Talk:Iman Crosson

Image copyright problem with File:YouTube Live.png

The image File:YouTube Live.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

The article can be summed up in one sentence: "Iman Crosson does a good impression of Bma." There is really nothing else to say. This doesn't seem notable for me to be the basis of an encyclopedia article. The reader learns only this one fact and nothing more. Maybe if something interesting develops in his career. But what do I know? Northwestgnome (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the prod template, because I quickly found references in New York Daily News and ET Online and quite a few blogs and forums. I think it smells a bit like bought publicity, but even so, these sources are sufficient to document notability. At least this will have to go through the WP:AfD process. Mike Serfas (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel like doing an AfD on this one. I haven't changed my opinion but the article really does no harm, and if it helps Mr. Crosson get work - well that would help the economy. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: I have started to draft an article that should definitively establish the notability of Iman Crosson, both as nationally known Obama impersonator and as a (notably) self-made Internet celebrity. Article will include references to several features on Entertainment Tonight, performing by invitation at Aretha Franklin's birthday party, voice parts on (according to g4tv's talkoftheshow) two primetime television shows, and more. Length and depth of article, with references, are anticipated to be comparable to my Lisa Lavie article (Feb. 19 and subsequent versions). Therefore, please do not further consider this Iman Crosson article for deletion. RCraig09 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture added

I added a remixed picture off Alphacat. MiniDude (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

More extensive article is being drafted

I have started to draft a "replacement" article whose length, depth, and referencing are anticipated to be comparable to my Lisa Lavie article (Feb. 19 and subsequent versions). Therefore I strongly suggest anyone else contemplating replacement or substantial enhancements to this Iman Crosson article, please wait until my article is posted (target: April 2009), so as to avoid competing versions. RCraig09 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

New Version of article was posted 2009-04-24. This article was posted after Mr. Crosson himself graciously consented to reviewing it. Therefore, it is believed to be highly accurate, and I urge anyone contemplating a substantive (or possibly controversial) change to discuss proposed changes here, beforehand. Also, the two photos initially posted with the article on 2009-04-24 were received from, and with the consent of, Mr. Crosson, and I urge discussion to take place here as you contemplate replacement. RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In any event, out of respect to the individual involved, any revisions should conform to Biographies of living persons. RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On a more minor note, I urge future revisions take into consideration the structure of the present article. For example, the introductory summary purposely excludes footnotes to make it easier to read; the footnotes are placed in the detailed sections that follow the intro. Also, the sections on "Performances, Awards" and "Interviews, Articles, Reviews" are entered chronologically and I urge that future entries continue this organization. RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to start out this article some "good bones" (in terms of content, structure, and verification), and I hope it continues this way. RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I earlier forgot to thank the contributors to the previous article. I believe I have incorporated all of your (verifiable) references into my 2009-04-24 version. RCraig09 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Which changes/additions should and should not be made

Generally, I urge all editors to put in the time to contribute positively to articles, and not merely delete the work of others. RCraig09 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (This paragraph is being moved from the end of the discussion page on 14/15 Nov 2009. RCraig09 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

More specific topics follow.

Description of "Blame It" video

Changes made immediately before this discussion (2009.05.23) concerned the interpretation of Crosson's "Blame It" spoof video. My change puts the video in perspective rather than saying (as a previous editor thought) it was about the economy. The video was about blame and not about the economy. Let's keep the narrative in proper context (the paragraph concerns the political and social etc. issues of the time), and not just describe videos meaninglessly. RCraig09 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, a laundry list of people other than Iman Crosson who appeared in that video is not relevant to the subject of the article (viz., Iman Crosson). Nor was the list notable (in the encyclopedic sense) to the subject of the article. Out of courtesy to the previous editor, I moved the other actors to a footnote rather than deleting the references altogether. Let's keep things relevant and' notable. RCraig09 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Including/Excluding Personal Life

I removed the section "Relationship with Lisa Lavie". As author of the present major version of articles about [[Iman Crosson] and about Lisa Lavie, I was specifically requested NOT to include "personal" (e.g., relationship) details, but to keep it professional. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In any event, neither Crosson nor Lavie is notable (in the encyclopedic sense) for their relationship, which should not be included in an encyclopedia article, much less in a separate dedicated section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. RCraig09 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

4 June 2009: Removed today's addition by 216.254.167.18 concerning Crosson's "dating" Lisa Lavie, since "dating" is not what either person is notable for, and is especially inappropriate in the introductory summary of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, especially its section "Presumption in favor of privacy." Especially applicable to people who are relatively unknown, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons states that editors should "include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." To balance the issue, I have added the more objective reference to the AlphaLavie channel on YouTube. RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Advertisement" assertion

Reply to assertion (on 2009.05.24) that article is "written like an advertisement". I disagree with this assertion. The prior assertion was both anonymous (from IP address 68.174.150.14) and unsubstantiated (leaving no specific reasons for the assertion). "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" requires "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources": here, this article's narrative (beginning with the major new version posted 2009.04 24) is a detailed and generally chronological biography based on references researched on the Internet. The article also lists all Internet articles that I encountered during my independent research (not merely favorable articles): it now lists 28 interviews/articles/reviews for all to review. "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" prohibits soapboxes, battlegrounds, propaganda, advocacy, recruitment, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising: this article is none of these, and I hope that any future assertions be thoughtful and specifically substantiated. RCraig09 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Including descriptions of Crosson's videos

My sentence describing a video "Obama Does Thriller" was "undone" as supposedly being promotional. I think it is clearly not promotional. The subject Iman Crosson is notable in the encyclopedic sense for his use of the Internet, especially YouTube videos. (FYI: The video was previewed on Entertainment Tonight 2009-10-30 in reference to the Obama Administration's feud with Fox News.) I added the sentence to the paragraph describing how Crosson's videos are not merely entertaining but deal with political issues. I think my sentence is not promotional at all, but I want other responsible editors to comment here for consensus to avoid an edit war. RCraig09 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the sentence describing the "Obama Does Thriller" video. Note that Crosson is most notable in the encyclopedic sense for his posting of videos. Therefore to objectively describe a particular video that is among his most viewed per unit time (over a third of a million views in ten days), and especially a video that has received national television coverage (Entertainment Tonight), is proper on Wikipedia and is not "promotion." RCraig09 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On 22 Nov 2009 the description of Crosson's video was removed again, this time as supposedly being "spam." It is not spam. To remove descriptions of Crosson's major videos is akin to removing descriptions of Celine Dion's albums as they come out. It would gut the article of the very thing for which the subject is notable and deprives the article of content that is meaningful to readers interested in the subject. Improve if you think you can (in the context of a comprehensive knowledge of the subject); don't just delete. RCraig09 (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More than two months after I asked another editor to explain his repeated deletion of an objective description of Crosson's "Thriller" video parody, the other editor has not responded (other than to come back and delete other material with minimal explanation). For reasons described at length in the immediately preceding discussion, I have re-inserted that objective description as being entirely proper in this article. RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Including links to Crosson's official websites

Part of a longstanding listing of Crosson's own websites in 'External Links' was deleted as supposedly being spam. He (the deleting editor) deleted longstanding references to Crosson's YouTube, blogtv, Stickam, twitter pages as spam (but for some reason left Crosson's myspace and facebook pages). I think references to Crosson's websites are not spam and should remain in the article, but I want other responsible editors to comment here for consensus to avoid an edit war. RCraig09 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(15 Nov 2009) I have reinserted links to Crosson's official webs pages. Reason: Crosson is notable in the encyclopedic sense for using the Internet as a vehicle of creative expression and for independently promoting his career using the Internet. Accordingly, Crosson's own web pages are particularly relevant, and are not spam. There is a Wikipedia style/standards page somewhere [citation needed, sorry] that says that large numbers of a subject's websites should not usually be included; however, its rationale was formal (to reduce "clutter") and not substantive, and I have incorporated Crosson's links into a single paragraph to reduce clutter while still keeping links that are pertinent to this subject. On a related note: another editor also deleted a link to an online bio, apparently asserting it to be "spam"; however, the bio is not spam and I have re-written description of link to avoid any inference it is spam. Please discuss; don't just delete! RCraig09 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

URLs in the Infobox. Template:Infobox musical artist states that the URL input is for "The single web address for the act's primary official website." Contrary to this, there are six links on it at the moment. Further more, none of them are websites. They are just his accounts or pages on websites. If anywhere, they would fit nicely in the External links section. Eugeniu B +1 20:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just reinserted the link to Crosson's "main" web page which is on the YouTube video sharing website. Responding to Eugeniu B: as you suggested, I did leave out references to his other pages. But concerning Crosson's YouTube channel, I think your distinction between a website and a channel on a website is a distinction without a difference. Instead of using raw html, Crosson used YouTube's website as a place to post his videos. The link in the infobox, reasonably interpreted, is meant to allow readers to link to a subject's main Internet presence. whether it meets a narrow definition of a website or merely a broader Plus, Crosson's YouTube channel meets Wikipedia's definition of website, namely: "a collection of related web pages, images, videos or other digital assets that are addressed with a common domain name or IP address in an Internet Protocol-based network". I took your suggestion and placed his main website with the two other External Links that Hullaballoo spared. RCraig09 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC) revised RCraig09 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)