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. slakr\ talk / 14:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was an extreme case of pointiness, a content fork created for the sole purpose of justifying the use of a non-free image, File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. Excruciating detail is being given to a minor incident of a drug bust at the border, this should not have been spun out of Jimi Hendrix, where the pre-meddled-with version was 2 paragraphs + a sentence, more than enough for this incident. If there wasn't a big brouhaha over the image being removed form the main Hendrix article, this spinout would never have been created. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you at least see the massive AGF fail? Why didn't it occur to you that I honestly assumed that the issue with contextual significance was remediated by the creation of a stand-alone article, which I still say is justified? Also, if the premise of your accusations of pointiness is that creating the article was an "end-around" way of saving the image from deletion, then don't you also see that deleting the article is an "end-around" way of getting a FFD mulligan? You shouldn't be deleting this article to jeopardize the image anymore than I should write an article to save it from deletion; not that I did that. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It wasn't a minor event; Hendrix faced 20 years in prison for smuggling heroin across international borders! Further, virtually all sources agree that the drugs were planted on Hendrix and that the bust had been set-up. So, I fail to see how the biggest star in North America being framed for drug smuggling is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tarc is jumping to some wild conclusions here (remember AGF). There is so much that can be said about this historical and interesting event that it cannot be done justice at Jimi Hendrix without creating a WP:UNDUE situation. The article easily meets WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG, and when its done it will be 5,000+ words or more with 12–24 reliable secondary sources. This is one of the most notable events in the life of Jimi Hendrix and I've seen articles of one paragraph and two cites that were kept. I created this article in much the same way that I created Death of Jimi Hendrix. There is so much to say and so little space to say it at the overview article. WP:POINTY is irrelevant if this incident meets the general notability guidelines, which it absolutely does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - Tarc's reasoning is spot on for the pointy-ness of the article's creation. On a more technical level, most of the content was originally part of Jimi Hendrix to spin out here, but I don't know how well the trail of attribution is. That said, as the article title is not a reasonable search term, so a history merge may be appropriate here to keep attribution, even if the bulk of the content is removed later (ala to the pre-meddled version). It may barely meet the GNG, but there was no reason to separate it out from the Hendrix article just to justify the use of NFCC (and where its use is still of highly dubious nature since the mugshot is not a significant subject of discussion). --MASEM (t) 18:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Can we put this to rest, and just delete the image? This fork causes UNDUE and a host of other issues. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article not only easily satisfies the WP:GNG, it is a well-written and referenced WP:SPINOFF of the Hendrix article. It is not a WP:POVFORK, as it written from a neutral POV to begin with. I do not believe the creation of this article was "pointy" - it certainly is not disruptive. Doctalk 02:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not pertinent to the AfD
We keep going back to this notion that an non-free image must itself be the subject of extended discussion in order to be valid. I don't know where this is being gleaned from except for NFCI#'s8 & 9. This is not a case where that is being claimed. And the second part of NFCI#8 applies to this image. Remind me again why I haven't wasted my time with non-free images in years, will you? Nevermind. Doctalk 19:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wind Cries Keep: A clearly notable and well-covered incident in the life of one of the most important personalities in rock music, who was well known for his history of drug [ab]use. It warrants a spinoff article, even if it didn't have one before and even if the new page was only created as the result of an editor trying to justify the use of a non-free image. There is nothing undue here. Along with the three separate discussions plus the one below, this AfD is forumshopping for removal of the image, and the editor who nominated it is being just as pointy as the editor who created the article. Ivanvector (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no forumshopping here. This article was created under pointy terms. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the editor's intent is judged as pointy the created article no longer meets WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG? That's some pretty pathetic logic, Masem. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Hendrix article passed FAC just fine with 2 para + change about the trial and without this article existing. That's a pretty clear sign that the level of detail then was more than sufficient. The only reason this article exists is that those fighting to try to justify a NFC image added tons of information of trivial detail beyond those two paragraphs as create this much information. This doesn't merit it appropriate because it is written like news line (a timeline of events and less about the impact). Two paragraphs were fine before, you don't need a full article for that. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's your personal opinion and as far as I can tell you have never read more than a few lines about Hendrix, so how would you even know? You should not be giving content advice on topics about which you know absolutely nothing. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the article fine at FAC and not now? Again, I need to stress that the bulk of the information was added to Hendrix' article by those fighting to keep the image and weighed it down there. And it doesn't matter what I do or don't know about Hendrix, I'm looking at the overall quality and process going on. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, a topic like Jimi Hendrix could easily justify 25,000 words or more, but if you know anything about FAC, then you know that's simply too long per WP:SIZE. Per WP:SPLITTING, an article of this size is a good candidate for sub-articles, of which Hendrix has a few. So, just because an article passed FAC does not automatically mean that there isn't anything more notable that could possibly be written if the total words were not an issue, as they aren't at the new article. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no size issue here. 50k is where one can start considering but it is not required (that's 100k). The problem is that the extra details far exceed appropriate content for an encyclopedia. The two paras + change was sufficient before, this is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Masem has inadvertently identified exactly what the problem is with his whole approach, to wit, he prefers to argue "process" over the "substance" of the article which he appears to admit that he doesn't actually know anything about. Although I have personally never edited this article, I fully agree with the other editors in here who have been major contributors to it. Process for process sake should never be allowed to trump content which, after all, is what readers come to Wikipedia to get. If material is relevant and reliably sourced it should be included. On line encyclopedias are different than print publishing as they are made available digitally and are therefore are not restricted by the physical constraints print publishing. Masem is, of course, free to argue his position as to his views on process which others are free to disagree with and let consensus prevail. But when it comes to substance he should offer very considerable deference to those who have been developing and building the article for many years when it comes to substance over process. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and more but there are numerous things it is not. Regurgitation of news reports without analysis is one of those things. There is something on the impact of the trial on Hendrix' life, and this was suitably within the original article before the expansion to try to justify the image. If you take out the extraneous news reports (Verifyable but of trivial detail for an encyclopedia), there's little left here. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 25 foot note sources cited, 22 are to eight different books, one is from Rolling Stone, one if from The Torontoist, and one is from The New York Times. Six additional books and four documentary films are also referenced at the end of the article so I have no idea where you come up with the idea that this article is based on the "regurgitation of news reports without analysis". With respect, sir, this line of argument is completely empty, and this entire AfD strikes me as petty, unjustified, little more than additional forum shopping, and frankly a waste of time. Centpacrr (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - When Mr. Hendrix was publicly arrested at Toronto Pearson Airport in May, 1969, he was a high profile public figure in the midst of his all too brief lead artist musical career which lasted little more than four years from when he formed his own band in 1966 until his untimely death in London from an overdose of barbiturates in 1970 at age 27. His Toronto arrest, booking, indictment, seven months of being under threat of incarceration if convicted, and his three-day trial were clearly a very significant and personally stressful episode for Mr. Hendrix which negatively affected his life and career. The principal public record documenting any arrest and booking is a legally mandated booking photograph (or "mugshot") taken during the formal booking process, and the image in question therefore constitutes the only identifiable contemporaneous such record of his arrest available to illustrate and augment this article. His arrest received considerable coverage in print and broadcast media at the time, and has been covered in subsequent published books and articles in the years since.
The statement in the somewhat petty deletion nomination above that "If there wasn't a big brouhaha over the image being removed form the main Hendrix article, this spinout would never have been created." is true, but so what? That is exactly how much of the Wikipedia Project is built. Since nobody is "assigned" anything to write in the project, its development depends on individual editors becoming interested in a topic or sub topic, tracking down the reliable sources, building an entry, and then the community adds and expands it. Just because his arrest and the subsequent legal process leading to his trial and acquittal was only a few sentences before the recent discussions is a red herring.
The current Hendrix article is now over 16,000 words long. When it was started in 2001 it was barely 400 words so over the past 13 years it has grown in length and detail by some forty fold! I dare say millions of published words have been written about Mr. Hendrix over the past half century and Amazon alone lists 24 published books about him. That being the case, it seems to me that a 1,500 word article with one illustration about this clearly significant episode in Mr. Hendrix's life is hardly excessive. Instead this proposal seems to be little more that yet another new attempt at forum shopping to find another way to attempt to delete a long standing image for which there is considerable support to retain as has been demonstrated in the many earlier discussions going back as far as 2011 which together have now consumed approaching 55,000 words in length.
Instead of adding another five or ten thousands more words, let us instead just close this thinly disguised attempt to find another excuse to delete this image, be thankful that an editor has been willing to expand the coverage of this element of Mr. Hendrix’s life by taking the time and effort to create and develop this well sourced and relevant sub-article, and then we all move on to other more productive areas to expand and improve the project. Centpacrr (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As far as I can see, this article easily meets WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG and is easily one of the most notable events in Hendrix' life. It is wholly usual to separate notable events from confirmed WP articles into their own page, such as we do with discographies. CassiantoTalk 20:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was not one of the most important events in his life--for real. There is no encyclopedic point in having this minor thing in a separate article; merging it back in the main article, seriously trimmed, is the best thing to do. And as for the 14 years in prison--they didn't happen, did they. Besides, as one of the sources notes, "By far the most extraordinary aspect of Jimi Hendrix's drug bust in Toronto on May 3, 1969, was how little press it generated." Drmies (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading; it generated little press because Hendrix's management bribed people to bury the story. Interesting angle, hey? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, no, sorry. Bribing one AP reporter, ah well. It didn't prevent the NYT from reporting on it. But even with a bribe this is not a notable enough incident to warrant its own article. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis, Drmies, do you conclude that this was "not one of the most important events in his life"? Unfortunately Mr. Hendrix has been dead for almost 44 years so he can't offer his views personally but if you were arrested and facing charges that could put you in prison for 14 years I dare say that you would not view that as an unimportant event in your life. As a high profile public figure that would only exacerbate the significance of this event to Mr. Hendrix, not diminish it. The basis for retention is not whether or not this was important to you, or any other editor or reader, but whether or not it was important to Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the article. Clearly it was. Centpacrr (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all sources agree that the drugs were planted on Hendrix and that the bust had been set-up. So is it really your position that the biggest star in North America was framed for drug smuggling, but that is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Every event of his life is pretty much significant. Being contractually obligated to produce one more record and churning out Band of Gypsys was a significant event. Setting a guitar on fire in 1967 was a significant event. Playing Woodstock the morning after was a significant event. His military service was significant. All of these can probably be much more extensively sourced than this story. And I didn't say that it wasn't notable for inclusion: you're putting words in my mouth. It should be included in his article, and not anywhere else. Do you want to argue there should be separate articles on the friendship between Hawthorne and Melville? On Faulker receiving the Nobel prize? On SRV getting clean? Drmies (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the thoughtful reply; good points all. At the risk of breaking WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think its hypocritical to pounce on this article in the first 24 hours out of principle when 4 or 5 out every 10 random article I see are not any more justified, based on your logic here. E.g., there is a Wikipedia article about almost every footballer who ever lived no matter how inconsequential. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid split of extended detail which would otherwise be too much for the main biography. The event was covered sufficiently by the media to satisfy our WP:GNG requirement. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to warrant a paragraph or two. That doesn't warrant a separate article. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a selective merge of the most important elements. This is far beyond "ordinary" undue weight. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not "Police News of the Past". Encyclopedias are supposed to provide an overview of major events, not the most minute trivia as I'm seeing here. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: this is massively undue weight, and this much content on the incident is not encyclopedic. I can provide tons of reliable sources for the meanings, etymological development, spelling changes, etc. of the words "rose" and "black" (check the OED on these; they get more coverage than almost any other words), and far more than is necessary for GNG. However, we wouldn't keep such an article because that's the province of a dictionary, not of an encyclopedia; in the same way, this is the province of an actual biography, not an encyclopedia article. Meanwhile, can you provide evidence of this event having any of WP:EVENTCRIT's historical significance, unrelated to Hendrix himself? I quote from WP:NOT — Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. Meanwhile, consider again what I said above: real encyclopedias summarise what the sources have said, rather than giving every trivium that gets mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this source is very "groovy" and should be used in the article. Doctalk 06:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It's a pretty substantial article on a pretty substantial event. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - Although I share GabeMc's concern that this is a significant event and deserves mention, in my honest opinion, it's not significant enough to warrant its own page. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If one reads the coverage of the arrest and trial in respected biographies such as those written by Shapiro and Glebbeek, and by Charles Cross, and in Noel Redding's autobiography, all written decades after Hendrix's death, it becomes clear that this was a traumatic event that greatly affected him for seven months. It was vastly more than a "match played, goal scored or hand shaken". And his career as a big star only lasted four years. Since GabeMc strongly supported deletion of the mugshot image, I fail to see how this is somehow his ploy to keep the image. The article should be evaluated on its own merits and its potential for improvement rather than being tied to the image debate. When Jimi Hendrix became a featured article, there were only three poorly-referenced sentences about this arrest and trial. Pretty much all of what Tarc calles the "pre-meddled-with version" was added later, mostly by GabeMc and I, who were disagreeing strongly about the image at the time while collaborating on improving the text. I believe that this article is appropriate under these specific circumstances, and do not see its creation as "pointy". Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - JH is a music icon, a virtual Messiah, across the world. Ordinarily this might be trival but not in his case. S.O. went to a lot of trouble, including apparently to carefully cite sources, in creating this. My main reason to keep is it gets cumbersome to read the JH article if this is all stuffed there. It's much more manageable and the conventional way to do it on WP, to have a little "See main article" link and only a dab about this at JH. Paavo273 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who will save us from this terrible peril of editors expanding articles?Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue with expansion - it's expansion written to far too much detail for an encyclopedia, with most of the text there trying to justify the use of the mugshot non-free image (the whole reason the article was created to prevent its deletion off the Hendrix page). That is both abusing the purpose of non-free, as well failing to be an encyclopedia. This event was well covered in the original Hendrix article (and reviewed at FAC) by 2 paragraphs + change prior to issues with the mugshot. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Masem, this continued line of argument of yours has already been fully debunked by multiple other editors in this thread and has thus gained no traction. For one thing the creator of this article had opposed keeping the mugshot. His creation of this entry was instead done for a very different reason, to-wit, with further reading and consultation of reliable published sources (including eight books he cited in the 25 footnotes) the creating editor found that the arrest and subsequent seven month criminal legal issues were far more significant in Mr. Hendrix's life than were then reflected in the main article's original material.
As has happened many many thousands of times on WP in the past, this led the editor to take the initiative to create a "daughter" article on this complex seven month episode and link it to the main article. Far from being an "abuse" of process, this is one of the main ways in which the project is built. If you are not personally interested in the subject of this particular article you are, of course, free to ignore and not read it. That does not mean, however, that your personal disinterest in it is a valid reason to deny access to this information to those who are. Wikipedia is not designed to only appeal to only the lowest common denominator of interest, but instead to the broadest. So let us just close this ill conceived and pointless AfD now, stop additional forum shopping to delete the original image, and move on to more productive activities like growing the project instead of trying to diminish it. Centpacrr (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article was specifically created so that the mugshot image would no longer be an issue on the Hendrix page, effectively off-loading the problem to here; there it was considered a compromise but without input of NFCC consideration. Prior to that, the editors on that page created an incredibly detailed account of the trial and arrest (beyond what would be called for in an encyclopedia) to try to justify the image under NFCC, beyond the original tight version. If the FFD had closed delete, this article would have never likely been created and the extra text added removed for the condensed version. We do not write articles to justify NFCC, it is supposed to be the other way around. And this "this complex seven month episode" is hyperbole. He was called out at the airport, they found drugs, he was booked, bail was posted, a trial date was set, and the trial took all of a day 7 months later, with him acquitted of the charges. Four total days out of his life. And given everything else that has been said and the full extent of what's there on Hendrix, yes, the weight of the charge was an impact on his performance art, but that easily can be (and has been) described in a few short paragraphs prior to this expansion. We are not a newspaper, which the bulk of this article is, and more importantly, is better covered in context of the overall life of Hendrix. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that is the way that Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the main article, viewed this seven months? Really? I hope you are never put in the same situation Mr. Hendrix was. If you were I think you would have a whole different perspective on this! With respect, Masem, you are just plain wrong here and your argument is thus not gaining any support or consensus. So please just drop it. With respect, sir, you are now just making yourself look foolish. Centpacrr (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it weighed heavily on him. But to say it has that much significance given how little the sources cover this period is OR and undue weight. We do have choice quotes that can be used, but they worked just fine in context of the overall biography of him before this article was created. That part should be kept. But a full detailed documentation of the short arrest and trial which is the bulk of this article is improper. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, once again you have your facts about Hendrix wrong. The sources cover this period in just as much detail as any other in his life, so I'm not sure where you got that idea or why you keep repeating it, but its not at all accurate. The sources absolutely cover this period. Centpacrr is correct about the enormity of this event in Hendrix's life. For one, all he ever wanted to do was make a living as a professional musician. Had he been convicted, his music career would have been ended. Also, he toured incessantly from 1967, but after completing the scheduled engagements after the bust, he didn't perform for more than 6 months, the longest such hiatus of his entire 6-years career. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one in the discussions before complaining that suddenly the content dedicated to the trial in the article (before this was split) in word %ages far exceeded what the sources had about it. That tells me right there this is undue weight. If he was convicted, yes, it would have affected his life, obviously. So are people who are arrested for anything with potential jail sentences - but we don't create articles on every one of those trials even if the people are notable. And all these details you give should be in his biographical context, as they are important and show the importance of the trial on that, but you had that fine in the FAC version with 2 paragraphs and change. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused; I said that the actual image wasn't discussed, not that the incident wasn't. Re: Masem's repeated assertions that reliable secondary sources do not cover this incident in any detail. In 2003, author and Hendrix biographer Keith Shadwick wrote: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident." (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books. ISBN978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) My sentiments exactly, which is precisely why I created the sub-article. His bio should be primarily about his music. Not his drug use as Masem has insisted. For Masem pushing for more material devoted to drugs, look here and here. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, why complain about WP:UNDUE here, while pushing for a build-up of material relating to Hendrix's drug use in an effort to justify the picture? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's not what I said (about the image and the incident). You were saying things like "Either way, we currently devote 3–6 times as much space to the incident as these two bios do..." in trying to show why the mugshot and expansion wasn't necessary, and shows why this is undue weight on a small incident on his life that easily was summarized in a few paragraphs before. And his bio should be about his biography, since we have separate articles for all his studio albums and other music works (though a broad overview of his musical talents and influence of course should be in the main article). Whatever aspect about Hendrix and his purported drug use should be part of that article, not separate. To off-load anything about his drug use to a separate article seems extremely POV-ish (to make Hendrix appear more "saintly" (for lack of a better word) than what sources give). Yes, we have to cover the bad about a person as well as the good as long as its reliably documents, that's what NPOV requires. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the point that you aren't getting. The coverage of his drug use in the dedicated article is already ample, but you suggested that if we "build-it up more" the image would be justified, which isn't at all how you write a good article. You keep repeating that I made Hendrix out to look good regarding drugs, but I still think that you haven't even bothered to actually read the article, or at least that section devoted to drugs and alcohol. In the article, I detail at least three bad acid trips, his marijuana and hashish use, his use of speed, cocaine, and LSD, and his propensity for violence when he drank too much. Oh yeah, and also his overdose on sleepers. Still, you push for more detail regarding drug use so that his article is more about his substance abuse then it is his life and music. No, I am not trying to make him look "saintly", and anyone who reads the article will see that. IMO, it is you how wants him to look like a junkie that he never was. That's the NPOV issue here, not the opposite. Really though, you think that "build-up the story of his drug use to justify a non-free image" is good advice? Really? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per BDD's explanation in closing the FFD: "Does the presence of other images in the Jimi Hendrix make this image superfluous? Perhaps. I note that there aren't other images related to his "drug use and violence." It may be fruitful instead to treat this as a content dispute, discussing on the article talk page what this image contributes to the overall article rather than focusing on its copyright status". That suggested looking at expanding out the article to talk about drug use and violence even if this shines a negative light on Hendrix (as long as that's sourced). Not the trial. If you trim out the details of the arrest and trial, you have something that slots right back into the bio in the right place. And I was also trying to say "expand to debunk the urban legends that he was a junkie, such as the oft-cited claim that Purple Haze was about drugs", all which should be part of this article. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's also bad advice, Masem. Details regarding the meaning of the lyrics to "Purple Haze" absolutely do not belong in the dedicated bio as an effort to discuss his drug use. That's a detail for the song article, and that's good article 101. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. It is a clear urban legend that Hendrix was a junkie, with one common example being that Purple Haze lyrics were about drugs. This should be addressed and debunked as best as the sources allow for on his bio article (citing some examples which may include some of his musical works) to make it clear how false the urban legend is. This seems completely appropriate to address in a biographical article as it would be the first place I'd look for checking the validity of that legend. Importantly, though, this urban legend is documented (and some cases, perpetuated) in reliable sources; if it wasn't, FRINGE is over that way and I would agree to completely ignore it. But that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, the article currently has 900 words devoted to Hendrix's drug use and problems occurring thereof. The article is 11,595 words long; therefore: 7.8% of the article is devoted to his drug use and less than 10% to his three studio albums! Why won't you acknowledge this point? How much coverage of drugs is enough, because you keep saying that there isn't enough, but its one of the main focuses of the article that you apparently have never even read. Will you please acknowledge that you understand that almost 8% of the article's prose deals with Hendrix's drug use? Why, IYO, is this not enough? Have you even read a book on Hendrix? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because only 10% of the biographical article is dedicated to his music, there's several sub-articles that goes into his music in more depth via his studio albums, so the net volume of information on his music is much larger. And the text that is in there about his history with drugs is too detailed at some points, and not broad enough. The fact you have it separated out from his personal history (falling after the section of his death), it should be approached as a broad picture of whatever troubles and ways to rid himself of such troubles with drugs and alcohol use. It focus much much less on the details and more on the larger picture. That's what the issue was when people started filling in all the possible details they could about the trial to justify the mugshot - it lost sight of the larger picture of how this section should have been structures as to force NFCC. If I go back to the version promoted at FA, I don't understand why any more is needed as long as it is understood that the present text there would not support the mugshot. If you start to go into any more detail, then you need to cover all the basis and that's where the problem lies with the current version and this article. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to operate under the notion that whatever was there when it passed FAC is set-in-stone. I don't share this view; I continue to improve my FAs long after they pass. At any rate, I have no respect for your opinions on content; sorry, but I seriously don't think that you know what you are talking about in that regard. I think the article is absolutely the best on Hendrix currently available online. Find a better one, or find a better Wikipedia article about any rock star from the 1960s. I'd love to see what you think is better. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep valid sub-article of jimi hendrix, which by itself easily meets the GNG, also decently written. Nomination seems to be little more than a disagreement on the organization of the main article. The Steve 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete Okay, I'm trying not to get too distracted by the apparent suggestion that somehow this non-conviction on a drug charge is more notable than the Kennedy assassination, for heaven's sake. But after following all the back and forth, I do agree with the position that this could be summarized quite adequately within the main article, and does not merit a content fork. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was in no way comparing this incident to the Kennedy assassination; I was merely debunking Masem's assertion that the Hendrix sources don't cover the arrest and trial, because every single one of them does. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After a lot of thought and careful reading of this page as well as the new article, I agree with the reasoning that this material stands on its own as a separate article. It is well-sourced, written and presented. The arguments to delete are highly unconvincing, and the arguments that deletion is justified because the article was created to prove a point, while superficially plausible, can just as easily be "boomeranged" around. The article improves the 'pedia. Let's move on. Jusdafax 23:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now there's the Tarc I remember. Regardless of any speculations about motives, the bottom line is that the article passes WP:GNG and does so with flying colors. The comments of Andy Dingley and Centpacrr ring very true. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying it doesn't pass the GNG. But meeting the GNG does not assure a stand-alone article is appropriate, particularly in this case where the coverage of this detail fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written article about a little-known but scarring incident. Rothorpe (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments for deletion are not baseless, but I actually think there is plenty here to live in its own article. Calling content creation pointy should be done with extreme care and with irrefutable proof, neither of which I see here. The encyclopedia benefits from this coverage, and there is no reason to dilute and merge it other than possibly arguments for undue weight, which I don't find compelling. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gabe contributes a great deal to Wikipedia's music pages and I find all of his articles to be well balanced and meaningful. --Kingslove2013 —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written and well-sourced article on a notable event in one of the most important musical figures of the 20th century. Although I think it will need to be renamed to meet naming conventions. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 05:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I have to wonder about your reasoning here. What if the image suddenly disappeared? Would you still think that this article should be deleted? What if I removed the image from this article and put it back at Jimi Hendrix? Would you still argue for deletion here? If so, why? Also, if you are trying to delete this article for the sole reason that you find its creation pointy, then isn't that just as WP:POINTY? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, are you sure it was a "minor incident", if so, where did you get this information? Hendrix faced 14 years in prison; is that really minor, IYO? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that I witnessed what is IMO a bad-faith end-around done because an NFCC-related discussion wasn't going your way. The claim that this is "one of the most notable events in the life of Jimi Hendrix" is just...I don't know what to call it, either it's severely uninformed regarding Hendrix and rock history in general, or it is intentional (and very transparent) hyperbole. It doesn't matter how long the potential sentence was, it doesn't justify the word bloat that you're giving it. And please stop pinging me, I have the AFD on watchlist. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't bad-faith, Tarc. The major concern was that the image didn't belong at Jimi Hendrix, that's been alleviated. Now, we have a separate concern regarding this article, but even if the image is inappropriate here this article is not going to be deleted because it meets all the critera with flying colors. Shouldn't your rationale be based on a lack of notability, versus revenge for not following the ridiculously tedious and endless Wiki-red tape? Do you offer any policy based-reason for deletion, because I seriously doubt if WP:POINTY applies to content deletion. FWIW, I view this AfD as WP:POINTY, since you are not really debating its notability, are you? There was no consensus for deletion at Hendrix, so why would there be consensus against inclusion at a dedicated topical article? All the RSs go into great detail about the incident, and I'm not sure how you can categorize facing 14 years in prison for drug smuggling as minor. We have an article dedicated to Michael Jackson's molestation charges, but I doubt he was ever facing 14 years in prison. At any rate, it need not be the most notable thing of all time to justify an article, all it needs to meet are WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. Can you make any cogent argument that it does not meet these guidelines? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "The major concern was that the image didn't belong at Jimi Hendrix..." is an admission of guilt as far as I am concerned, and the meandering into other topics only reinforces that. My nomination rationale was two-fold; your bad-faith end-around of a non-free content discussion, and the fact that there isn't enough to say about the event itself to justify forking off of the main article. The prose at present reminds me of a junior high-schooler fluffing up an essay to make it reach the required number of pages the teacher asked for; a lot of words to say very little, a lot of excessive detail beyond what is warranted for an encyclopedia topic. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"an admission of guilt"? Am I really on trial here? Why are my intentions a factor regarding the notability guidelines? As far as the current condition of the article, its less than 24 hours old. Tell me it sucks after I get it through FAC! GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, Jackson was charged with *14* counts involving minors; I can't find an exact number of what the maximum sentence would have been but were he found guilty he would have been spending several decades in prison from some of these charges alone. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Werieth, what part of our notability guidelines does this article fail? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that this issue shouldnt be covered, however I think that creating a separate article for what in the big picture is a minor event, places undue importance on the event. That undue importance violates WP:NPOV. Werieth (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. There is all kinds of stuff to go into. Like speculation that Hendrix's manager Mike Jeffery had him set-up to control him (Redding's book). Or that Hendrix purgured himself under oath, or how about the possibility that he was set-up by the authorities. He faced 14 years in prison, so to say this is a minor event in his life is ridiculous. What about 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most fascinating things about the nuances of this project for me is that there really is no room for die-hard "wikibuddies" if you approach it honestly. Things can turn on a dime, and editors can literally co-exist as "frienimies' without breaking any rules. I've never once met an editor that I agree with 100% across the board on every single edit and/or opinion. AGF is a big thing, and I extend it to everyone except blatant trolls and vandals. I don't give a rat's ass what someone says to me in frustration, and I don't dwell on it. Compromise is important in life, and on WP. People disagree about stuff vehemently, and that doesn't make anyone bad. But I digress! I don't see the creation of the article as "pointy", as it is not "disruptive" to the project. Doctalk 05:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I think its a misrepresentation to say that I wrote the article for no other reason than to "justify the use of a non-free image". 1) I'm not a big fan of the image in the first place; I !voted for deletion at the last FFD, 2) There was a building consensus that more needed to be said about this notable incident, but too much detail at Jimi Hendrix was creating a WP:UNDUE situation. 3) If the image was not removed or deleted when it was in Jimi Hendrix, how can its status be less now at a dedicated topical article? 4) I was only trying to rectify the situation at Hendrix, which required a) that the image be removed, and b) that more detail be written to address this notable incident. Even if the image is inappropriate, the article isn't, so inclusion of a non-free file is absolutely not a valid reason to delete an 1,800 word (and growing) article. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. - Is it common to have these discussions about an article that was created less than 24 hours ago? Isn't there anything in the guidelines that affords article creators some time to develop new articles, because it seems wrong to criticize the quality of such a newly started article (as Tarc did above). Also, am I really on trial here, because Tarc keeps using words like guilty? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "new" article since the content was pulled out of another. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its really difficult for me to AGF with you. You seem to like arguing about meaningless distinctions. You know what I mean, but FTR, I pulled 700 words out of Hendrix and the new article is now 2,100 words. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again we have now wasted over 7,000 words (more than four times the length of the article) in just two days in the pointless, omphaloskeptic AfD that does not have a chance in hell of being successful. The article is relevant, accurate, not specious, well written, and heavily footnoted with citations to eight reliable sources. Let's end this foolishness now and get on to doing something constructive on WP. Please. Centpacrr (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better to have 7000 words on talk/discussion pages than edit warring battles so there's no reason to belittle discussion. Plus, the fact this is unresolved from an NFCC standpoint still. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is going to be closed 'keep'. Best to have that happen asap, and the article renamed, to allow more specific content discussion to proceed without the distractions of the AfD etc.—Aquegg (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's four words. Do the same search for just jimi + hendrix and you'll get less, only 19 mil hits. Searching for "jimi hendrix drug trial" in quotes nets just 4 hits, none of which are relevant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you adding "president"? "john kennedy assassination" nets 15 millions of hits. This is getting silly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this has been silly for 6 weeks! At any rate, in 2003, author and Hendrix biographer Keith Shadwick wrote: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident." (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books. ISBN978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) So that really should be enough to de-bumk the "no sources cover this" theory, right? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for the combined terms "jimi hendrix", arrest, Toronto and "may 1969" returns plenty of relevant hits. Centpacrr (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, Google hits are irrelevant. The sources section of the article has 12 reliable secondary sources, which is more than enough to justify the article in terms of sources. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't look at ghits for AFDs. We look at the coverage actual reliable sources give, and GabeMc even said that its very little in the actual biographical books about Hendrix, making this undue weight. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. You keep twisting the fact that I said to go into this much detail in the bio was WP:UNDUE, because it was overshadowing other important aspects of his life. I never said that the sources don't discuss the incident; ALL OF THEM DO. There isn't one Hendrix bio that does not discuss the incident. You are having trouble keeping your facts straight, but how can there be 15 reliable sources in the Toronto article if the sources do not discuss the incident? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are primary sources. This article is redocumenting a news story and while you can find a lot of sources to document the events, that's not what an encyclopedia should be doing. There's major events that happen in the world each day reported by hundreds of sources, but we don't document them to any degree unless they have a larger impact. This is why source counting, outright, is bad, because it's not considering what is covered by the sources. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are wrong. Only two of the sources used in the article are primary (Mitchell and Redding), all the others are secondary. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing to the 15 sources you mentioned in the Torontoist, which are all pretty much newspaper articles at the time of the trial. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem I am constrained to observe that your posts here are fast reaching the level of those at the Argument Clinic which you can find here. Centpacrr (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the arguments before by those fighting to keep the mugshot image were worse. I am pretty confident we wouldn't be in this position if the mugshot was removed as it was back at the FAC (or any point thereafter). The image is still a problem, and has now created an article that is far too undue on a small detail in Hendrix' larger career. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to keep parroting that position, Masem, however the consensus of the community appears to be strongly on the other side. The majority of respondents have found your argument that this article is "undue", and that Mr. Herdrix's seven month ordeal during which he was under legal threat of being incarcerated for decades if convicted which left him virtually unable to perform for half a year was a "small detail in his larger career" to be abjectly unconvincing. Why not just be grateful that GabeMc took the time and effort to flesh out this significant extended episode in Mr. Hendrix's life? His having done so informs readers not only of the circumstances of his arrest, booking, and being charged, but also why he had this long otherwise unexplained hiatus late in his relatively short career that was subsequently prematurely ended at age 27 by a drug overdose less than a year after his trial. That seems like a pretty legitimate encyclopedic function to me. Centpacrr (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting my words. I never said Beiber's arrest was more consequential. I said it had more coverage. Huge difference. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if you continue this, that will be considered a personal attack. You're avoiding the content issue - that this is undue coverage of something that easily (and already was) summarized in the main Hendrix article. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think its relevant to the conversation. Your primary position is that the incident is not notable, yet you seem to think that Bieber's arrest is notable. Why do you think that 20 years in prison is a minor consequence? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here you seem to argue that Bieber's incident is more consequential, as if I'm playing-up the Hendrix heroin bust while down-playing the Bieber ordeal. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point there was to consider the type of coverage that Beiber was getting, compared to the limited amount of coverage that Hendrix's arrest had, for a similar type of crime in terms of how it is seen by the world at large. I never trivialized Hendrix' arrest, only that you can't trivialize Bieber's at the same time. They have, for all purposes, the same weight of how we should cover them in an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem you are completely ignoring the fact that in 1969 there was no internet, social media, cable and satellite TV and radio, wifi, iPhones, Androids, Blackberrys, iPads and other "mobile" devices, Twitter, Google, Facebook, syndicated entertainment TV shows, etc. Instead there were just three national over-the-air TV networks (ABC, NBC & CBS), and local radio, TV and newspapers. The difference between news and media coverage in 1969 and 2014 is just night and day so your argument here conflating the two is just another red herring. Really. Centpacrr (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, the New York Times published a story about the incident two days after the arrest, which was a big deal back then. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Rolling Stone, publication of record for hard rock music in 1969, published three detailed articles about the arrest and trial back then. The first was a joint effort by eminent rock journalists Ben Fong-Torres based in San Francisco, and Ritchie Yorke, based in Toronto. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were wire services, there were telephones; there was ways for news to be transmitted across the world within a day of events at that time. No, I realistically cannot expect the same full coverage that Beiber got but I would expect more than the handful of stories reported at that time if the arrest and trial was really that significant. As has been pointed out, the details of trial are barely covered by the biographies of Hendrix. All this together tells us that the details of the trial are verifiable but overly detailed and trivial and out of scope for an encyclopedia per NOT and UNDUE - note that I would say the same if someone were to try to create an article on Beiber's court date despite the many more sources available. This is what I was trying to get at during the RFC on the Hendrix page - the aggressive effort to force the use of the mugshot created too much detail on one tiny aspect and lost the larger picture - that, as some of those sources that talk about the trial say - Hendrix was aware of the issue with using drugs, and yes the arrest affected his musical career for seven months, and that he felt vindicated after his acquitted. The whos and whats of the trial do not matter to tell this story for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times covered it briefly right after the arrest, the Rolling Stone covered it three times at length over those months, the Toronto dailies covered it many times, perhaps as many as 15 times according to citations in the Torontoist, which ran a major story 42 years later, his best biographies offer many pages of coverage, his bandmates' autobiographies cover it, and we have evidence that a wire services was bribed not to cover it. Does that amount to "barely covered"? I don't think so. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One really has to wonder, Masem, why you are so bound and determined to delete this article. Its creator, GabeMc, has done an excellent job in researching and writing it, it is extremely well sourced with 39 footnotes from eight books and other publications, and directly relates to an important series of events affecting the life and career of Mr. Hendrix, the subject of the main article. Now you may personally think this is "undue" and was a "small detail in his larger career", but the evidence of how it negatively affected his life and career over a period of seven months from May to December, 1969, demonstrates that is not the case. If the information it contains does not personally interest you, that's fine. You are certainly not required to read it. But again your personal lack of interest in what it contains is not grounds to deny access to others who may be very interested in this material. As I pointed out above, the Wikipedia project is not designed to serve and appeal to just the lowest common denominator among its readers, but to the broadest one.
So please, therefore, instead of constantly ignoring its substance in favor of arguing your interpretation of fine points of "policy and guidelines" as grounds for deletion, honestly answer these two questions about this article: What specific substantive harm do you claim that the existence and availability of this article to those who may wish to read it do to the Wikipedia Project, and how and on what basis do you claim that it's deletion would benefit and/or improve the quality and value of the project? If you can't come up with clear and convincing answers to those two questions supporting your position with which you are able to persuade the community that Wikipedia would be better off without this article (and you certainly have not been able to do that so far), then I think it is time for you to accept that this article is an appropriate and valuable addition to the project on its substance, and that there is therefore no valid basis for its deletion. None at all. Centpacrr (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, Centpacrr. Well said. Jusdafax 07:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...And we are now up to 11,200 words on this pointless AfD exercise.
Just guessing, cumulative copyright infringement? I.e. the more details we take from books and put in WP, the less incentive there is for folk to buy the books.—Aquegg (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historical and other facts in and of themselves are not copyrightable. Footnoted sources that are quoted (either verbatim or otherwise) are what most of Wikipedia depends and is based on for its reliability and are either in the Public Domain or if copyrighted fall under the fair use provisions of the US Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 107). From both personal experience and empirical evidence, I also find that the contention "the more details we take from books and put in WP, the less incentive there is for folks to buy the books" is not only false but the exact opposite result is more often true. Centpacrr (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Aquegg was speculating about Masem's possible response to your questions, not arguing the point per se; of course I could be wrong. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) IMAGINE A WORLD where the first person to record information gained private ownership & control of that information forever .... Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I expect you are right, GabeMc, but just in case these were to be his answers I am just providing a preemptive strike reply. I suspect that it is far more likely, however, that he will not attempt to answer these questions at all. Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article gives undue weight to this non-notable event that shouldn't have a stand-alone page. Yes, it can be argued this was an important event Hendrix's life but many notable people have important events happen in their life (marriages for example). That fact that it was "important for them" doesn't merit it as being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Hendrix, while he was a use of drugs, is not notable for his involvement with drugs- he is notable for his music. The article can be paraphrased as: "Hendrix had drugs on him, was charged with possession, he could have faced 20 years but didn't." I can't see why anyone looking up Hendrix be looking for more than that. Kudos to the pointiness and redundant fork. The lack of press coverage at the time (circumstances aside) concerns me too. Many sources are from significantly after the event - they're neutrality is questionable. Given the creator's super-aggressive and often straw man arguments, I think the creator is unquestionably not being neutral, I interpret the notability of the event as being largely exaggerated by GabeMc(talk|contribs) and think that should be noted. N4 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N4 see my last two paragraph comment (begining "One really has to wonder...") immediately above. In that context how then would you answer the two questions I posed there? Centpacrr (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have misinterpreted the deletion policy. Very few articles of any sort (with the exceptions of say vandalism and hoaxes) cause harm to the Wikipedia project but we don't keep articles because they don't harm the project, we keep articles for the benefit they provide. You need to explain why the article provides benefit, your two questions are irrelevant to the argument I made. The bottom line is Hendrix is NOT notable for his drugs trial in the same way, for example, that Phil Spector is notable as a murderer. And before someone points to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm not using this as an argument but as an illustration to demonstrate that notability does not exist in this case. The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that Hendrix was not notable for this trial then, neither is he notable for it now. While you can argue it was "important for him personally" (again, not relevant to Wikipedia notability as per above) I interpret the lack of press coverage at the time to indicate he either viewed it as an unimportant event or as an irrelevant taint on his career. The only other sources on this issue are from years after his death that likely idealize or exaggerate the "importance" of this event to him. And as said before, the creator is clearly biased. This topic has heavily WP:UNDUE weight. Please explain why this is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings". Thank you. N4 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly there's the pointiness of the article. I don't consider this at all as a reason for deletion and so my deletion argument doesn't incorporate this fact, but the article does seem to be pointy which indicates your not being neutral. Second there are your many straw man arguments that you seem to be consciously setting up to disrupt the natural, logical flow of discussion. "Is Masem really an authority that we can trust regarding the relative importance of these types of events?" has nothing to do with the quality of his argument. Neither does your almost manipulative use of google hits as evidence of notability. Notability has nothing to do with google hits. It's almost as if you're trying to defend the article because you feel you have a point to prove. This is Wikipedia. You have nothing to prove. And then there's your super-aggressive commenting. If you were acting as a WP:neutral editor, as you are supposed to, you would post your opinion, other editors would examine your view as a respected editor and then the community would identify either the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the subject matter. The fact that this AfD is huge filled largely by your replies (some of which contribute little to the core debate) is not constructive. Your reply right now is an example of a non-constructive reply. My comment ended Please explain why this is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings". Thank you. Instead, you've decided to comment on my view that you are biased. Now, can you tell my why the subject is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings", or are you unwilling or unable to? Now, putting all that aside, I really do recommend you leave the debate alone and let other neutral parties come to their own consensus. All the best. N4 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N4, thanks for your response. To the first point I would say that its only pointy if you completely abandon AGF. I truly thought that it justified a stand-alone, and consensus here appears to agree with me. So, I'm not sure how that's pointy. RE: "Please explain why this is notable independent of 'Hendrix's speculative personal feelings'", 1) there is good reason to believe that this was a frame job that was part of a larger effort by right-wing interests to silence rock stars, and 2) all sources agree that he was set up, and I truly believe that the highest-paid performer in the world and the biggest star in North America getting framed for drug smuggling is pretty notable. At least as notable as Timeline of the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can understand some of the delete arguments, and if Wikipedia wasn't so chock-full of needless articles I might agree more. We have Crab RangoonandCrab puff, which to me are nearly identical. We have an article about almost every footballer who ever lived no matter how inconsequential, e.g. Bethel Robinson. Or how about thousands of articles about obscure non-English language movies that 50–75% of English speaking people have never, and will never hear about let alone watch. E.g., 2030 – Aufstand der Jungen. Nearly every video game has an article, but I seriously doubt that a printed encyclopedia would include them. E.g. Me & My Katamari. Is Lost in the Chamber of Love really that notable? In fact, if you do a random article search ten times, I'll bet that at least 4 or 5 of them are obscure or unnecessary based on your logic here. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopeidia so we can cover a lot of topics that would otherwise not be covered in traditional works. At the same time, we're not a collection of indiscriminate information, and we use notability and sourcing to gauge when a stand-alone article is appropriate. Is this event "notable"? It does meet the GNG, but as stated there, meeting the GNG does not require that we have a standalone page as other policy and guideline may suggest differently. In this specifically, the issue is that there's no reason why this aspect of Hendrix's life should be covered in this much detail and outside of the article of Hendrix himself. At the time it happened, it was a media blip and even future sources glossed over it, noting it happened but avoiding excessive details. It is much better suited to an article on the person it affected than a standalone. (To contrast, consider the media circuses around OJ Simpson's and Michael Jackson's trials, making the actual event of the trial well established as notable and separate from the person affected) Compare this to footballers or the like, where there's no other real context to otherwise document them, so standalones make sense. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMc, don't worry about it. I'm happy to provide a neutral balanced view of how I interpret things here. The prevalence of other articles of questionable notability annoys me too. In fact, given my way, Wikipedia would probably be a fifth of what it is now but (and I do hate to point out what I asked others to not point out to me) other stuff exists. I simply can't see the subject of this article as being notable enough for it's own stand alone article. That said, you do seem to be doing a good job of continuously finding new sources. As always, if the quality of sources does continue to increase, I will reconsider my interpretation. N4 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suspect the keepers and deleters can pretty well be segregated by those who really understand and appreciate who JH was and those who don't. There are a few people the mention of whom trivializes them. IMO JH is one of those. (I think that is true of the main JH article. No disrespect intended for the people who worked hard on THAT article.) He wasn't Phil Spector. He wasn't even Marilyn Monroe or JFK; his accomplishments in his field exceeded what they did for theirs.
Hendrix did things with his guitar and in a way (while making it look normal and natural) that most people, even accomplished guitar players, just shake their heads at. In his short career he set a bar that will probably never again be reached.
Try this sentence from the nominated article, only substituting in another man JH would be worthy to be compared to: "The incident proved quite stressful for Jesus, and it weighed heavily on his mind while he awaited trial." There are also many who see no significance in that great visionary either, or the events in his life. There are some who would say his arrest, too, was inconsequential. “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” :-) I do think the article could stand a little tightening. Paavo273 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said that we shouldn't mention this event at all - it was important as documented. But the impact on his career is easily summarized in two paragraphs (currently in this article) that can be brought into the main Hendrix article where it is more appropriate for discussion in context of his overall career, particularly at that stage in his life, and without having an affect on SIZE. The details of the arrest and trial are excess and can be summarized in a few short sentences. That's the issue here. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address the Clinton things beyond looking at the much larger media coverage of those points (in addition to the fact that a President is going to have vast volumes of information written about what they did in office); in terms of the Historic Site, consensus has determined that nearly every National Historic buidling is presumed notable; counter to this, we do not say every trial is notable. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things are "media blips" (or no "blips" at all) when they happen, and their significance does not become clear until later. (The Christie/George Washington Bridge scandal, for instance, garnered very little coverage when it first happened in September, 2013.) That is exactly the case here. This arrest and its subsequent events later proved to be very significant in Mr. Hendrix's life resulting among other things in his putting his career on hold for six months and otherwise negatively affecting his life. You claim it is insignificant because he was "not known as a drug abuser" and yet he lost his life less than a year after his trail when he died in London at age 27 owing to abusing drugs (barbiturates). If this subject is so insignificant how did GabeMc manage to come up with so many published sources (including eight books) for this article?
The burden in an AfD is is on those who propose and support it to achieve consensus of the community to concur in that view. That has clearly not happened in this case as is demonstrated by 17 editors who have already spoken in here in favor of keeping it. The question I asked above was "on what basis do you claim that it's deletion would benefit and/or improve the quality and value of the project?" (i.e. addition by subtraction) which remains unaddressed. N4 claims that the article should be deleted because GabeMc posted it out of "bias". Well every contributor to WP has bias which is that they are interested enough in the subject to contribute the content. Such "bias" is not the same as a personal conflict of interest or POV, and unless you can prove that something another editor contributes is invalid for such a reason then WP requires that you "assume good faith" on the part of the other editor.
Nobody here has provided anything that challenges the good faith of GabeMc so that "charge" should be withdrawn forthwith. I make these observations as an editor who has never contributed any text or images to either this or the main article themselves, so I come to this this discussion with no conflict of interest but as as a neutral party. My only "bias" is that I strongly believe that this article is well written, well sourced, relevant to Mr. Hendrix as the subject of the main article, provides significant information about his life, was created and posted in good faith, and benefits the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Centpacrr, there are now 16 books used to source the article and 4 or 5 newspaper articles. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gladly stand corrected, GabeMc, and that just bolsters my point of the value and validity of this article. Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr, I don't claim the article should be deleted because GabeMc is not neutral- not at all. I said it should be deleted due to the lack of notability and that GabeMc's bias should be noted by the closing editor when he/she considers the debate. Read my comment again: Please explain why this is notable independent of "Hendrix's speculative personal feelings".N4 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N4, read my and the comments of the other 16 editors who favor keeping the article. The reasons are all laid out in great detail there. The burden in an AfD, however is on the proponents to convince the community that it is not notable, not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr, I'm curious as to why you mentioned there are 16 such editors the number of editors is irrelevant. Wikipedia works on consensus- the stronger argument is what we build on. The 8 editors that are in favor of a delete/merge/redirect resolution have arguments that speak far more sense to me. N4 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly snowing now. I suspect the closing editor will mark this up as no consensus seeing as nobody seems particularly willing to compromise. The real trouble here is that whilst we can establish the subject meets WP:BASIC as a minimum standard for inclusion, we don't have such a clear, precise process for establishing whether a subject is suitable as a WP:CONTENTFORK or not. In that case, it seems to be any opinion goes- it's just in this case everyone seems to want to argue it to the absolute nth degree. I would suggest all parties leave the AfD alone as we aren't getting any closer to a resolution. If the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it will likely be nominated for AfD again in a month or so where less "passionate", independent editors can hopefully reach a more balanced consensus. I think we can all agree that is best for the Wikipedia project. All the best. N4 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that there are 17 "keeps" (including myself) to indicate the strong support for that whereas there are just 5 "Merge and Deletes" and only 3 "deletes" beyond the nominator. This strikes me as pretty strong consensus to retain the article. Centpacrr (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not the number of "votes" but the quality of the argument that matters. Even the ratio of "non-keeps" to "keeps" as of itself makes it clear there is blatantly NO CONSENSUS reached here- a third of the editors disagree with keeping the article. Read WP:CONSENSUS for a fuller explanation. N4 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jackson's health and appearance is a great example: and it's a GA. Romney's got a bazillion articles. Perhaps creating a Hendrix article series template to add to this article and the "Death of" article, much like ((Mitt Romney series)), would make things more "legitimate"? Doctalk 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Lady Gaga's meat dress, which is a 3 year-old article and also a GA, is an appropriate spin-off because its covered in so many sources? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N4 as one of the only three editors who thinks the article should be deleted based, apparently, largely on technicalities as opposed to substance, I would certainly expect that you would think that this is the better argument. I find the arguments of the 17 who believe that the article should be kept for reasons of substance, relevance, significance of content, strong and broad sourcing, quality of writing and research, etc. to be far more persuasive and widely held. The arguments of the "merge and delete" group seem to me to be mostly compromises. Centpacrr (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of those 17 arguing to keep have addressed how this is not UNDUE weight given how little the actual biographies of Hendrix cover it. It is certainly possible to write this much about the case, but this is not prose appropriate for an encyclopedia that should be a summary work. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep asserting that the Hendrix bios don't cover the incident? Have you ever read a Hendrix bio? All the bios cover the incident, and many cover it in great detail. I quote biographer Keith Shadwick: "His arrest, bail and the subsequent hearing[s] ... have all been related at length in previous Hendrix biographies, and a book about the music is not the place to pour over the fine detail of the entire incident."(emphasis added) (Shadwick, Keith (2003). Jimi Hendrix: Musician. Backbeat Books. ISBN978-0-87930-764-6. Page 186) So, there is a reliable secondary source that directly refutes this point, which you have made at least 5 times. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not valid arguments for AFD. We're specifically focused on this article (and Jimi Hendrix as the merge target, of course). If you don't feel these other articles should exist, go ahead and nominate those for deletion but their existence has no bearing on this. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but that's only an essay; its not a guideline or policy. So it has little weight here, IMO, since we should be deciding this based on policies and guidelines, not essays. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This well written article is now 2,800+ words, is clearly well sourced (45 footnotes citing 18 published sources including 16 books), lists six additional books and four documentary films, and includes not only coverage of Mr. Hendrix's arrest, booking, indictment, and trial, but also sections on how these affected his career, a discussion of media suppression associated with the arrest, and a conspiracy to set Mr. Hendrix up for the arrest, all of which are highly relevant to his life and career. I find this contribution by GabeMc (whom I don;t know and have had no interactions with) to be a valuable and valid addition to the information about this high profile iconic musician and pubic figure whose work is still revered by millions 44 years after his untimely death at age 27. Removing it from the main space would only serve to diminish the Wikipedia Project, not improve it. So why not just thank GabeMc for taking the time and effort to create this article which I expect that many of those who visit the main article will visit. To be frank, it is AfDs and other similar types of processes when misapplied like this one that has driven thousands of good volunteer editors away from the project, and that diminishes it far more then an ill advised deletion of any single article. Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Centpacrr! I would add that we should consider the educational value to having a stand-alone article dedicated to this complex incident that really cannot be done justice in the main article. How many people have wondered what happened? Was he set up? Was the heroin really his? Was this part of a larger crackdown on subversive rock stars? How many readers will know that the FBI opened a file on him, or that some believe his manager set him up in an effort to control him? So many people know he was busted for drugs, but there isn't any one place online where they can read the whole story and decide for themselves if he was framed, or if he made a massive mistake. Some might assume that he was a heroin user, and they would have no place to see this refuted in extended detail. His mainstream career lasted only four years, and he released a new album in all but one of those years. I think people will wonder why he took a six month break from touring at the height of his career, and I think they will be glad to have this explained in a dedicated article. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) It doesn't matter how many words or sources are used. Here's a core question: if this incident was so important on his life (which I don't doubt), why separate it from the main Hendrix article? That's like saying "JFK died in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963." There is a lot of fluff in this article to try to justify it and the image (conspiracy theory now??) and the image but the core information is all stuff should be part of the same prose talking about Hendrix's career. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because it has proved, thanks to GabeMc's good work, to be a significant and complex enough seven month ordeal for Mr. Hendrix to deserve its own article. At least you now seem to be acknowledging that maybe this was not just a minor "four day" annoyance to Mr. Hendrix, so I guess that's progress. If that is not the case, however, then in the light of what the article reveals where is your human empathy for what Mr. Hendrix went through over those seven months in 1969 when he was under the threat of decades of incarceration and the end of his career? So again why not just acknowledge and thank GabeMc for his efforts and allow others who are interested in learning about this aspect and episode in Mr. Hendrix's life do so without interference. Centpacrr (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...And by the way we are now up to 16,500 words on this "snowball" thread too bringing the total to well over 70,000 expended in this ongoing multi-year, multi-stop forum shopping adventure. Some fun, eh?Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would a world be like without deletionists who deleted just for the joy of deleting? Where people could read source-cited info they wanted to read without being told you have no right to read this 'cuz it doesn't measure up to our interpretation of the rules? This article in its short infancy has been hit 1772 times. Even if only a third or quarter of those people were just wanting to self-educate, that's A WHOLE BUNCH of people who were edified about something they thirsted for knowledge concerning. Paavo273 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on, Paavo273, and for that very reason the bar for deletion of articles, unless they can be proven to be patently false or vandalism, must be extremely high and unequivocal. i.e., something akin to the legal standard for a criminal conviction: "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." For those deletionists out there who don't think a particular article is worth their time, that's just fine. Nobody is telling them they have to read it. That is no reason, however, to deny access to it to everybody else because, as I have pointed out before, the Wikipedia Project is not designed to serve and inform only the lowest common denominator, but the broadest.Centpacrr (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For one, this is not complex. They found drugs on him, they arrested him, there was a court date later, and he was acquited. That doesn't take an article of this complexity to describe the event. Focusing so much on the relatively trivality of the actual events is against WP policy as outlined above. And this all stems from people trying to fight to keep the NFC mugshot which, BTW, still fails policy. NFC cannot drive the creation of article text: That is a perversion of what NFC is meant to be used for. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus to delete the article is needed to delete it. There is presently nothing even close to a consensus to delete the article, and "No consensus" closes are handled using, and I quote, "the exact same procedures in keep" I really see nothing in WP:UNDUE that applies here. This is a SNOW situation, indeed. Doctalk 00:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a 2 to 1 margin is consensus to keep; that's a super-majority. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I not only agree that "keep" (as opposed to "no consensus") is the appropriate outcome, but that would also be the right standard in any AfD unless the sentiment to delete were neigh on to unanimous. Centpacrr (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFD ARE NOT VOTES. It is the strength of the policy based arguments to delete and keep. So there's zero point in bringing up the numbers. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article and the image are "against policy" according to your opinion. There simply is no default to delete based on your interpretation of them being ultimately against policy, again, in your opinion. That's why we have these fun little deletion discussions. No closing admin is going to delete this article. The image is still up at NFCR, but the DR and RfC have been closed. Time to move on? Yep. Doctalk 02:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my thoughts, Doc. If an admin super-votes and goes against 2/3rds of the participants, we will just be back here in a couple of weeks for round 5. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this entire episode is showing the ignorance of the free content mission and the non-free policy. If people accepted the original FAC accessment the image wasn't appropriate, there wouldn't have been any issue. The article is built around supporting that image, covering details in too much UNDUE weight to try to justify it (it still isn't), and that simply is not acceptable for a work that aims to promote free content by minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read and re-read UNDUE several times, and I really still do not see even what sentence you are referring to that applies to this article. It is time to cut your losses and move on. Rome wasn't built in a day, and this incident is not going to prevent its future glory. The people have spoken ;P Doctalk 03:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur with Doc and GabeMc. It seems to me that 70,000+ words of "discussion" on these matters is more than enough. Let us all thank GabeMc for his excellent work, close this AfD as "keep" on its substance irrespective of one or two deletionists personal omphaloskeptic interpretation of "policy", end this never ending exercise in forum shopping, and move on to more productive efforts like building WP instead of diminishing it. Centpacrr (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Centpacrr - please stop word counting discussions. Talk is infinitely better than edit warring, and even if this took up a million words, it is the preferred method of dispute resolution.
@Doc - it is undue because it is excessive coverage of an event that, at the time, was hardly covered and in present sources is only given passing mention in the major bios of Hendrix. Our coverage of a topic is supposed to mirror in terms of breath of coverage what reliable sources give, and going into excessive detail on a point otherwise passed over by others for more important parts of Hendrix' career, is UNDUE coverage ("..in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"). This is not saying that the sources don't cover it, but as Gabemc has stated several times before, the amount of detail given to the arrest and trial in the primary biographical books on Hendrix is small. If you cut out the trivial details of the trial and now this conspiracy theory (which is really a tangent as it's both FRINGE-y and about all 60s rockers, not just Hendrix), you're left with the section on the effect on Hendrix' career, which is important but should be covered in his bio article. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply not "undue". This AP press report from London from the day of his death[1] mentions the arrest for heroin twice in its brief coverage. Sure, they got the age wrong at 23. But it was neither non-notable nor undue. It's how millions read about the news of his death, with the arrest mention included. Doctalk 04:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image reviewers at FAC are generally policy experts that can fairly judge the suitability of an image for an article. It doesn't matter there was only two, they were FAC image reviewers and both agreed the image failed policy. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I mean no disrespect to them, but on Wikipedia, consensus is important, and two people can't really declare consensus when 17 editors disagree. FTR, I complied and removed the image but was reverted and since I don't own the article or the image I let consensus decide. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's practice. FAC will say "this article cannot pass FAC with this image in place", since that's one of the criteria. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but unless I missed the memo, FAC image reviewers are not pseudo-admins—in that they don't have "special powers" to trump everyone else's opinion; do they? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 04:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Denying FAC status for inclusion of an image does not require admin status. If, should their advice had been kept and the image removed by you or anyone else as to get the FAC passage, it would have been orphaned, and later deleted via normal process. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that one reader in a hundred (if that) who visits Wikipedia cares one whit whether the articles they read have any self awarded "merit badges" (I know I don't), and that also has nothing whatever to do with this discussion which is about an article which was started less than a week ago. (This discussion also nothing whatever to do with any images.) The amount of coverage the arrest at Pearson did or didn't get at the time is also irrelevant for the reasons I gave before, and the article is also about far more than just the arrest but also covers what happened in the seven months after that as well the associated issues of how it negatively affected Mr. Hendrix and his career, media suppression, the arrest being a "set up", and the conspiracy involved in that.
Continually bringing up the issue of the booking photograph reinforces to me that this AfD would have never been started had it not been for the your failure to accept that you could not achieve consensus to delete that photograph elsewhere and thus is instead really just more forum shopping. So with respect, Masem, please just take Doc's sincere importunement to "cut your losses and move on. Rome wasn't built in a day, and this incident is not going to prevent its future glory. The people have spoken."Centpacrr (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*FTR - I am not suggesting in my above quoted comment that Masem, or anyone else, should in any way cease pursuing their interpretation of policy in regards to this article or image. I am merely "predicting the outcome" of this AfD. There are other avenues available to delete the article (a relisting or DR), as well as the image (a third FfD should the current NFCR close as "no consensus"). Jus' sayin'. Doctalk 05:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I have in good faith closed the NFCR on the image - the discussion is moot due to the move of venue for the image. This does not prevent any further discussion in NFCR or, more appropriately, FFD (since we're talking the single use of a single image), just that this cuts down where discussion may be happening --MASEM (t) 05:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct - the image is always fair game for future deletion nominations/discussions, as it is a non-free image. Thank you for keeping the discussion more centralized. Doctalk 05:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"AFD ARE NOT VOTES. It is the strength of the policy based arguments to delete and keep. So there's zero point in bringing up the numbers. --MASEM" There are two fatal flaws with this philosophy: 1) It completely ignores the essence of "consensus" (majority of opinion; general agreement or concord; harmony), and; 2) it completely ignores an article's substance (facts; content; the subject matter of thought, discourse, study). Centpacrr (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Masem is right: if you read WP:CONCENSUS, you'll see that on WP, consensus means "as viewed through the lens of WP policy", meaning that it doesn't matter how many people !vote WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, only arguments presented in terms of policy (of which it seems that WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS are perhaps the most significant in this case) will be considered by the closing admin.—Aquegg (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS apply to articles that are already written. Can you point me to the parts that apply to article creation, because I'm not seeing that? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK. Particularly considering the "keep" arguments saying this was a critical point in his life counter to what the weight that sources actually give it. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't see the entire books, but what you said earlier and going by rough page counting where those hits you list, we're talking about 1-3% of those books at most dedicated to the trial. (eg about 15 pages out of a 740+ page book for the Shapiro and Glebbeck judging by what pages "Toronto" is constantly hit on and clearly about the trial). Additionally, if as it is claimed this trial had a big impact on his music, then the books about Hendrix's music should also be going into it. They appear to have noted it (from the snippets I've read), but if they didn't go into great detail, then that means this was not as significant as has been made out. I'm not saying there aren't sources or secondary sources, but in proportion to the overall coverage of what Hendrix did, they downplay the event, making this much expansion about it appear out of place for a summary work (the fact the events are written like newsline is a strong indication of non-summary form) and a POV Fork. This article is not being challenged on notability terms, but on why we need this much detail relative to the amount of detail in the bio article for a summary tertiary work. Remember, this was your complaint before when that section was being expanded to try to support the NFC by people trying to fill in these minute details of the trial. That complaint is still valid now. Again, the impact on Hendrix' life is important and we shouldn't ignore the trial but if it as important to his musical career as has been repeated claimed, it shouldn't be separate from the biography and given this much detail. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that's your personal opinion, Masem, but as the comments of the 18 editors who oppose deletion reflect, you are also very very much in the minority. WP policy indicates that we should take the good faith word of the editor who has actually seen and cited all the 16 books and other sources as opposed to someone who admits he hasn't ("Obviously I can't see the entire books") but instead just speculates as to what they may contain with no first hand knowledge. The consensus view of the vast majority of those who have commented here is that the article conforms with all the elements of WP policy and guidelines for retention. In the light of this record, if the AfD were to be closed as anything other than "keep" on the whim of a single admin that would be violation of the demonstrated consensus of the community. Centpacrr (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited what the editor with all those books said about the coverage of the trial before in those sources to what was written, where Gabemc clearly said there was too much detail in WP compared to what was covered in the sources. That there tells me a lot about how much UNDUE coverage this facet is getting. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly misrepresented my position and I have refuted you. I said it was WP:UNDUE for the bio, that's all. You've really twisted it into one of your main points, but its not at all valid, IMO, and we are talking about what I said, right? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If what was added was bad for the bio article, separating it and expanding it is worse, since we should be considering the coverage of all of Hendrix's bio articles as a whole in judging POV and weight give to a subject. Unless the actual trial itself was notable (like the one against Michael Jackson), this article "counts" towards what information WP has about Hendrix, just as the main article, and the death article does. And because this article had to be expanded to include more, it's giving way too much undue weight on the subject. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that its undue to devote 1400 words of his bio to the drug arrest incident when there are only 1200 words devoted to his three studio albums. I'm not sure how you twisted that into proving that I put 200 edits into an article that I think is undue. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have three separate articles for each studio album, so the claim there's only 1200 words is not true (in the bio, yes, but overall, no). And given that the albums themselves are important beyond just being part of Hendrix's bio, this is completely reasonable. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but Are You Experienced is 7,000 words long, and its summarized in the Hendrix bio in 300 words. The Toronto article is 2,800 words long and the incident is summarized in the main article in 180 words. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 02:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the article has been hit almost 2,000 times this week. Yeah, Masem. I know that hits don't matter, but hits are what make Wikipedia; without them this is a futile effort. The first random article I saw today, R.F.C. Seraing, got less than 300 hits all month. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Process" -- especially when sought to be applied blindly and slavishly as in this case -- should NEVER be allowed to trump "substance" on Wikipedia. That only serves to defeat the goals of the Project, not benefit it. As I have said before, the Wikipedia Project was never created and designed to only appeal to only the lowest common denominator of interest, but instead to the broadest. Therefore even if only one person visited and benefited from this page in any particular week (instead of 2,000 or any other number), that is still more than enough to justify its retention. Centpacrr (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Process does override content, that's why we have WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. We're trying to write a quality tertiary source - not the end-all of human knowledge, and as such , there are processes meant to eliminate content (even content that may be of interest to some) in favor of higher quality. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, exactly what constitutes "a quality tertiary source" is a matter of subjective opinion. After all, would "a quality tertiary source" have 10,000 articles on video games, or 100,000 articles on obscure footballers? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is subjective. The point is more towards Centpacrr's claim that process can't override content, not to this AFD directly. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's exactly what WP:IAR is for. When process seems to trump the overall goal of writing an encyclopedia that people enjoy reading, we should ignore that process in favour of improving the encyclopedia. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem I didn't say "content", I said "substance". Not the same thing at all. This article is brimming with "substance" which is reliably sourced from 16 books and several other published sources and has already has been supported on the basis of its "substance" by a wide variety editors who have already commented in here. The burden in an AfD is on those who propose deletion to convince the community the the article lacks substance as if consensus to delete is not achieved the article stands. The starting presumption, therefore, is retention, not deletion. (In law this would be akin to "innocent unless and until proven guilty".) If that were not the case, the process would instead be called "Articles for Retention". Centpacrr (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to summarise all the above (omitting pointiness and image NFCC issues, as neither is grounds for article deletion).
Proposed:
The sub-article falls foul of the WP:CONTENTFORK guideline and WP:POV policy; the amount of coverage in the subarticle outweighs its relative coverage by topic sources; the article had been at FAC prior to the addition of this material, and had thus been considered well balanced.
Per the WP:NOT policy, and in particular WP:NOTEVERYTHING, its level of detail is too high to be encyclopedic.
Opposing arguments:
It's reliably sourced and well-written.
Readers want content; articles should be expanded.
The importance of both the topic (greatness of Hendrix) and the sub-topic (trauma of event) are enough to warrant a sub-article.
Other articles exist with similar levels of (im)balance.
Sources cover every aspect of the topic (Hendrix's life) in as much detail as this sub-topic.
The sub-article represents newly discovered info (since FAC).
The topic & sub-topic are WIP: balance constantly changes with article and sub-article development.
Don't forget WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT; I couldn't help but notice that only the delete side is policy-based. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, forgot to list GNG as a deliberate omission (I don't think it's being contested). Have to read up on the other one though.--Aquegg (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I find Aquegg's "summary" above seems to me to be unduly biased in favor of deletion (the minority position this editor favors) by omitting or glossing over many of the arguments made in opposing deletion. I think it is best to rely on the actual postings as opposed to this seemingly faulty summary. Centpacrr (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also argue that this is not a "POV fork", but rather a WP:SPINOFF. Doctalk 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. What part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not justifies deletion? Because I keep reading it, and maybe diary makes sense, but that is referring to the main bios, not spin-offs. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The specific point on NOT is WP:NOT#NEWS. In specific in how the arrest and trial is written as a newspaper would approach it and not in a level of summary that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. The reactions are different, but everything up to the point of being acquitted of the charges can be summarized to at most a paragraph (both arrest and trial). When you do that, what's left is small and easily put back to the Hendrix article since its affect on his life is the core matter as all the keep votes have explained but not reflected in the main article. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem the pettiness of your "argument" is really becoming tiresome as you are conflating differences over editorial judgement with your unduly pinched view of misapplied "policy". You have already admitted that this article causes the WP no "harm" as would be the case with an article based on fabrication or vandalism, and you have utterly failed to provide any reason or evidence as to how or why deleting the article would in any way benefit or improve the project. This is simply a difference in editorial judgement and/or approach, and not in any way a violation of WP policy, guidelines or the Project's encyclopedic character or structure. You are making it little more than a Pythonesque argument for argument's sake. (21,135) Centpacrr (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gabemc - #2 , not being a newspaper.
We delete material that "does not harm" to WP all the time, so that's a null argument. Just because we can go into detail doesn't mean it is always the best thing. Again, if this event was so important to Hendrix' life, we would be covering it on his bio page, not here, and to do that you simply trim out the cruft of the details of the arrest and trial to a level that's more appropriate for an encyclopedia. It improves how we are considered a quality work by readers. Particularly consideration the conditions this article was created under, this is certainly a POVFORK to try to make this an "important" that has not been shown to be that significant an event considering everything else that happened in Hendrix' live. It was a problem when this content was being added willy-nilly in the Hendrix article, it remains a problem when it is broken out. That's UNDUE, and that's a policy. Yes, whether this is subjectively UNDUE is a matter of what this AFD is about for discussion, but that's a policy-based argument for its deletion which hasn't yet been rebutted. Yes, it has been shown that this was covered but UNDUE is not about whether something is covered or not, but the weight we're giving it. As Gabemc has pointed to before, the amount that the main bios give to this trial is trivial; discussed but not at length, and that's an issue if we're giving it that much more weight. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting me or provide actual diffs. I said it was undue to go into too much detail at Jimi Hendrix. That's it, and you've repeated it 12-15 times. Its not true. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above - in evaluating UNDUE and POVFORK, we're considering all the content on all related topics, so the idea that forking off a part that was UNDUE in the bio article into a separate to allow it to expand makes the UNDUE problem worse. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is sourced with 16 books and 5 newspaper articles. #2 does not apply; that's about "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This incident has been written about since two days after it happened until 43 years later. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why policy is not prescriptive and going to explicitly cover every sitation, but descriptive; the intent is that we should not be writing articles like a newspaper article; this is a point explained in the essay WP:PROSELINE. The arrest and trial section are inappropriately over detailed and written for an encyclopedic summary of the events. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that per an essay, any article that has a couple of overly detailed sections should be deleted? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pointing out what proseline is via the essay, and that by policy NOT:NEWS, we shouldn't be writing articles that look like newspaper articles (which proseline resembles). --MASEM (t) 01:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I read #2 I don't see anything about deleting an article based on how it reads. I think its about over reliance on breaking news stories to source an article. Which text-string from WP:NOTNEWS justifies the deletion of an article based on how it reads? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, BALONEY! This is just a difference in editorial judgement and/or approach as to style of writing and the significance of this particular topic. You apparently don't like the writing style, think there is "too much detail", and are not interested in the topic. Well so what? There are lots of articles in WP that if I had written or contributed to them I would have done so differently, or in which I have no interest (such as video games), but I have never considered any of those to be grounds to seek to have them deleted or to deny access to them to anyone else. There is also nothing wrong with "newspaper style" which can be highly consistent with good encylodpedic prose as a way to provide a neutral, unbiased recitation of facts describing a series of events.
The "circumstances" under which this or any other article may have been created are irrelevant as well. WP Articles are started and built for just about as many different specific reasons as there are articles in the project, and there is absolutely no policy or guideline that limits what those reasons may be. Nothing in this article is a violation of any "policy or guideline" that justifies deletion, but is instead just a difference of opinion you personally have with the community at large as to how it should be constructed. Again you continue to fail to offer any reason whatsoever as to how or why deleting this article (which has already been visited over 2,000 times in the week since it was created) would in any way benefit or improve the project. So please stop conflating your personal editorial judgement with the constraints of WP policy and guidelines. They are just not the same thing!! (22,291) Centpacrr (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs are about personal judgments, backed up by policy and guideline. Just as others claim I'm making personal judgements, claims of this event being "important" and the like are personal judgments too. It's up to the closer to decide which is the stronger argument. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And fwiw, I'm going to voluntarily disengage from this (not changing my decision) only because its clear I can't convince those that want to keep the article that there's serious problems with it. The elephant in the room, the fact this article was purposely created to get around NFCC issues as Tarc identified, remains, and that's a serious problem. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I think the article's fine, no elephants visible from here. Rothorpe (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither differences of editors' individual editorial judgement, approach, and/or interest in a topic, or speculation as to the reason why an individual editor may have been moved to start an article, are valid reasons to delete an article because none of these violate any WP policy and/or guidelines. Your or anyone else's personal belief that an article may have been "purposely created to get around NFCC issues" is also not an "elephant in the room" but instead a red herring as even if it were true that would not violate any WP policy or guideline either. Based on both the original statement of Tarc as proposer (who curiously has made only two brief postings in here in support of his position after that and none in more than an week) and of the many by Masem (especially his last one immediately above), the real and only reason both seem to want this article to be deleted is because of their personal speculation that it was created to avoid the opening of additional forum shopped discussions to achieve consensus that the Hendrix booking photograph failed NFCC. All the other arguments advanced for deletion now seem to me to have been invented purely to "get around" their failure to get that image deleted in at least three previous attempts. (Sort of ironic isn't it?)
WP's deletion policy states that "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first. ... Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it [the article]." It is also not the function of the closing admin to impose his or her personal opinion in closing an AfD, but to faithfully reflect the consensus of the community. Centpacrr (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to Masem's statement: "If what was added was bad for the bio article, separating and expanding it is worse", that's utter nonsense. WP:UNDUE specifically addresses this, mentioning the articles "Earth" and "Flat Earth". Flat Earth is undue weight to mention at "Earth", Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is undue weight to mention at "Barack Obama"; WP:UNDUE is precisely the reason these articles exist. So if the arrest and drug charges are undue weight to mention at "Jimi Hendrix", they belong in a separate article. Pretty simple! Joefromrandb (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, Joefromrandb, and this seems to be a perfect example of the flawed misapplication of "policy" that I pointed out in my comment immediately above. Centpacrr (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I forgot to add a link to the main article in the creation edit summary is not reason enough to delete the entire article. Also, I wrote 75–90% of the 700 words I used to "seed" the new article, which is now more than 3,000 words long, and Cullen wrote the rest, so if anyone has been cheated of their attribution its Cullen. Sorry, Cullen328; I should have linked to the main article (although I think the edit summary implies where it came from) and I hope that you can forgive me. I wasn't trying to usurp your attribution. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, alleging a supposed violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia is just about the pettiest and least valid (actually not valid at all) of proposed grounds to delete an article reliably sourced from 16 books and a variety of other published sources. Then proposing using as a reason to justify deletion "ignoring all rules" that support why it should be retained, however, takes the cake. Really. Centpacrr (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, at least Unscintillating is properly referring to it as a WP:SPINOFF instead of a "POV fork". "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view." The new article is written from a neutral POV. Doctalk 00:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:UNDUE refers to obtaining balance within articles and has no bearing on whether an independent subarticle should exist or not. I agree with some of the commenters above that en.wiki's policies about when the existence of a subarticle is appropriate are not well developed, but I would lean toward the side of having more information rather than less in the encyclopedia. This article is well-sourced and informative for readers who are seeking information beyond what the main article on Jimi Hendrix provides. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While we're looking at this article, it needs to be renamed to Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to follow standard nomenclature of subarticles of biographies pbp 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PbP, I agree. If the article is kept it will be renamed as you've suggested. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
