Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Carreon (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teamcoltra (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 19 June 2012 (→Charles Carreon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Charles Carreon

AfDs for this article:
Charles Carreon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pro forma nomination on behalf of 70.15.136.149. Expressing no viewpoint on the deletion Hasteur (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was having difficulty and just left after screwing it up several times, planning to come back later. I am saying delete because while his work may be notable, he himself is not notable nor important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.136.149 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm fairly new here, but wouldn't the fact that he sued sex.com, runs FunnyJunk and has now had a notable run-in with The Oatmeal make him notable? - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I got part of that wrong. He doesn't run FunnyJunk. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question "[W]ouldn't the fact that he sued sex.com ... and has now had a notable run-in with The Oatmeal make him notable?" -- No. He did these things as someone's lawyer, not as a principal involved, and the lawyer engaged is quite frequently non-notable, even when the case is notable. It's possible he could become notable, if there is media attention given to his strategy, tactics or behavior, but there's no indication of that -- indeed, no indication that the media is paying him the slightest bit of notice at this time. For instance, his sending a cease-and-desist letter isn't in the least notable -- that's what lawyer's do. It's like saying a mail carrier delivering a letter is notable, or a sanitation worker throwing a trash bag into a garbage truck is notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Agreed. As an attorney, I represented a well-known defendant on appeal, but even if you searched the web looking for my name in connection with the case, it doesn't come up. If he became notable because of that case (or even because of this case), it would largely be a result of self-promotion. - UCCF (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • These are both reasonable answers - now I understand notability a bit better I see your point. As he's a lawyer of little note (doesn't seem to have created case law?), and I now see that he doesn't own Funny Junk but is merely being their lawyer, then I suggest deleting the article. - Letsbefiends (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only not notable but effectively unsourced. The Domain Name Journal "article" is little more than a self-promotion piece which largely conflicts with the information in the wikipedia page. For example, the cite says he is licensed to practice in Oregon (inactive) and does not say he practices in Arizona. If the article is kept, it can be improved with a cite which demonstrates he was licensed in Oregon and California, as documented in 2005 and 2006 when his license was suspended by both states due to unlicensed practice of law in Canada and using his client's money to pay his own debts. [[1]]Oblivy (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    changing to Weak Keep -- I still don't think he's going to prove notable long-term, but we don't know that now and his notoriety is on the upswing due to his recent public behavior including (reportedly) suing Inman and the charities. Better to divert the effort expended on this campaign towards cleaning up the article so it's an accurate reflection of who this guy is and is not. NB: I have serious doubts the photo is appropriate for use on WP since it was uploaded with a claim to ownership by a now-deleted user (who may be Carreon's sock puppet, but let him say that in public).Oblivy (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Appears to have originated from a sock-puppet account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Carreon&oldid=253709955 Original article contains instructions for copy editor: "this is where the facts of the RL.com case need to be added.". Microbat (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per comments above, just being a lawyer for something that may be a high profile case does not make one notable in itself, unless there is something innovative or highly publicized about the lawyer himself. There also seems to be no further notability criteria that he meets. Sodaant (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable and not sourced. There are many other Wikipedia's pages about famous lawyers that need love Toffanin (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's no inherent notability to be gained from working as a lawyer; arguing on somebody's behalf is just part of the job, as Beyond My Ken wisely suggests. I see little sign that independent sources have lavished coverage on Carreon (as opposed to coverage of/by clients &c) so I don't think this article passes the GNG right now. If Carreon gets substantial independent coverage in future, then he may be notable in future and we could write a decent article at that point. bobrayner (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a citation to a reliable source, in the form of an interview with him on bloomberg.com. I've also added a reference to the book he wrote. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete : No notability, all sources on the article seem to be Primary from TheOatmeal. Bloomberg might have a source, but then one source may not be enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete and merge some of the contents to Sex.com as all the sources primarily focus on TheOatmeal, hence lacks notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Moved to week Keep see below.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the sex.com lawsuit was very famous, inspiring a whole book, none of the other cases he was in seem to be significant. If either the RL.com or Oatmeal cases got significant wider press coverage, I'd say keep as someone who goes beyond WP:ONEVENT. Is there anything to indicate they're notable? As for merging to Sex.com, there's nothing to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There is no material which warrants a merge. It is irrelevant who this person sued or who this person is suing. Our benchmarks for notability include WP:BIO and the general notability guidelines, both of which this subject fails to meet. It should also be reiterated that this article was deleted once before via consensus; little has changed to affect an outcome. Yamaguchi先生 20:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete Carreon is widely covered in "Sex.com: One Domain, Two Men, Twelve Years and the Brutal Battle for the Jewel in the Internet's Crown" (check "search inside this book" at the Amazon listing to confirm). Still, while I smell the possibly of the Oatmeal battle pushing this past ONEEVENT, I don't see sourcing that demonstrates it has, as yet. --joe deckertalk to me 23:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Weak Keep. TDA has been keeping at trying to find a source that is both moderately reliable and contains in-depth coverage of Carreon outside of sex.com, and I think with this Tech Dirt article I think there's now a case. BLP1E does not require (in my view) two separate events each of which must be independently, fully notable, but something less than that that adds up to full notability for the individual spread well over multiple issues. Finally, if we're going to reference the WP:BLP2E essay, well, my own reading of that essay seems to directly contradict how it's used so far in this discussion. Maybe I'm missing something. --joe deckertalk to me 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The following two sources show where he got in-depth coverage in connection with the sex.com case, one being a news report about him suing his client for money he was promised: [2] [3]. Also, here is an interview that was done with him well after he stopped being a client where they asked him about the case and subsequent developments regarding sex.com: [4]. Regarding this business with the Oatmeal, in just the past day it has popped up in Salon, Boston Business Journal, and Seattle PI where Carreon is mentioned and specifically mentioned for the comments or reactions towards him, not his client. Given that this business with the Oatmeal broke yesterday we would be remiss not to consider that more is to come such as this article that just popped up: [5].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is basically a WP:BLP2E. He's not independently notable for the sex.com case (his article was previously deleted in 2007), and he's certainly not notable for the Oatmeal case either. Do appearances in those two stories, several years apart, add up to notability by our standards? I don't think so. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't he have transcended the BLP notability requirements in the fact that he is involved in legal proceedings that of significantly unusual action raise them to the level of notability? Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, notability doesn't transfer like that (assuming that the legal action is notable, which is debatable). Not everyone involved in a legal action is notable, it depends on what they do, how unique or interesting their strategies are, what kind of media attention they get etc. Sending a "cease-and-desist" letter isn't notable, and never will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Robofish: What the essay that you have linked to (Wikipedia:BLP2E) actually says is that there is no BLP2E policy and "arguments invoking BLP2E as a reason someone is not notable are outside of policy and fallacious."
      • Yeah, I realised that as I used it - I meant 'BLP2E isn't a policy, but it should be'. But actually, having reconsidered this guy after the more recent coverage he's received, my position has changed and I think now it's a Keep. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems to me that while Carreon only comes up intermittently, he does come up every few years, and having information about previous events will be useful next time his name comes up, rather than deleting it (again). While the comparison to a mailcarrier is apt, it is not entirely relevant - a mailcarrier, for example, who did something unusual like delivering all mail wrapped in ribbons would be notable, and there's a good chance that Carreon is not a generic under-the-radar lawyer. Gbonehead (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are some of the recent links on the Oatmeal issue: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Those sources all discuss the lawyer specifically regarding the nature of his involvement in the case, not merely his actions on behalf of his client. Given his prior involvement in the sex.com case got him some one-event notability this level of coverage clearly moves him beyond to general notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article gives him exposure for a trivial event. mleguen 09:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even more reports focusing increasingly on Carreon himself with regards to this Oatmeal situation: [11] [12]. Once more this points to Carreon having notability beyond the sex.com case and thus constitutes a strong argument for keeping this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Delete This user does not meet WP: N. He is a non-notable lawyer and is only known for one case, which by itself fails WP: Notability (Events). Also, please see WP: NOTNEWS. We are not a newspaper, and we do not have articles that report on non-notable happenings, like this article. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Electriccatfish2, when you say he's known for only one case, do you refer to the sex.com one, or the Oatmeal one? --j⚛e deckertalk 23:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was known for sex.com litigation before this latest dust-up and was in the news now and then for cases brought in Oregon. Added some sources. Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've already heard of Carreon three times this week and haven't even been to Wikipedia, or The Oatmeal in that time. Surprised to find a deletion discussion going on about him. Seems to have earned his notability at this point. Bastique ☎ call me! 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've struck out my delete comment. While I wouldn't want Publicity hungry freaks to always have an article on Wikipedia, this guy deserves an article to showcase himself. [I'm not serious]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources already exist and the situation will likely improve over time. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable for more than one event, plenty of reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are ample sources for an article about the subject. His notability is questionable, but he's been on the "wrong side" of enough high-profile cases to have gained notoriety. (Why would an editor nominate for deletion just as the subject is beginning another high-profile case? Why not wait until after this case settles and see whether any notability persists?) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you asked me a couple of weeks ago, I would have said delete. Since then he's made himself quite notable (and notorious). Stev0 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, someone known for filing a lawsuit against IndieGoGo (a fundraiser service website), the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation for his own interests deserves to be remembered. Sergiopll (Sergiopll) 16:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems Beyond My Ken's comment on June 12 has come true: "It's possible he could become notable, if there is media attention given to his strategy, tactics or behavior..." All those who said Delete on June 12th had a defensible position, but since that time this attorney seems to have become the story through his strategy, tactics, and behavior. When evaluating concensus on this one, I'm not sure the earliest comments can be given as much weight as the more recent ones, which tilt towards Keep due to the significant media coverage recently. Brianwc (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given his recent actions. He's become the focus of media attention and subject of several articles. --Replysixty (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think many of the people voting delete are doing so because they don't like the guy. We must remain neutral, and as such look at the fact that his popularity is increasing -- even if it's through his douchebaggary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Carreon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=498363537"