How do you solve a problem like Joe Maggard?

[Ming]

Joe Maggard (T-H-L) is, depending how you slice it, either a quite minor actor (most roles don't have a name or are in shorts), or a lying jerk who tried to claim he played Ronald McDonald for years when, at best, it appears he was a stand-in for the production of a single commercial. Should this article be deleted? Obscurity probably would be justice, in this case. Can it be? Well, there have been a lot of attempts to delete minor actors of late.

[AndyTheGrump]

Joe Maggard (T-H-L) is, depending how you slice it, either a quite minor actor (most roles don't have a name or are in shorts), or a lying jerk who tried to claim he played Ronald McDonald for years when, at best, it appears he was a stand-in for the production of a single commercial. Should this article be deleted? Obscurity probably would be justice, in this case. Can it be? Well, there have been a lot of attempts to delete minor actors of late.

Ugh. The article violates Wikipedia's own WP:BLP policy. It claims that Maggard is "infamously known for claiming to have played Ronald McDonald", describing this as a "scam". While providing no source that states that he is "infamous" for anything, and no source whatsoever describing any "scam". Instead, it cites an article in the Baltimore Sun which seems to confirm that he did play Ronald once. It then goes on to infringe copyright by quoting verbatim (without quotation marks) a statement in the same Baltimore Sun regarding convictions which appear to have nothing to do with McDonalds or acting.

[Poetlister]

It then goes on to infringe copyright by quoting verbatim (without quotation marks) a statement in the same Baltimore Sun regarding convictions which appear to have nothing to do with McDonalds or acting.

It says he "was convicted in county court of making harassing telephone calls posing as Ronald", which clearly does have to do with Ronald McDonald and acting. You could have a separate section on his criminal convicions, but that would give them more prominence.

[AndyTheGrump]

It then goes on to infringe copyright by quoting verbatim (without quotation marks) a statement in the same Baltimore Sun regarding convictions which appear to have nothing to do with McDonalds or acting.

It says he "was convicted in county court of making harassing telephone calls posing as Ronald", which clearly does have to do with Ronald McDonald and acting. You could have a separate section on his criminal convicions, but that would give them more prominence.

I doubt that 'posing as Ronald' is actually an offence. Which means that he was presumably charged with harassment. And if there is any relevance at all to the concealed weapon charge, the Sun fails to provide it. Which leaves the article contravening WP:BLP policy, since it has failed to provide the faintest evidence for "infamously" doing anything, or of participating in a "scam". Nit-picking over the circumstances of harassment charge that the Sun fails to adequately explain (unsurprisingly, since the article only mentions Maggard in passing) doesn't alter this.

[Anroth]

I doubt that 'posing as Ronald' is actually an offence.

Well not criminal, I can think of a number of civil issues with it.

Hell he could theoretically use it to commit fraud...

[AndyTheGrump]

I doubt that 'posing as Ronald' is actually an offence.

Well not criminal, I can think of a number of civil issues with it.

Hell he could theoretically use it to commit fraud...

Fraud? Possibly. And if he did, and Wikipedia had a source stating he had been convicted of it, they might be justified in describing it as a 'scam'. They don't...

[Zoloft]

I am disappointed by no mention of the Hamburglar. Robble Robble.

[Earthy Astringent]

I am disappointed by no mention of the Hamburglar. Robble Robble.

Kill Grimmace.

[AndyTheGrump]

And Mangoe (T-C-L) has done the sensible thing (per an AFD discussion a few years back which was never acted on) and turned the article into a redirect to Ronald McDonald (T-H-L).

Wikipediocracy. Always improving Wikipedia...

[Ming]

And Mangoe (T-C-L) has done the sensible thing (per an AFD discussion a few years back which was never acted on) and turned the article into a redirect to Ronald McDonald (T-H-L).

Looking at the history, the redirect was made, but was reverted by major PitA FrozenFan2 (T-C-L).

[Poetlister]

And Mangoe (T-C-L) has done the sensible thing (per an AFD discussion a few years back which was never acted on) and turned the article into a redirect to Ronald McDonald (T-H-L).

Looking at the history, the redirect was made, but was reverted by major PitA FrozenFan2 (T-C-L).

Where is Ming looking? Mangoe converted it to a redirect on 1st March and has not been reverted. FrozenFan2 has not edited the article, or the Ronald McDonald one, since 2015 (at least, not under that name). Indeed, he was blocked in 2015.

[lonza leggiera]

And Mangoe (T-C-L) has done the sensible thing (per an AFD discussion a few years back which was never acted on) and turned the article into a redirect to Ronald McDonald (T-H-L).

Looking at the history, the redirect was made, but was reverted by major PitA FrozenFan2 (T-C-L).

Where is Ming looking? Mangoe converted it to a redirect on 1st March and has not been reverted. FrozenFan2 has not edited the article, or the Ronald McDonald one, since 2015 (at least, not under that name). Indeed, he was blocked in 2015.

I suspect Ming was looking here.

[Ming]

Yes, Ming meant that the original redirect for the deletion did get done, but it was undone by this FrozenFan2 clown before Mangoe went and rolled everything back past that.