- 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 keep. SmartSE ( talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Richard K. Diran
- Richard K. Diran ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also fails WP:CRIME. David.thompson.esq ( talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Might be notable in Burmese wikipedia but that's not up to us english speakers.Popish Plot ( talk) 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)- @
Popish Plot: If it's notable on the Burmese Wikipedia, it would be notable here—it's perfecty acceptable to use non-English sources (some en.wp articles use nothing but).
Curly Turkey
¡gobble! 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not so fast. That Burmese sources are OK doesn't mean Burmese WP standards apply here. Notability on another wiki does not guarantee notability here.
Drmies (
talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there doesn't appear to be a Burmese page, so the point is moot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to retract my "agreed". Bottom line is I don't know.
Popish Plot (
talk) 20:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I did a strikethru of my comment above because I wanted to retract it. Popish Plot ( talk) 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not so fast. That Burmese sources are OK doesn't mean Burmese WP standards apply here. Notability on another wiki does not guarantee notability here.
Drmies (
talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- @
Popish Plot: If it's notable on the Burmese Wikipedia, it would be notable here—it's perfecty acceptable to use non-English sources (some en.wp articles use nothing but).
Curly Turkey
¡gobble! 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. fails WP:CRIME.-- Rickbrown9 ( talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - leaning towards keep at this point, as just a couple quick searches brought up some more significant mentions in RSs, possibly meeting standards of GNG.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 10:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort, but publishing a book is not enough to warrant notability. -
Cwobeel
(talk) 21:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Depends on the book. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well sure, that's true, Cwobeel. But I had hoped to demonstrate that there is significant coverage of that book and exhibit in reliable, national sources - not just to demonstrate that the book exists. Also, I've found some preliminary information saying that the issue with the statue has set new legal precedents in the U.S., that may satisfy WP:CRIME, which others here have pointed to. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 10:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort, but publishing a book is not enough to warrant notability. -
Cwobeel
(talk) 21:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure about the impact of this book; Google scholar gives 27 citations for the work (and a translation). Don't see any reviews in Jstor. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:CRIME.-- Rickbrown9 ( talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails
WP:CRIME.--
Rickbrown9 ( talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.154.165 ( talk)- Subject has multiple claims to notability. But even in re: WP:CRIME, there is a claim that the case set a precedent. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP
It is probably true that he fails crime,but also true that it was a crime involving acknowledged expertise on Burma and its art. And that his core notability comes from that expertise, which went into those photos (book & exhibit). (Wait a sec while I polish up my crystal ball...) Those tribes really are vanishing, and the photos will gain in notability, historical and ethnographic importance in the years to come. There are more than enough RS articles to pass WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC) - Comment Went back to do a light clean-up; realized there are whole articles about him in reliable publications. An entire chapter in a book about colorful Gaijin hanging out in Asian places. A sourced claim to have opened (with his Japanese wife) the first Robatayaki restaurant in the United States. And, tellingly, a plausible-looking claim that the legal case involving the ancient Buddah in which he was the art dealer set a U.S. precedent. Why are we talking about deleting this? It certainly needs improvement. But I think a second look will persuade any editor that it is a KEEP. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- WP:HEY Note that when the article was brought to AFD by User:Cwobeel and iVotes cast by User:David.thompson.esq and User:Rickbrown9 the sole crime on the page was a child pornography case that appears to have received very little publicity. User:AdventurousSquirrel then enhanced the article with the info about the Buddha statue (significant case, with wide coverage) I also did some editing and added a few sources, making the article very different than it was when nominated and seen by early discussants. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have looked at the article again, and I still vote 'delete.' There are a lot of pages about living people who are of borderline notability, as a very random example,
Quint Studer came to my attention recently. I think Wikipedia would do just fine without pages on such people. But if someone wants to put together a trivial page about a trivial person, so what? However, I think that where the person is living, only borderline notable, and most of the article discusses the subject's alleged criminality, one should err on the side of caution and delete. Any time an article contains negative information about a living person there is a small but non-zero risk of liability to Wikipedia and even the individual editors of the page. So, a question to ask is, Why does Wikipedia need a page about this person? I can't think of a reason. He wrote a book, he pled guilty to a crime, he 'relinquished a claim' in an artifact. The child porn conviction would never justify a page by itself, or Wikipedia would turn in a giant sex crimes registry. To specifically address whether the addition of the Buddha stuff establishes his notability, I think it goes more to establishing that the allegedly stolen statue was notable than the alleged thief. So it's really just back to the book. Is this guy notable simply for having written a book? I don't think so. And, the addition of the Buddha material adds risk that the stuff about child porn does not. The article implies that this guy stole the statue, and maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but he never pled guilty or was convicted of anything, and so there is no slam-dunk defense to a charge of libel. Unlike someone like
Bill Cosby, whose page includes stuff about unproved accusations, this subject is probably not a 'public figure' per US libel law, and it would be a lot easier for him to sue us, than it would be for Cosby. The article is dancing on the border of accusation, and therefore potential libel. The addition does not establish notability. Therefore, delete.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 14:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The book/photos pass
WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). Would it be appropriate to remove the Buddha material?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, E.M.Gregory the WP:AUTHOR tells us this is the standard; an author is notable if:
- The book/photos pass
WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). Would it be appropriate to remove the Buddha material?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or
feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within
the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- So, based on what I've seen written in the article and talk, it is possible he fits 2, 3 or 4. There's no real citation in the article today that fits 1. But, the article says that his work is significant in a way that might match 2-4. So, if there is enough properly-cited stuff that fits these criteria, then yes, he is a notable author. If he is a notable author, then in my opinion Wikipedia can also say that he pled guilty to child porn charges. Whether or not he is a notable author, I think Wikipedia should not repeat accusations that he stole a buddha if it is not clear that those accusations would be 100% seen as non-libel by a U.S. court. So, to the extent that other people think his alleged Buddha-stealing is the font of his notability, there should be no article. If there is an article, it should either not mention the buddha-stealing, or it should limit itself EXCLUSIVELY to what no rational person could deny about the Buddha-stealing. Among other things this means that if he is not notable but for the stolen Buddha, then he is not notable. In my opinion, which is also my legal opinion: don't publish the Buddha stuff, you can publish the child porn and book publishing stuff, and no page should exist unless the book alone renders him memorable.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 02:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Diran is just the sort of figure that it is especially useful for Wikipedia to cover. While I see
WP:AUTHOR as a marginal pass, I am firmly persuaded that he passes
WP:GNG. The closer you look, the more you find. There are articles about him stretching over 6 decades (I didn't add the San Mateo's paper's coverage of his high school days), but he graduated in 1968 and was part of a generation that headed to the Asia in search of... who knows what. Even the book reviews - which praise the book - tend to focus a lot of attention on his colorful life. I just added a reference to is presence on the Bangkok party scene ~1980 from an
Andy McCoy autobiography.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bangkok party scene? You can't be serious. I was part of the Manila party scene in the 90's and there's no article about me (thank God). At this point you and I seem to be the only ones discussing this. I am unpersuaded by your arguments -- less persuaded, in fact, with each addition to the article, which is turning into a grab-bag of random facts about a guy, who is just some guy that wrote a book. However, since consensus is literally impossible when there are only two people discussing, I think you and I can quit discussing until (and if) others weigh in. Since you seem to be very much in favor of keeping the article, maybe by the time others weigh in you can have turned it into something that undeniably meets the criteria. My vote, for what it's worth, is delete.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @
David.thompson.esq: If the article seems to imply that he stole it, is there a wording tweak possible to clarify that that is not being claimed here? It used to say that he smuggled the statue - which I believe the sources say he admitted to doing; does that help to clarify that the involvement of the FBI and govt of Myanmar are related to smuggling the statue rather than the idea that he physically stole it from the pagoda? How much liability is WP exposed to if we are faithfully reporting the claims made in other reasonably reliable sources? Regarding the usefulness of having an article on individuals like this, it seems to me that having the ability to vet sources and present them in a maximally neutral way (as is done on WP) is highly valuable when information about individuals is spread across a wide variety of sources, which, notably, include particularly one-sided ones
like this one which come up quickly in a Google search of the subject.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi,
talk. As I said above, keep to facts that aren't subject to reasonable dispute. Perhaps something like this (I haven't delved into the sources, you should take this as a guide only). 1) Diran brought the Buddha into the United States from Myanmar. 2) If known, provide whatever Diran said his purpose in doing so was, or where he said he obtained his right to do so. 3) Third parties (FBI, government of Myanmar, other ?) contended that Diran brought the item out of country X and to the US without the legal right to do so, and/or without complying with local/international/US law (as applicable based on sources). Avoid loaded words like smuggling. 4) No charges were brought against Diran, but he agreed to relinquish his claimed right to the statue. 5) Do we know what happened to the statue afterwards? I think they key is, as you've already noted, to avoid loaded words like smuggle and make very sure that you keep to the facts as publicly reported, and when in doubt either omit allegations or look for further supporting sources. As to risk of lawsuit, I'm not aware of anyone suing Wikipedia, although I'm sure it has been done or threatened. It can be done even if there isn't a really good basis (see
Pearson v. Chung for a scary example of a baseless lawsuit that went on for years) but you can lower your risk of being sued -- never to nothing -- but to an acceptable level by being conscious of the fact that you need to be very careful with stating negative facts about a living person, especially one who is not a public figure. As to the "how much" liability, the damages for libel attempt to quantify loss of reputation, and an admitted/convicted possessor of unlawful pornography would have little reputation to lose, and would not be a darling of the jury. But as Pearson shows you, sometimes the legal system takes so long in getting to right result that winning doesn't look much different from losing. Prevention is the best medicine.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Article makes clear Diran's claim to have purchased the statue for $18,000 in Thailand in 1990, sourced to Chicago Tribune. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi,
talk. As I said above, keep to facts that aren't subject to reasonable dispute. Perhaps something like this (I haven't delved into the sources, you should take this as a guide only). 1) Diran brought the Buddha into the United States from Myanmar. 2) If known, provide whatever Diran said his purpose in doing so was, or where he said he obtained his right to do so. 3) Third parties (FBI, government of Myanmar, other ?) contended that Diran brought the item out of country X and to the US without the legal right to do so, and/or without complying with local/international/US law (as applicable based on sources). Avoid loaded words like smuggling. 4) No charges were brought against Diran, but he agreed to relinquish his claimed right to the statue. 5) Do we know what happened to the statue afterwards? I think they key is, as you've already noted, to avoid loaded words like smuggle and make very sure that you keep to the facts as publicly reported, and when in doubt either omit allegations or look for further supporting sources. As to risk of lawsuit, I'm not aware of anyone suing Wikipedia, although I'm sure it has been done or threatened. It can be done even if there isn't a really good basis (see
Pearson v. Chung for a scary example of a baseless lawsuit that went on for years) but you can lower your risk of being sued -- never to nothing -- but to an acceptable level by being conscious of the fact that you need to be very careful with stating negative facts about a living person, especially one who is not a public figure. As to the "how much" liability, the damages for libel attempt to quantify loss of reputation, and an admitted/convicted possessor of unlawful pornography would have little reputation to lose, and would not be a darling of the jury. But as Pearson shows you, sometimes the legal system takes so long in getting to right result that winning doesn't look much different from losing. Prevention is the best medicine.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- @
David.thompson.esq: If the article seems to imply that he stole it, is there a wording tweak possible to clarify that that is not being claimed here? It used to say that he smuggled the statue - which I believe the sources say he admitted to doing; does that help to clarify that the involvement of the FBI and govt of Myanmar are related to smuggling the statue rather than the idea that he physically stole it from the pagoda? How much liability is WP exposed to if we are faithfully reporting the claims made in other reasonably reliable sources? Regarding the usefulness of having an article on individuals like this, it seems to me that having the ability to vet sources and present them in a maximally neutral way (as is done on WP) is highly valuable when information about individuals is spread across a wide variety of sources, which, notably, include particularly one-sided ones
like this one which come up quickly in a Google search of the subject.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bangkok party scene? You can't be serious. I was part of the Manila party scene in the 90's and there's no article about me (thank God). At this point you and I seem to be the only ones discussing this. I am unpersuaded by your arguments -- less persuaded, in fact, with each addition to the article, which is turning into a grab-bag of random facts about a guy, who is just some guy that wrote a book. However, since consensus is literally impossible when there are only two people discussing, I think you and I can quit discussing until (and if) others weigh in. Since you seem to be very much in favor of keeping the article, maybe by the time others weigh in you can have turned it into something that undeniably meets the criteria. My vote, for what it's worth, is delete.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Diran is just the sort of figure that it is especially useful for Wikipedia to cover. While I see
WP:AUTHOR as a marginal pass, I am firmly persuaded that he passes
WP:GNG. The closer you look, the more you find. There are articles about him stretching over 6 decades (I didn't add the San Mateo's paper's coverage of his high school days), but he graduated in 1968 and was part of a generation that headed to the Asia in search of... who knows what. Even the book reviews - which praise the book - tend to focus a lot of attention on his colorful life. I just added a reference to is presence on the Bangkok party scene ~1980 from an
Andy McCoy autobiography.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- So, based on what I've seen written in the article and talk, it is possible he fits 2, 3 or 4. There's no real citation in the article today that fits 1. But, the article says that his work is significant in a way that might match 2-4. So, if there is enough properly-cited stuff that fits these criteria, then yes, he is a notable author. If he is a notable author, then in my opinion Wikipedia can also say that he pled guilty to child porn charges. Whether or not he is a notable author, I think Wikipedia should not repeat accusations that he stole a buddha if it is not clear that those accusations would be 100% seen as non-libel by a U.S. court. So, to the extent that other people think his alleged Buddha-stealing is the font of his notability, there should be no article. If there is an article, it should either not mention the buddha-stealing, or it should limit itself EXCLUSIVELY to what no rational person could deny about the Buddha-stealing. Among other things this means that if he is not notable but for the stolen Buddha, then he is not notable. In my opinion, which is also my legal opinion: don't publish the Buddha stuff, you can publish the child porn and book publishing stuff, and no page should exist unless the book alone renders him memorable.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 02:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 keep. SmartSE ( talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Richard K. Diran
- Richard K. Diran ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also fails WP:CRIME. David.thompson.esq ( talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Might be notable in Burmese wikipedia but that's not up to us english speakers.Popish Plot ( talk) 14:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)- @
Popish Plot: If it's notable on the Burmese Wikipedia, it would be notable here—it's perfecty acceptable to use non-English sources (some en.wp articles use nothing but).
Curly Turkey
¡gobble! 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not so fast. That Burmese sources are OK doesn't mean Burmese WP standards apply here. Notability on another wiki does not guarantee notability here.
Drmies (
talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there doesn't appear to be a Burmese page, so the point is moot. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to retract my "agreed". Bottom line is I don't know.
Popish Plot (
talk) 20:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I did a strikethru of my comment above because I wanted to retract it. Popish Plot ( talk) 14:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not so fast. That Burmese sources are OK doesn't mean Burmese WP standards apply here. Notability on another wiki does not guarantee notability here.
Drmies (
talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- @
Popish Plot: If it's notable on the Burmese Wikipedia, it would be notable here—it's perfecty acceptable to use non-English sources (some en.wp articles use nothing but).
Curly Turkey
¡gobble! 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. fails WP:CRIME.-- Rickbrown9 ( talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - leaning towards keep at this point, as just a couple quick searches brought up some more significant mentions in RSs, possibly meeting standards of GNG.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 10:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort, but publishing a book is not enough to warrant notability. -
Cwobeel
(talk) 21:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Depends on the book. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well sure, that's true, Cwobeel. But I had hoped to demonstrate that there is significant coverage of that book and exhibit in reliable, national sources - not just to demonstrate that the book exists. Also, I've found some preliminary information saying that the issue with the statue has set new legal precedents in the U.S., that may satisfy WP:CRIME, which others here have pointed to. AdventurousSquirrel ( talk) 10:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort, but publishing a book is not enough to warrant notability. -
Cwobeel
(talk) 21:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure about the impact of this book; Google scholar gives 27 citations for the work (and a translation). Don't see any reviews in Jstor. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:CRIME.-- Rickbrown9 ( talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails
WP:CRIME.--
Rickbrown9 ( talk) 12:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.154.165 ( talk)- Subject has multiple claims to notability. But even in re: WP:CRIME, there is a claim that the case set a precedent. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP
It is probably true that he fails crime,but also true that it was a crime involving acknowledged expertise on Burma and its art. And that his core notability comes from that expertise, which went into those photos (book & exhibit). (Wait a sec while I polish up my crystal ball...) Those tribes really are vanishing, and the photos will gain in notability, historical and ethnographic importance in the years to come. There are more than enough RS articles to pass WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC) - Comment Went back to do a light clean-up; realized there are whole articles about him in reliable publications. An entire chapter in a book about colorful Gaijin hanging out in Asian places. A sourced claim to have opened (with his Japanese wife) the first Robatayaki restaurant in the United States. And, tellingly, a plausible-looking claim that the legal case involving the ancient Buddah in which he was the art dealer set a U.S. precedent. Why are we talking about deleting this? It certainly needs improvement. But I think a second look will persuade any editor that it is a KEEP. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- WP:HEY Note that when the article was brought to AFD by User:Cwobeel and iVotes cast by User:David.thompson.esq and User:Rickbrown9 the sole crime on the page was a child pornography case that appears to have received very little publicity. User:AdventurousSquirrel then enhanced the article with the info about the Buddha statue (significant case, with wide coverage) I also did some editing and added a few sources, making the article very different than it was when nominated and seen by early discussants. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have looked at the article again, and I still vote 'delete.' There are a lot of pages about living people who are of borderline notability, as a very random example,
Quint Studer came to my attention recently. I think Wikipedia would do just fine without pages on such people. But if someone wants to put together a trivial page about a trivial person, so what? However, I think that where the person is living, only borderline notable, and most of the article discusses the subject's alleged criminality, one should err on the side of caution and delete. Any time an article contains negative information about a living person there is a small but non-zero risk of liability to Wikipedia and even the individual editors of the page. So, a question to ask is, Why does Wikipedia need a page about this person? I can't think of a reason. He wrote a book, he pled guilty to a crime, he 'relinquished a claim' in an artifact. The child porn conviction would never justify a page by itself, or Wikipedia would turn in a giant sex crimes registry. To specifically address whether the addition of the Buddha stuff establishes his notability, I think it goes more to establishing that the allegedly stolen statue was notable than the alleged thief. So it's really just back to the book. Is this guy notable simply for having written a book? I don't think so. And, the addition of the Buddha material adds risk that the stuff about child porn does not. The article implies that this guy stole the statue, and maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but he never pled guilty or was convicted of anything, and so there is no slam-dunk defense to a charge of libel. Unlike someone like
Bill Cosby, whose page includes stuff about unproved accusations, this subject is probably not a 'public figure' per US libel law, and it would be a lot easier for him to sue us, than it would be for Cosby. The article is dancing on the border of accusation, and therefore potential libel. The addition does not establish notability. Therefore, delete.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 14:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The book/photos pass
WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). Would it be appropriate to remove the Buddha material?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, E.M.Gregory the WP:AUTHOR tells us this is the standard; an author is notable if:
- The book/photos pass
WP:AUTHOR (multiple independent periodical articles or reviews). Would it be appropriate to remove the Buddha material?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or
feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within
the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- So, based on what I've seen written in the article and talk, it is possible he fits 2, 3 or 4. There's no real citation in the article today that fits 1. But, the article says that his work is significant in a way that might match 2-4. So, if there is enough properly-cited stuff that fits these criteria, then yes, he is a notable author. If he is a notable author, then in my opinion Wikipedia can also say that he pled guilty to child porn charges. Whether or not he is a notable author, I think Wikipedia should not repeat accusations that he stole a buddha if it is not clear that those accusations would be 100% seen as non-libel by a U.S. court. So, to the extent that other people think his alleged Buddha-stealing is the font of his notability, there should be no article. If there is an article, it should either not mention the buddha-stealing, or it should limit itself EXCLUSIVELY to what no rational person could deny about the Buddha-stealing. Among other things this means that if he is not notable but for the stolen Buddha, then he is not notable. In my opinion, which is also my legal opinion: don't publish the Buddha stuff, you can publish the child porn and book publishing stuff, and no page should exist unless the book alone renders him memorable.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 02:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Diran is just the sort of figure that it is especially useful for Wikipedia to cover. While I see
WP:AUTHOR as a marginal pass, I am firmly persuaded that he passes
WP:GNG. The closer you look, the more you find. There are articles about him stretching over 6 decades (I didn't add the San Mateo's paper's coverage of his high school days), but he graduated in 1968 and was part of a generation that headed to the Asia in search of... who knows what. Even the book reviews - which praise the book - tend to focus a lot of attention on his colorful life. I just added a reference to is presence on the Bangkok party scene ~1980 from an
Andy McCoy autobiography.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bangkok party scene? You can't be serious. I was part of the Manila party scene in the 90's and there's no article about me (thank God). At this point you and I seem to be the only ones discussing this. I am unpersuaded by your arguments -- less persuaded, in fact, with each addition to the article, which is turning into a grab-bag of random facts about a guy, who is just some guy that wrote a book. However, since consensus is literally impossible when there are only two people discussing, I think you and I can quit discussing until (and if) others weigh in. Since you seem to be very much in favor of keeping the article, maybe by the time others weigh in you can have turned it into something that undeniably meets the criteria. My vote, for what it's worth, is delete.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @
David.thompson.esq: If the article seems to imply that he stole it, is there a wording tweak possible to clarify that that is not being claimed here? It used to say that he smuggled the statue - which I believe the sources say he admitted to doing; does that help to clarify that the involvement of the FBI and govt of Myanmar are related to smuggling the statue rather than the idea that he physically stole it from the pagoda? How much liability is WP exposed to if we are faithfully reporting the claims made in other reasonably reliable sources? Regarding the usefulness of having an article on individuals like this, it seems to me that having the ability to vet sources and present them in a maximally neutral way (as is done on WP) is highly valuable when information about individuals is spread across a wide variety of sources, which, notably, include particularly one-sided ones
like this one which come up quickly in a Google search of the subject.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi,
talk. As I said above, keep to facts that aren't subject to reasonable dispute. Perhaps something like this (I haven't delved into the sources, you should take this as a guide only). 1) Diran brought the Buddha into the United States from Myanmar. 2) If known, provide whatever Diran said his purpose in doing so was, or where he said he obtained his right to do so. 3) Third parties (FBI, government of Myanmar, other ?) contended that Diran brought the item out of country X and to the US without the legal right to do so, and/or without complying with local/international/US law (as applicable based on sources). Avoid loaded words like smuggling. 4) No charges were brought against Diran, but he agreed to relinquish his claimed right to the statue. 5) Do we know what happened to the statue afterwards? I think they key is, as you've already noted, to avoid loaded words like smuggle and make very sure that you keep to the facts as publicly reported, and when in doubt either omit allegations or look for further supporting sources. As to risk of lawsuit, I'm not aware of anyone suing Wikipedia, although I'm sure it has been done or threatened. It can be done even if there isn't a really good basis (see
Pearson v. Chung for a scary example of a baseless lawsuit that went on for years) but you can lower your risk of being sued -- never to nothing -- but to an acceptable level by being conscious of the fact that you need to be very careful with stating negative facts about a living person, especially one who is not a public figure. As to the "how much" liability, the damages for libel attempt to quantify loss of reputation, and an admitted/convicted possessor of unlawful pornography would have little reputation to lose, and would not be a darling of the jury. But as Pearson shows you, sometimes the legal system takes so long in getting to right result that winning doesn't look much different from losing. Prevention is the best medicine.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Article makes clear Diran's claim to have purchased the statue for $18,000 in Thailand in 1990, sourced to Chicago Tribune. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi,
talk. As I said above, keep to facts that aren't subject to reasonable dispute. Perhaps something like this (I haven't delved into the sources, you should take this as a guide only). 1) Diran brought the Buddha into the United States from Myanmar. 2) If known, provide whatever Diran said his purpose in doing so was, or where he said he obtained his right to do so. 3) Third parties (FBI, government of Myanmar, other ?) contended that Diran brought the item out of country X and to the US without the legal right to do so, and/or without complying with local/international/US law (as applicable based on sources). Avoid loaded words like smuggling. 4) No charges were brought against Diran, but he agreed to relinquish his claimed right to the statue. 5) Do we know what happened to the statue afterwards? I think they key is, as you've already noted, to avoid loaded words like smuggle and make very sure that you keep to the facts as publicly reported, and when in doubt either omit allegations or look for further supporting sources. As to risk of lawsuit, I'm not aware of anyone suing Wikipedia, although I'm sure it has been done or threatened. It can be done even if there isn't a really good basis (see
Pearson v. Chung for a scary example of a baseless lawsuit that went on for years) but you can lower your risk of being sued -- never to nothing -- but to an acceptable level by being conscious of the fact that you need to be very careful with stating negative facts about a living person, especially one who is not a public figure. As to the "how much" liability, the damages for libel attempt to quantify loss of reputation, and an admitted/convicted possessor of unlawful pornography would have little reputation to lose, and would not be a darling of the jury. But as Pearson shows you, sometimes the legal system takes so long in getting to right result that winning doesn't look much different from losing. Prevention is the best medicine.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 13:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- @
David.thompson.esq: If the article seems to imply that he stole it, is there a wording tweak possible to clarify that that is not being claimed here? It used to say that he smuggled the statue - which I believe the sources say he admitted to doing; does that help to clarify that the involvement of the FBI and govt of Myanmar are related to smuggling the statue rather than the idea that he physically stole it from the pagoda? How much liability is WP exposed to if we are faithfully reporting the claims made in other reasonably reliable sources? Regarding the usefulness of having an article on individuals like this, it seems to me that having the ability to vet sources and present them in a maximally neutral way (as is done on WP) is highly valuable when information about individuals is spread across a wide variety of sources, which, notably, include particularly one-sided ones
like this one which come up quickly in a Google search of the subject.
AdventurousSquirrel (
talk) 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bangkok party scene? You can't be serious. I was part of the Manila party scene in the 90's and there's no article about me (thank God). At this point you and I seem to be the only ones discussing this. I am unpersuaded by your arguments -- less persuaded, in fact, with each addition to the article, which is turning into a grab-bag of random facts about a guy, who is just some guy that wrote a book. However, since consensus is literally impossible when there are only two people discussing, I think you and I can quit discussing until (and if) others weigh in. Since you seem to be very much in favor of keeping the article, maybe by the time others weigh in you can have turned it into something that undeniably meets the criteria. My vote, for what it's worth, is delete.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Diran is just the sort of figure that it is especially useful for Wikipedia to cover. While I see
WP:AUTHOR as a marginal pass, I am firmly persuaded that he passes
WP:GNG. The closer you look, the more you find. There are articles about him stretching over 6 decades (I didn't add the San Mateo's paper's coverage of his high school days), but he graduated in 1968 and was part of a generation that headed to the Asia in search of... who knows what. Even the book reviews - which praise the book - tend to focus a lot of attention on his colorful life. I just added a reference to is presence on the Bangkok party scene ~1980 from an
Andy McCoy autobiography.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- So, based on what I've seen written in the article and talk, it is possible he fits 2, 3 or 4. There's no real citation in the article today that fits 1. But, the article says that his work is significant in a way that might match 2-4. So, if there is enough properly-cited stuff that fits these criteria, then yes, he is a notable author. If he is a notable author, then in my opinion Wikipedia can also say that he pled guilty to child porn charges. Whether or not he is a notable author, I think Wikipedia should not repeat accusations that he stole a buddha if it is not clear that those accusations would be 100% seen as non-libel by a U.S. court. So, to the extent that other people think his alleged Buddha-stealing is the font of his notability, there should be no article. If there is an article, it should either not mention the buddha-stealing, or it should limit itself EXCLUSIVELY to what no rational person could deny about the Buddha-stealing. Among other things this means that if he is not notable but for the stolen Buddha, then he is not notable. In my opinion, which is also my legal opinion: don't publish the Buddha stuff, you can publish the child porn and book publishing stuff, and no page should exist unless the book alone renders him memorable.
David.thompson.esq (
talk) 02:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.