Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Swanberg (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Swanberg

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

Seems the previous AfD was closed on procedural grounds, but that doesn't validate the article. On first glance it falls foul of WP:BLP1E; Swanberg is notable for a single event, specifically shoplifting Lego bricks. Coverage is given by reliable sources but, true to form, is focused entirely around the case, and doesn't justify a standalone article for this chap. An article for the crime might be an idea if it didn't fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS so comprehensively; coverage is all from around the time of the crime, except for a single note in Oregon Live from when he was sentenced. In my personal opinion (which is obviously just backed up by common sense, not any kind of RS) this case is one of the "amusing" human interest stories that newspapers and websites run with, and the news reports are worth even less than they already would be. Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clear BLP1E case. What's up with these random Oregon criminal BLPs? Not encyclopedic. Not a biography. Lara 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old news, small news... even in the LEGO community (which I have some familiarity with) it was a minor sensation for a while at best, but it's a classic one event "bio". Try putting together a comprehensive bio to see what I mean. Where'd he go to school? What's he doing now (that's notable)? You can't. No sources. No story. Non notable person. I get way more Ghits than he does, and I'm not notable. (try it, put in "William Swanberg" (with quotes around the name, and with or without LEGO) then put in "Larry Pieniazek" (again, quoted name, and with or without LEGO)... I blow his doors off both times.) Delete ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there was an article on ticket switching, I would say Merge and redirect but I don't know if one exists. He is notable not only for being the Lego Bandit, but for using this method of shoplifting. Until I can find such an article, I abstain because I think people like him belong in an article on a bigger subject. Tuxide (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a human interest story. He is not going down in history as the Lego-bandit. When I see a biography, that may have been created by a knee-jerk reaction to numerous local news stories, I have to wonder if that 'kid in Africa' is going to need this guy's 'bio' in 15 years. Then I think, no. Law type! snype? 06:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything unrelated to the Lego theft. Even if criminality extends over a period of time, it needs to be something extraordinary to make it past WP:BLP1E. It is particularly poorly sourced as well. Kevin (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - classic WP:BLP1E situation. Utterly non-encyclopedic - Alison ❤ 07:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge - We're in WP:BLP1E territory here, but the quality of coverage and unusual type of the case make it notable in my opinion. Still, maybe better covered within some other article (even if I wonder what one). --Cyclopia (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, LEGO theft? Haha, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction equipment theft and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laptop_theft. Hmm. Or perhaps Target theft and merge with Claude Allen --Milowent (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy you are laughing, but what are you trying to communicate, exactly? --Cyclopia (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Levity, and I failed, I guess. Below follows my substantive comments. --Milowent (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is really an article about an event, not a person (though titled as such for categorization), so its not really WP:BLP1E in that context. The article doesn't cover his schooling and personal life, etc., like a typical bad bio page -- its focused on the notable event. I think the essay Wikipedia:News_articles is also useful for consideration. In the prior AFD (which was yesterday???) SarekOfVulcan noted: "the 1E led to changes in training for Target employees, so I'd lean towards notability here." The News articles essay suggests that notability can occur when "The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way" Its not a clear cut case, but I see no value in deletion.--Milowent (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but essays are.. well, essays. The previous AfD was closed due to procedural problems (see my nom) and the re-nom isn't worrying. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No encyclopedic significance. Every day, a few insignificant people get lots of press coverage in the "wacky news" section of newspapers because their trivial actions make it easy to write snappy headlines. Wikipedia notability isn't established by turnng up in the Jay Leno "Headlines" segment, and it shouldn't be established by turning up in the AP, UPI, Reuters, or Yahoo News equivalents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In that this is a bio on someone who is notable for only one thing, BLP1E most certainly does apply. This is precisely what it was written for. I really wish people would stop creating this type of article. Lara 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, you are !voting twice. Would you mind moving your comment below your previous !vote (or reformatting it, so to avoid it being confusing)? Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is the encyclopedic value of ANY article? The reason people keep "creating this type of article" is a form of consensus - evidence that people think these articles should exist. There is sufficient sourcing available for a verifiable and accurate article. The judgment of lack on encyclopedic significance is quite subjective. Luckily for us, the Father of History, Herodotus, was careful in making such value judgments. E.g., he passed on reports of Phoenician sailors that were roundly dismissed as myths at the time, yet were later invaluable to proving ancient circumnavigation of Africa. Perhaps this is not the most noble article on which to state an inclusionist manifesto, but why is the LEGO bandit truly less uncyclopedic than the 1922 Denver Mint Robbery, the 1983 Perth Mint Swindle, or 1998 Bank of America robbery? Is Mr. Swanberg less worthy because he stole massive amounts of a child's plaything instead of gold bars? His canvassing of 5 states and elaborate scheme of switching UPC labels, use of electronic communications, etc., should not be excluded simply because the topic of Lego theft also makes us chuckle. --Milowent (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per notability trough sources, might not be the most famous person amongst people but the sources indicates notability beyond doubt.--Judo112 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • An actual biography is a BLP1E; this is not really a biography at all, its a documentation of a robbery scheme. We wouldn't have an article on the person if we had an article on the event, but the way the hive mind worked, this is where the event was documented. --Milowent (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails BLP1E for sure. However, as it is primarily about the event you could have gotten arround that by just renaming it great Lego theft or something, but that wouldn't help with the bigger problem, which is that the event itself fails the notability requirement. As WP:notability says: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability", and that is all you have for this event. This is a classic example of what people want to exclude when the say they don't want Wikipedia to turn into a news service. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear BLP1E and NOTNEWS violation. The event has no historical significance or any other sign of notability. Triplestop x3 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re improvements to article: I did some reworking to the article and added some more citations, including to a 2006 WSJ article (a year after this story first broke) and 2009 North County times article that use the Swanberg case as an example of high-tech shoplifting scams which have become more common, and thus a big problem. NBC Nightly News also did a story on new shoplifting techniques in Nov 2006 that talked about Swanberg (based on the summary of sthe tory available from vanderbilt tv news archive). If the press is still mentioning this case years after the initial blitz of stories about it, it does have historical signifigance--Milowent (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fairly trivial mention, and still mentions the subject only in the context of the same Lego theft, therefore still fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29 sentences in a WSJ article is not trivial, and it explains the greater societal significance of the case. It even includes one of the WSJ's trademark sketches of Mr. Swanberg. When an event/person becomes a touchstone for discussion of a topic, I think it becomes notable. E.g., Robert Tappan Morris. --Milowent (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Swanberg_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140763830"