The following 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Invalid status "NA" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"
I agree with Violetriga that the Louis C.K. scandal section is UNDUE in an article of this size. I also question whether the subject is notable, as most of his press is from this allegation. There is nothing about his career aside from a short list of his clients. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I am also concerned about how the entry as currently would fare at AfD, for BIO1E reasons. Would recommend against promoting until/if it can be expanded with other material from Becky's career. I'll tag. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank with you all, I feel that I've exhausted all the sources I can find about Becky that aren't related to the scandal. I don't think the UNDUE is a big issue, though. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about the search for sources. It does give me pause if the only available sources for a biography are on one scandal; I'll make a separate comment on the talk page to detail my concerns, but I think as long as there are concerns, DYK may not be a good fit; especially for BLPs, it's pretty important that there are be no neutrality issues on a page we're going to draw so much attention to. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Great finds, thanks you violetriga; nine Emmy nominations certainly resolves any question of notability. I've gone ahead and added that. I think adding the others probably could sort out the WP:DUE issue. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you to you both, Violetriga and Innisfree987 for your feedback and help in expanding and improving the article. In addition to what you've done, Innisfree987, I've added info regarding Becky's management style under the "Career" section from Violetriga's first listed source. Would you say the UNDUE issue is now rectified? StewdioMACK (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks StewdioMACK for your additions; you'll see I've also done my best to add what I can. The more I explore the sources, the more all roads do seem to lead back to C.K. If Becky were not notable/low-profile, then we'd have an issue, but nine Emmy nominations make him a pretty valid subject for a WP entry. So it may just be that if much of one's career coincided with what turned out to be a 15-year scandal, then much of that career is gonna be read in terms of the scandal, and it's not Wikipedia's place to intervene to revise that.
To that end. While I now basically think the entry gives DUE weight to the notable aspects of his career (the awards section might be slightly expanded; it seems he may have shared a Peabody, albeit with like a dozen other people), I'm concerned about the hook for DYK. It seems a bit like white-washing if much of the entry is on one unflattering topic, but we make the hook about one of the only sentences in the entry on a flattering topic. At same time, I don't know what other hook I'd propose: I'm kinda thinking that despite best efforts, this may just not be an ideal entry for DYK, especially since it concerns a living person. But I'd be interested in others' opinions. Violetriga, Yoninah, and StewdioMACK, what are your thoughts? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
First off, thank you so much for all of your efforts on this Innisfree987. Obviously I'm biased as the nominator for this DYK, but I don't see the "whitewashing" aspect being an issue as much. While I do see your point with it, even if one were to remove the entire C.K. section entirely, the entry would still come in at around 1800 characters (more than enough for DYK), which is a testament to your valiant efforts in expanding the bio in topics unrelated to C.K. I think that the fact that even without the C.K. section the article could still make it to DYK, shows that Becky is notable enough (and the article reflects that notability enough) even without the scandal section for a DYK hook. I don't feel like it's deceiving or misleading or anything like that to run a hook that doesn't mention the C.K. situation (and obviously we can't run a hook mentioning that), but again, I'm biased. I'll of course respect whatever decision is made, but there's some of my thoughts on the issue. Thanks again. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with the article (good work) and the hook - DYK usually highlights just one small part of an article so all is fine to me. violet/riga[talk] 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I still have reservations. The thing is we can't--or, no one has really put forward an argument for--removing that chunk of material. So it's troubling to me to say ok, we have this large portion of the entry we consider encyclopedic and sufficiently neutrally presented, yet off-limits for DYK. I realize DYK is a somewhat more lighthearted feature, but it's still part of the encyclopedia and in fact one of the project's most public-facing features. It feels compromising to the project's neutrality to say, essentially, DYK must only promote positive images of its subject, which I think is the implication if we're saying we would never use equally verified and encyclopedic info like:
ALT1: ... that in 2017, talent manager Dave Becky apologized "for not listening to and not understanding" 2002 sexual harassment allegations against his then-client Louis C.K.? (Source: New York Times: "I profoundly regret and am deeply sorry for not listening to and not understanding what happened to Dana and Julia.")
ALT2: ... that comedian Pamela Adlon fired manager Dave Becky in the wake of the Louis C.K. sexual harassment scandal? (Probably there's a better way to phrase but you understand what I'm getting at. Source: Variety: "Pamela Adlon Fires 3 Arts' Dave Becky Following Louis C.K. Harassment Claims")
or even:
ALT3: ... that seven of manager and executive producer Dave Becky's nine Emmy nominations are for his work with former client Louis C.K.? (Source: Emmy website, list of nominations. This may be too WP:SYNTH to use, though WP:CALC makes it a bit debatable; but just as an example of how much of the entry it seems to me we're saying would be out of bounds in order to avoid anything at all negative or even ambivalent.)
I'm sorry, StewdioMACK, it's really not my aim to deprive you of a DYK credit; if you'd want my help, I am absolutely willing to lend a hand to work up a different one. This one just presents a bit of quandary to me. I mean, really insisting on neutrality would probably mean debating whether to use any these other ALTs, but I tend to think we've hit a point of diminishing returns and time's better spent on other things. But even without going to main page, it wouldn't be a wasted nom; I think the entry really benefited from the resulting attention! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why this nomination is winding down. The new sources establish notability. Enough has been added to the article to circumvent WP:UNDUE. ALTs 1-3 are not appropriate due to BLP concerns. Innisfree987, we've promoted plenty of articles that have "controversy" sections in them; that's not a reason to nix this nomination. Let's go with the original hook, which is verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Violetriga. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, I feel like I must be missing something. Can you clarify for me what the BLP concerns are if the material is valid in the entry? Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Innisfree987, I mean that we can't state negative information about living persons in the hook. Even if the article is about a dastardly criminal or a scandal-ridden celebrity, and that is their claim to notability, we must say something neutral about them in the hook. Does that answer your question? Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid quite the contrary: to me saying something neutral means we accurately state material that reflects reliable sources whether it be positive or negative. That you don't want to mention even who he worked with that earned his Emmy nominations says to me that this hook really is a slanted presentation of the entry. If consensus is against me, ok, but my neutrality concerns aren't assuaged. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Why do we have to state who he worked with? We're writing a hook, not an article. Yoninah (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
But the hook you prefer...literally states who he works with! The only difference appears to be that you regard (and please, correct me if I'm wrong, truly I have no wish to put inaccurate words in your...er, fingers!) some of his professional associations as more flattering than others, and feel it's proper for DYK to ensure we only give the flattering version for living subjects (even though in this case, the less flattering one is the one involved in almost all aspects of the subject's notability.) This is concerning to me about whether DYK is serving the project's neutrality pillar. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you're reading far too much into DYK and this nomination in particular. I'm placing a note on the talk page to solicit other editors' opinions. Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are the two replies received at WT:DYK:
Looks too promotional to me. A list of his clients isn't a hook. And that Louis CK section is so undue, it doesn't belong on the MP. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Yoninah on this one, I think the article is now sufficiently balanced and the original hook is fine but the three proposed alts focus unduly on negative aspects. So I would just go with ALT0. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Innisfree987: since we're not getting a clear consensus here, I will leave it to you to decide whether to pass or fail the nomination. Not every DYK nomination has to run, especially if there are outstanding issues in the article or hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Been trying to think what to do since it feels a bit out of turn for me to decide a "dispute" (that's too strong a word but for lack of a better one!) to which I am a party. But I can't say I feel comfortable being the one to approve it, given my own continued concerns and then seeing another editor (who is an admin) has different and strongly-felt concerns. I'd typically invite the original nominator to request a second review, but since we've already sought more opinion without reaching consensus, a new review probably doesn't make sense here. So for my part I'll tick , while fully expecting that if more attention does come to the topic and a different consensus is found, that will be what goes forward. (And in any case my offer still stands to StewdioMACK to help put up another nom if you'd like!) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thank you for all your attention to this nom, Innisfree987. No hard feelings on your opinion, your concerns were valid and well-explained. StewdioMACK (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words StewdioMACK, so much appreciated—as is all your work on the entry! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Violetriga that the Louis C.K. scandal section is UNDUE in an article of this size. I also question whether the subject is notable, as most of his press is from this allegation. There is nothing about his career aside from a short list of his clients. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with the article (good work) and the hook - DYK usually highlights just one small part of an article so all is fine to me. violet/riga [talk] 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
, while fully expecting that if more attention does come to the topic and a different consensus is found, that will be what goes forward. (And in any case my offer still stands to StewdioMACK to help put up another nom if you'd like!) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
