Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cleo123 (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 31 January 2007 (→[[Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident]]: correct Bus stop link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident

Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A user who was reverted by multiple people on the main article simply created this new article with his version. This topic is already covered extensively in the Michael Richards article, where it should be. Killroy4 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the main reason that I've created this breakout article follows the same logic that the Mel Gibson article saw a breakout article created surrounding the Mel Gibson DUI incident. Other editors on this article were expressing the opinion that the section of his article covering this event had become too large and so based upon the fact that this event is still being cited months later in prominent news reports (the latest I'm aware of was a report on the "n-word" on CNN this past week) I created this article. Also, See Google news links as recent as 5 hours ago (as of this writing) citing this. (→Netscott) 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott -- No one needs to brush up on their knowledge of the "Mel Gibson DUI incident," in order to exercise their judgement concerning Michael Richards and the Laugh Factory incident. I don't know what you see as your "logic" for creating this page. If, as you point out, other editors of the Michael Richards article were arguing on the Talk page that the Laugh Factory incident needed to be trimmed back, and blunted down -- that was your opportunity to argue your point of view on that. And I don't accept your argument that recent news stories focusing on the "n-word," with mention of the Michael Richards incident, is reason for a separate article on the Michael Richards incident. The simple fact is that the Michael Richards incident is over. Of course they mention the Michael Richards incident when they discuss the "n-word." They are mentioning something that has been over since November 2006. Bus stop 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after condensing. Wikipedia does not need to include every detail about a news incident where a comedian raved at a patron in a club, any more than there should be an article about an actor being rude and insulting when stopped while driving under the influence. A shorter version of this in the main article on the performer is sufficient. The amount of detail kept should be proportionate to the overall importance of the topic. We should not allow "recentism" to dictate that things in the news today require a longer article than if a similar thing had happened 40 or 50 years ago. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Jackie Mason made a controversial finger gesture on the Ed Sullivan show in 1962 which got a great deal of attention, and made controversial racial comments about a black mayor of New York, but these are not and should not be breakout articles any more than this one should be. Edison 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Keep The information in this branch article is well sourced and contains information regarding a potential lawsuit which is not really covered by the main article. With the large amount of news coverage this incident still gets (especially in relation to the coverage on anything else Michael Richards has been up to lately) I see no reason for the article's deletion. If the original section was getting "too long", as some editors were claiming, then that is precisely the reason why off-shoot articles were implemented to begin with. Cheers, Lankybugger 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Lankybugger -- Editors were not claiming that it was "getting" too long. Editors were claiming that it "was" too long. It would not likely get any longer because it is over. The law suit that you describe as "potential" is just that -- potential. It has not taken place yet. Why this preemptive move? If a lawsuit takes place in the future, maybe this article will be called for. But -- why the move now? You make the same error in reasoning that Netscape makes in referring to the "large amount of news coverage this incident still gets." In point of fact there is no new news coverage. Almost nothing new has developed since the incident took place, and the cell phone video was made public. Michael Richards made a couple of apologies, the offended men appeared on television, a publicist issued a couple of statements, a lawyer issued a statement. It was all over by the time the month of November ended. Unfortunately gossipmongers need juicy material and this suits the bill. The information in "this branch article" is no more "well sourced" than it was in the main article on Michael Richards. Any recent developments in discussions concerning the "n-word" are only tangentially mentioning the Michael Richards incident. That is not a valid development in the incident of November 17, 2006. Mere mention of the incident does not constitute a development in the incident. Bus stop 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is well referenced, evidently a most notable incident. Also, as there seems to be a lot to say, and all of it on there seems to be relevent (plus the fact that more information will come, due to the law firm) a merge would not be appropriate. Cover it mildly in the original version, but keep this as a 'main article' to that particular incident. Edison, please see this. J Milburn 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn -- This is no more "well referenced" than the same material was, as part of the Michael Richards article. You do not know that "more information will come." A lawsuit may never take place, and this discussion could easily be reopened if sufficient new developments take place to warrant it. Bus stop 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not wikinews or wikitrivia. The event is more than amply covered in the main Michael Richards article. Agent 86 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Parent article has roughly the appropriate amount of subject matter, and can be edited if new developments of lasting significance (not just news-of-the-day) occur. Most or all of the "well referenced" stuff is just news sources with no more than superficial analysis of any impact on censorship, law, etc. comparable to how Lenny Bruce is viewed forty years after some individual "incidents". Even in Bruce's case, or Jim Morrison's on-stage obscenity arrest, individual events belong in a subsection of the bio article (and in an article on the general topic), not in their own articles. Barno 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge it back into article on Michael Richards. Uncalled for emphasis results from breaking the Laugh Factory incident out into a free standing article. It is still an article about a living person, even on this page, except that separating out one incident from a person's life gives enormous emphasis to it. That is totally uncalled for, and unfair to the man Michael Richards. Wikipedia editors are supposed to exercise sensitivity in writing about living people. Highlighting one negative incident by breaking it out into a free standing article is nothing if not insensitive to the person being written about. Michael Richards is to racism as Marilyn Monroe was to sex. They were (and are) symbols. But they are hardly representative of anything that they symbolize in some people's minds. Michael Richards is more representative of the term scapegoat. Michael Richards has become a convenient figure on which to hang all the ills of America's several hundred year long dilemma with racial inequality. Wikipedia shouldn't be a participant in characterizing Michael Richards as the quintessential racist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not lynch mob. There already exists an article on Michael Richards, as well as one on the Laugh Factory, which also mentions the November 2006 Michael Richards incident. Any reader seeking to know what transpired can easily find information at either of those articles. And they can do their own research on their own. There is plenty of shrill commentary to be found, out there. Wikipedia does not have to participate in that shrillness and the resultant uncalled for emphasis on one man's outburst, one evening. Bus stop 20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It should be condensed to remove some of the details and merged into his article. This article only existed due to the massive amounts of controversy around the time it happened, which has appeared to cool off now. --Nehrams2020 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm delete The article was only created by one person who said, "Go ahead and revert me and I'll just go ahead and start a proper article on this event." The creation of this article goes completely against consensus, and a separate article is not necessary for a minor incident. I can remain on Michael Richard's article. KramerCosmo 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KramerCosmo -- Netscott said "Go ahead and revert me and I'll just go ahead and start a proper article on this event," but in fact, no one reverted him. Bus stop 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article appears to be well referenced and the incident in and of itself received a great deal of notable published media attention. Seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate for a seperate article. Dugwiki 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and expand. Major event that received lasting, international coverage and reaction. Can certainly justify a separate article and there is very ample precedent here for this type of spin-off. Having said that, this clearly results from editorial differences that should be hashed out on article talk pages. AfD is not the proper forum to address the issue. Since the nom, User:Killroy4, is a confirmed sock puppet, I move that this "nomination" be immediately closed. --JJay 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never checked the nominating editor before commenting, as I assumed it was a GF nom by a user I hadn't heard of. That said, whatever or whoever the nom might be, I'm happy to nominate this article if the nomination is an issue. The identity of the nominator does not change my opinion on the merits, or lack thereof, of this article. Agent 86 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly would be the point of your nomination? AfD isn't meant to solve every editorial issue at wikipedia. Why don't you participate in editing the Michael Richards article and/or familiarize yourself with the very ample talk page commentary on the issue (which at the very least would provide some insight on the situation)? --JJay 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JJay -- I would also nominate this article for deletion. I happen to be fairly familiar with the Talk page commentary accompanying the Michael Richards article. Many people there want to demonize Michael Richards. I don't happen to be one of them. I don't want to give undue emphasis to one emotional outburst in a man's long career. There is actually NO reason for this separate article except to give extra emphasis to the racist facet to looking at this man's life. Can you tell me even one other reason for having a separate page for an incident that is already covered in the Michael Richards article itself as well as in the Laugh Factory's article? Bus stop 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bus Stop -- I am well aware that you would nominate this page for deletion. I am all too familiar with your vast admiration and sympathy for Michael Richards. In terms of "undue emphasis", there is little that wikipedia could do to overshadow the uncounted thousands of articles and commentary that have been written on the subject since the event. Nevertheless, I reiterate my view that these are editorial issues that should be worked out on the article talk page. --JJay 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JJay -- I don't think I ever expressed "admiration" for Michael Richards. My "sympathy" grows out of the demonization I see other people engaging in towards Michael Richards. He simply doesn't deserve it. He had an emotional outburst. No one is in a position to judge him because no one is aware of what stresses were at work on the evening that he engaged in his racial tirade. But only words were exchanged -- no one was hurt. Wikipedia is not in the league of "tabloid journalism." Why are you comparing what is ostensibly an encyclopedia to the lowest dregs of journalism? I don't know why you and Netscott are so concerned with Google hits. Beyond a certain point that sort of statistic becomes meaningless. It doesn't matter how many articles are written about, or mention, Michael Richards or the Michael Richards incident. No one is arguing that the incident is NOT noteworthy. You say that the editorial issues should be "worked out on the article talk page." On which article's Talk page? This discussion was taking place on the Michael Richards article Talk page. Netscott can answer for himself, but the real question is: why the creation of this separate article? Bus stop 04:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Nominate this Article for Deletion, if that's what's necessary. The creator of the article under discussion, Netscott, has nominated this AfD discussion for speedy deletion because it was originated by a banned user (it is not visible on the version transclued onto the AfD log; you need to view the AfD itself). This is despite the good faith contributions of everyone else to this discussion, and two offers to "cure" the nomination by nominating it in the place of the banned user. While the originator of this discussion may be banned, even "wrong" people can be right from time to time. It would be a pity to stifle discussion on the basis of a technicality. Better to let this discussion run to completion rather than to have it start all over again with a fresh nomination. In addition for my reason for deletion, above, I would like to adopt what Barno said as part of my reason for nominating. Agent 86 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, JJay has since removed the SD tag; however, I stand by the nomination so that there can be a discussion on the article itself so that a consensus on this article can be achieved. Agent 86 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Delete The "article" is merely a copy paste of information already contained in the Michael Richards article. A consensus had already been reached some time back on the article's Talk Page that a seperate article should NOT be created. (→Netscott) has created this article as form of RETALIATION against other editors who disagree with his POV, which he can't seem to stop pushing. Rather than responding to legitimate requests from other editors for NPOV sources and addressing editorial policy concerns on the Talk Page, he chose to enter into an edit war and create this article in an attempt to BULLY other editors out of reducing the text. (→Netscott) has demonstrated extreme BIAS and has ACTED IN BAD FAITH contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Not only should the "article" be deleted, but I believe (→Netscott) should be BANNED from editing any information pertaining to Michael Richards on Wikipedia. The closing admin is asked to review the article's talk page discussions prior to rendering a decision. Cleo123 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Well, I could say that it qualifies as an attack page, because it gives a disproportionate amount of Wikipedia "space" to negative information about Michael Richards and could be construed as defamation of character. Also, as was discussed on the Talk page, the text contans POV statements by Doss, which have been presented as fact. But I see your point. I have changed my vote above from speedy to firm Delete. Cleo123 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the right way to do this is to strike out your previous vote and add your new one, not to edit it. Also, that's a lot of vitriol for Netscott who in my observations has been one of the more neutral editors I've seen on WP. Though I'm also voting for a merge, I want to note for other editors: contrary to the above claims there had been NO consensus, ever, to not create a new article--there was a brief tangential discussion and exactly two people, namely Bus Stop and Cleo123 who are rather well known to be biased pro-Richards, voiced their objections while two others (I, who wanted to throw the idea out there and didn't care either way; and another editor whom I think is anti-Richards). I wouldn't call 2 vs 2 consensus, rather indifference. In any case, that amount of vitriol for Netscott is uncalled for as he has done nothing against consensus, and branching was perfectly fine per WP:SS--I rather admire his ability to maintain civility in his responses in light of these uncalled and extremely uncivil accusations. Some folks are too thin-skinned and take impersonal edits personal. Tendancer 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is history of Tendancer engaging in personal attacks against Bus stop and myself. The fact that I have simply ignored his last diatribe on my Talk Page may well be what is motivating his commentary. Well over a dozen editors have expressed concerns about the amount of text Wikipedia should dedicate to this incident. A review of the Talk Page Archive reveals that early on several editors expressed the view that the incident did not even warrant its own SECTION, never mind a seperate article. My understanding was that a consensus had been reached. I'm sure Netscott has demonstrated nuetrality on many articles in the past. In general, I respect his work. Unfortunately, he appears to be a bit too personally invested in this particular situation. He actions, in this case, are rash. It appears that he became angry when other editors attempted to engage him in discussion so he attempted to "punish them" by creating a seperate article to serve as a platform for his POV. I am not "Pro-Richards". Myself and other editors are engaging in a good faith effort to create a NUETRAL & UNBIASED section in accordance with WP:BLP Cleo123 05:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how Netscott's intention to branch the article and shorten the Richards article (to be only about Michael Richards) is not "NUETRAL (sic) & UNBIASED"? As far as I can tell, the main POV-pushers are some pro-Richards editors who are paranoid that branching the article would draw attention to the incident. You are tossing out an unbelievable amount of vitriol against Netscott who's been an invaluable and neutral editor on the article, and I am starting to think you pile on him because he's too civil to stoop to respond in kind, and instead of recognizing that, like most bullies you instead take it as a sign of weakness and license to continue to lie about and attack him. I think we only need to look at the sheer number and length of the missives by a couple pro-Richards editors here to see who are the ones "personally invested". Tendancer 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ufortunately, in this particular situation, Netscott seems to have been unable to maintain his objectivity, and he appears to be without remorse. Only hours ago, he was "campaigning" on another editors talk page, attempting to influence their vote on this AFD by misrepresenting the facts. [1] His has encouraged other editors to "gang up" on those who oppose his POV [2]. His talk page is chock full of inappropriate commentary and speculation about Bus stopand he has accused pratically every editor who disagrees with his POV of being a sockpuppet.[3]. When all his campaigning failed and the article began to finally take a more nuetral form, rather than engaging in a rational discussion, he got angry and created his "own" article. I believe several editors on this page have adequately explained why a seperate article isn't warranted at this juncture. Cleo123 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for now. As noted prior someone (who happend to be a bot-identified sockpuppet) has already merged the content back to the main article and at some point the length may cause undue weight issues. There may well be merit for a new article per wp:ss should this event stay in the news, but that's not enough reason per wp:crystal
  • Delete as per above. Already sufficiently covered by main Michael Richards article. Section there can be expanded if people want (though I absolutely agree with User:Bus stop above that efforts to turn Wikipedia into an obsessive/shrill celebrity gossip and trivia site should be opposed). No need for separate article. Bwithh 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for now. As noted prior someone (who happend to be a bot-identified sockpuppet) has already merged the content back to the main article and at some point the length may cause undue weight issues. There may well be merit for a new article per wp:ss should this event stay in the news, but that's not enough reason per wp:crystal. Tendancer 04:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Richards_Laugh_Factory_incident&oldid=104682937"