Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph O. White

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was: We aren't yet at the point where headmasters automatically get articles as schools do, and with that out of the way, this man has never been committed of the crimes of which he is accused, so we have zero notable deeds by this man, and no claim by the keep side that he has ever done any. That makes this page little more than an attack - until a couple of days after creation the article contained the heading "Criminal History" where no such history exists. The use of possible sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry by the article's creator in this discussion gives even more cause for concern for the article's future if it was kept. The majority for deletion is present but not overwhelming, however if I was to close this as 'no consensus' it would be an abdication of responsibility. Per WP:BLP, the level of care we must exercise with articles on living people leads me to close this as delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Joseph O. White

New Jersey high-school principal, accused of a crime and arrested only yesterday. Gets 8 Google News hits, all local. Otherwise completely non-notable. The photo used also seems to be improperly tagged. Was speedied and Prod'ed, but recreated and tags removed without comment. Calton | Talk 07:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Speedy A7. 8 Google news hits. < 10 other unique net mentions I can find. Just another arrested public official of no asserted notability. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7. --Coredesat 09:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely not speedy. Delete as premature, but without prejudice to reinstatements if/when becomes notable, as he now has the potential to do - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: subject of relatively minor local controversy; otherwise non-notable. MCB 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Respectfully disagree- this is a topic of some significance- it is recurring issue as previously went through high profile trial on similar charges and was controversially acquitted, leading to rewriting of state legislation on recording confessions, was also present during previous events of historic significance in major school district (Phillip Pannell shooting and subsequent civil unrest). - Stentorian 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
User's first edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No Delete: subject is entirely relevant to the rewritting of New Jersey state law in recording conversations. NYC2TLV 17:21, 26 June 2006 Article creator.
  • Keep. Newsworthy person. TruthbringerToronto 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In New Jersey -- and as the Google News hits show, not even much there. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unbiased and fair report of ongoing story of interest to the Teaneck community. Maccaphile 13:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
User's only edit. His elaborate user's page, oddly enough, was entirely created by User:NYC2TLV, author of the article being discussed. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on Maccaphile's comment. The notability of the subject is limited to the Teaneck community. No objection to recreation if the scope of notability expands beyond the Teaneck area. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Bugwit chose not to pay attention to the fact that this person has rewritten NEW JERSEY law which is a big deal in an important US state. --NYC2TLV feedback 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Didn't know that it was considered voting again, sorry.
  • Comment Please be careful how you phrase your responses...other editors with hotter tempers than my own may interpret such statements as "...chose not to..." as being somewhat uncivil. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, can you actually prove that claim?--Isotope23 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, after reading the article I'm not convinced. The article states "That case, as well as similar ones..." which denotes his first acquital was not the primary reason for the change in law, it was just one factor. That doesn't make a strong case towards WP:BIO in my opinion and makes statements that this person was directly responsible for changes to New Jersey appear to be hyperbole.--Isotope23 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria and per User:CrazyRussian, no predjudice against recreation if this story somehow gained national prominence or if someone verifiably sources the claim that his original acquital directly influenced a changes in New Jersey state legislation.--Isotope23 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Bergen Record (June 24, 2006) corroborates that New Jersey Attorney General's office rewrote guidelines for obtaining confessions in wake of subject's first acquittal.- Stentorian 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep What Stentorian stated was in fact published in news papers. This is an important issue to the township of Teaneck and the state of New Jersey. -- Kengineer1 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment actually by User: Kengineer1 - User's only edits --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable to me. I'd suggest a change of the heading "Criminal history" as POV, since no proven crime has yet occurred. --DaveG12345 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see why this is even a question? --SpeechFreedom 1:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC
  • User's 2nd edit --Calton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks notable. It's not like we're running out of space or something. Ace of Sevens 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:BIO, appears to be noteworthy and worthy of an article. With several news sources, I see no reason for deletion. Yanksox (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Minor and localized. Kevin_b_er 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO to me. GassyGuy 03:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per above reasons. TruthCrusader 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Which ones? The ones that say "delete", or maybe the ones from the sockpuppets? --Calton | Talk 08:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are you so against this page? Kengineer1 has been part of Wikipedia in the past only now he signed up because he agrees that this page should stay. --NYC2TLV 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to concur that there is possible sockpuppetry going on over here. Yanksox (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Stentorian, User:Maccaphile, User:Kengineer1, User:SpeechFreedom, & User:65.206.55.31 should all be looked into by the closing admin as possible sockpuppets of NYC2TLV based on the highly unusual edit histories of these users. WP:AGF and I don't bandy about accusations of sockpuppetry lightly, but there is enough evidence here to make me highly suspicious.--Isotope23 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Move to have unfounded accusation dismissed. While NYC2TLV did aid me as a like minded new contributor, I speak for myself and I think if you examine my (admittedly limited) contributions more closely, you will see the contrasts in our respective writing styles. --Stentorian 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've requested a checkuser to verify the users I've listed above and if it is indeed done, we will then know if sockpuppetry is being utilized here. Like I said above, the edits here are highly unusual. If I'm wrong, I will apologize.--Isotope23 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, is there a way to check IP addresses so that the acqusations can be done away with as quickly as possible? --NYC2TLV 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Have we run a check of IP addresses yet? I happen to be new to Wiki discussions, but that hardly makes me a sockpuppet. I'll accept your apology whenever you'd like to offer it, Isotope23. --Maccaphile17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Comment -- 4 edit's worth -- actually by 65.206.55.31 (talk · contribs)
  • The very first edit you "two" make as registered Wikipedia editors is to come vote here. It also seems strange, "Maccaphile", that you can't remember to log in, but know enough to manually paste in a your sig, complete with date. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For the purposes of AFD, it doesn't matter whether they're from the same IP, or even the same human being: new users' comments aren't given much weight, especially if all they do is repeat each other. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-28 22:31Z
  • Keep. Seems pretty important given our focus on schools. Could also be merged with Teaneck High School, although the article is good enough to stand alone. --JJay 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • What "focus on schools" would that be? That would be: none. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • StrongSpeedy delete. Wikipedia is not: a newspaper, a registry of accused sex offenders, a gossip sheet, a directory of high school principals, or a place for defamation. He is completely non-notable outside his own high school. KleenupKrew 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not yet notable. (Watch for socks, please.) -AED 07:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge to Teaneck High School, where the controversy is relevant. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-28 22:23Z
  • Comment I think though that this event is actually making some waves on a bigger scale then local Teaneck/Bergen County politics, time will tell. I can also assure you that I am no puppet and am voicing my opinion solely because I believe that it is noteworthy and useful. I fully agree that nobody should be inviting people on solely for the purpose of keeping stupid threads. --SpeechFreedom 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per KleenupKrew and AED (amongst others). Inner Earth 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Teaneck High School, where this would actually be relevant. RFerreira 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolute Strongest and Immediate Speedy Delete as (1) egregious violation of WP:BLP, (2) violation of WP:NOT EVIL, (3) blatant attack page, (4) utterly non-notable person (does this pass the ten-year test?). Should be deleted at once as harmful to Wikipedia in many ways. Wikipedia must not and cannot be allowed to be a forum to spread nasty info, even if true, about one's enemies. Wikipedia has much more visibility than most any other web site, and a Wikipedia article is forever, or at least for a long time. Despicable. Obvious and transparent use of sock/meat puppets doesn't helpHerostratus 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Aren't you over-reacting just a wee, little bit. Considering this article concerns a public figure and is based on multiple references from the NY Times and other top-flight news sources, I don't see any violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore, the second page you referred to, WP:Not Evil, is an essay and thus has no bearing on the discussion. Wikipedia may be forever, but so are national newspapers - I hardly see that as a valid argument for deletion (and this is not a speedy delete). --JJay 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - CSD-A7, as repeatedly mentioned. Notable (if at all) only to a small community in the USA. Teachers had up on charges, even heads, are not notable simply for that fact. What next - every alleged rapist, kerb crawler and petty thief? Terminate with eXtreme Prejudice. Cain Mosni 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What are you talking about? Silensor 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nice to see you make good use of the argumentative technique of selective interpretation. (Spot the fact I listed a number of offences not of global note, coupled with the use of the word "every"?) Some instances may merit mention in a global encyclopaedia, for reasons of notability. Most are of note to no-one but the immediate community affected. This case for instance. If it ever becomes important beyond its currently limited catchment, then there may be an argument for constucting an article in the context of the case. Currently it's just an attack on the individual based on regurgitating in a global medium what appears to be being published on a small local front. Currently I wouldn't say it compares well in stature against - say - Homer, Yuri Gagarin, or quantum mechanics. Don't let that stop you whipping up the fervour though. There's nothing like a good lynching. Cain Mosni 23:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't insult the New York Times [1]. It has been a "global" medium, both in print and pixel forms, since before wikipedia was a gleam in Mr. Wales's eye. --JJay 23:14, 2 July 2006 (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.