a non-notable publicity seeker of no interest or merit. His fifteen minutes is just about up. BTLizard 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Notability is permanent, not temporary. As I said in my previous comment, this person meets the notability criteria set out in WP:BIO. I'd also highlight that the references goes back to 2002. Adambro 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete lack of notability, in the extreme. If this is the level of notability required, then we can have about 1,000 articles for every decade a large university existed. 132.205.44.134 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Deserves mention in the massacre article (as a related incident perhaps) but not a full bio article for someone who mouthed off. StuffOfInterest 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am in agreement with the points detailed by M. Frederick above, and as such I won't repeat them. The relevance of the article is to the circumstances and specifics of how Karson is being handled, not the man himself. resonance 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: There's several notable third-party articles regarding this topic. He seems to fit the notability requirements. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Point is he has been covered my numerous sources on his own accord outside of the VT incident. He is notable. Yanksox 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this guy is less notable than Nicholas Winset (Emmanuel College prof fired for reenacting the massacre), but we don't have an article on him. 132.205.44.134 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the Comment from the deletion log, it looks like no one ever created an article for Nicholas Winset [1]. So, maybe you could explain why that is relevant to the status of this article? -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: If anybody is still talking about this guy in a month, then he warrants an article. Recentism at work here... Matt Gies 22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Recentism" is not a guideline and is not sufficient cause for deleting an article. Please see WP:RECENT. -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not long-term notable, minor appearance in media related to a major event does not qualify. Perhaps reduce to one or two sentences in the "response" section of Virginia Tech shootings. Sad mouse 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any of these requirements mentioned in WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Perhaps I'm missing them and you could point them out to me? -- Craigtalbert 00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We went over this for every victim, some people wanted each to have their own page, but since their notability is restricted to the event, that is a more appropriate place. Likewise, while this guy is semi-notable, really it is just the event he is associated with that is notable. Sad mouse 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again. Karson meets the requirements in WP:NOTE, and WP:BIO — he is not semi-notable, he is notable according to those guidelines. I have not see anyone cite a wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Unlike the victims of VTM, it does not contradict other wikipedia official policies such as WP:MEMORIAL. Creating a wikipedia page for this guy doesn't mean that "we" are some how saying he's "good." All I've tired to do with this article is get people the facts about a notable person in a controversial situation. If you think there's POV, or would like to trim the article down, those are all good discussions to have — and I would appreciate the help and collaboration. But policies are policies and guidelines are guidelines. -- Craigtalbert 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He possibly meets the requirements (which is what I mean by semi-notable) - the only criteria which he could meet is that of multiple independent media reports, he fails all other criteria (which is fine, you only need to meet one criteria). My concern is that the subject of the media reports is actually the Virginia Tech shootings and not Karson. Using the example of the many victims who made the media multiple times because of the shooting, we decided that the subject of those media reports was the shooting and the victim was not the subject, so only those with external notability (eg the academics) kept their own article. So my position is to delete unless there are multiple non-trivial independent reports about Karson that do not involve the shooting. As a side note, I think you would be better off treating this discussion less personally, it certainly does not mean that your work is not appreciated. Sad mouse 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, those who continue comparing Karson's newsworthiness to that of the VT victims appear to be unfamiliar with the recent debates surrounding academic freedom. Academic freedom is defined as "the freedom of teachers, students, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference." The Karson case marks a rare instance in which a student was arrested for comments made in a classroom. These developments have implications for the First Amendment, and for whether or not freedom of speech in the United States applies to educational settings. My point is that Karson's arrest represents more than simply a subplot to the VT massacres and is relevant irrespective of the subject of his rants. It seems that many folks from the "Strong Delete" camp are wary of rewarding Karson's apparent cry for attention with further publicity. I understand and share these concerns, and will join in voicing them on the discussion page. M. Frederick 04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Either we follow policy or we don't. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Just because articles were written recently doesn't mean they can't be cited. Ronnotel 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Within article retention guidelines. TacoDeposit 11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An interesting article, perhaps warrants a little bit of notice on the massacre page, but that's it. Definitely not an article. Nyttend 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, his case was mentioned in his local Colorado newspaper. This does not mean he passes WP:NOTE. Does everyone mentioned in every issue of last week's Rocky Mountain News get an article here? No. Being kicked out of school for being disruptive is hardly notable, even in the context of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes, he was mentioned in the Rocky Mountain News, which is a "local" paper, though it is also distributed in Wyoming, and some other surrounding states, from what I've heard. But, you're right, if it wasn't for the 100+ other sources he's been mentioned in, that wouldn't be enough to pass WP:NOTE. -- Craigtalbert 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did you notice that almost all of your "100+ other sources" are from papers near his college in Colorado or from his hometown in Amherst, Massachusetts? This is recentism and localism being confused for significant notability. --Crunch 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Are there wikipedia guidelines on localism? I looked and couldn't find any. WP:RECENT hasn't changed since I last read it — it's not a guideline, and if it was, it's not a sufficient argument for deletion. I would expect that there would be more media coverage in Colorado and Massachusetts for the reasons you gave. Either way, still passes WP:NOTE, WP:BIO. -- Craigtalbert 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Ronnotel. This topic meet our standards. --Oakshade 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps, but we're debating whether to keep a biographical article on Max Karson not an article on the topic of free speech. There is a difference. --Crunch 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject meets and exceeds WP:BIO standards and upholds WP:A quite well. Burntsauce 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The worst part about the article, as it stands, is the way it is written. As Burntsauce notes, it more than meets biographical and attributive criteria. In addition to the VaTech controversy, Karson recently outed neo-Nazi Josh McNair. Given that he has been featured by both the Anti-Defamation League and the Drudgereport for his exploits, Karson's Venn Diagram is more than can be said for most of what qualifies as "notable" on this delicious slice of brutal populism we call Wikipedia. Double Dickel 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article meets the WP:BIO standards and is in line with the WP:A. Sohailstyle 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. The article is well sourced and meets WP:N many times over. There's really no question about this. — coelacan — 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Conflates news with encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 11:13, 29 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.