Template:Did you know nominations/Anton Vickerman
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 13:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues.
Anton Vickerman
[edit]- ... that Anton Vickerman was criminally prosecuted by FACT under the right of private prosecution in the United Kingdom.
Created/expanded by ChrisGualtieri (talk). Self nom at 04:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The hook doesn't appear to be in the article. Secretlondon (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I had previous put it in the middle of the article noting that FACT was the private prosecution. Here's the diff showing that change [1] Perhaps private party should be linked to FACT as FACT was the private party in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It needs to be in the current article and it needs a reference saying that it is rarely used. Currently it looks a bit like synthesis. Secretlondon (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did some fixing, removed private party and replaced it with FACT and I dropped the 'rarely used' bit simply because I don't have direct evidence in the sources to state how rare it is, though a simple search DID bring up the rarity of private proseuction, most comments were in connection to another strange case of police officers being privately prosecuted. Seems Scots law is the truly bizarre one with just 3 cases in recent history. Though, I'll not quibble over the specifics if I can't pull said source. The Ars article relates to the bizarre events with one lawyer describing it as 'archaic' while another notes about its rarity, yet also points to the circumstances surrounding the event itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The format isn't right - the WP:LEDE needs to cover what he did, what the site was etc. Other bits of structure aren't right either. The whole thing is a biography so having a small biography section is wrong. Also we really underplay the fact that guy ran loads of file sharing sites. Secretlondon (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Its a work in progress and seriously, there is not much 'bio' bits about Anton, I had to grab the majority from court documents. I suppose I could put his disability into the article, but the notability comes from his court case and no... his 'load of file sharing sites' is completely NPOV because under UK law he did nothing illegal and never hosted said content, only linked to it. His crime as noted by CPS was 'making it easier to find' the material, yet the unique part is that he was privately prosecuted and sent to jail by a non-government business that personally financed every aspect of the case. You are welcome to assist in fixing it up, but I've pulled a bunch of resources and I've already been praised for having it neutral as I possibly can. Many other bio articles hold the major notability factor in their sections, Anton's case IS the reason for his fame. Its not just running the 514th most popular website back in 2009, its how he was privately investigated, raided, arrested, tried and convicted in stark contrast to every other case brought by the CPS. Everything is verifiable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure this passes WP:NOTNEWS. At the very least the article should be titled to better suit its content, the court case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well there is more personal stuff online, but the notability is directly related, and I just didn't have access to all the materials released. People to this day are still going on about it and the Kim Dotcom matter. The reason it is notable is because a private organization (not the government) has sought criminal charges and sent a private citizen to prison. One might say Kim Dotcom is also under 'not news', but in all fairness Anton Vickerman ran a site more popular than Facebook and the circumstances of the arrest in trial are in dozens of reliable sources over extended periods of time. Clean it up as you wish if you are inclined, but when more of the documents are released I'll update it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Its a work in progress and seriously, there is not much 'bio' bits about Anton, I had to grab the majority from court documents. I suppose I could put his disability into the article, but the notability comes from his court case and no... his 'load of file sharing sites' is completely NPOV because under UK law he did nothing illegal and never hosted said content, only linked to it. His crime as noted by CPS was 'making it easier to find' the material, yet the unique part is that he was privately prosecuted and sent to jail by a non-government business that personally financed every aspect of the case. You are welcome to assist in fixing it up, but I've pulled a bunch of resources and I've already been praised for having it neutral as I possibly can. Many other bio articles hold the major notability factor in their sections, Anton's case IS the reason for his fame. Its not just running the 514th most popular website back in 2009, its how he was privately investigated, raided, arrested, tried and convicted in stark contrast to every other case brought by the CPS. Everything is verifiable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Article focus is still not where it should be. He's not notable as an individual, he's part of a notable case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
