Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Gardner (3rd nomination)

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The result was withdrawn by nom after relisting with many thanks to those who commented and further clarified editor consensus on this article, which falls under WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Gardner

Joshua Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

While this topic is meaningful to Wikipedia's history it is not notable in the wider world and does not meet the proposed guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Most of the notability stemmed from a single series of edits this individual made to Wikipedia to further an impersonation scheme over which no subsequent criminal conviction is noted in the article. Moreover, the article notes only one earlier criminal conviction, for a wholly un-notable and single crime. Biography of living person policy is meaningful here because here both because of the undue weight brought to bear by his Wikipedia edits along with the BLP warning: Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly (to put it more pithily, the "gotchya" side to this article is a bit glaring, even if this happened in good faith). Given this, the Wikipedia community might ponder the conflict of interest worries this article raises for Wikipedia, given the self-referential aspect at its root. Lastly, most of the independent coverage was limited to stories stemming from a short string of AP reports, which are more often than not cited by the other sources and I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling) that one of the references cited for this article is a Wikipedia project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's obviously notable that a sex-offender's hoax was exposed by a Wikipedia AfD. Further, the article is factual about its subject's actions, the fact those actions reflect poorly on the subject is the the subject's fault, not the article's. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as the references provided in Joshua_Gardner#References indicate sufficient coverage of Joshua Gardner in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. Deletions of articles concerning otherwise notable individuals per our biographies of living persons policy are primarily designed to avoid providing publicity concerning people who have suffered a derogatory notability through no fault of their own, not to assist serious criminals in the avoidance of the well-deserved infamy for their crimes. John254 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think there are sufficient secondary sources to indicate notability. The Wikipedia ref is a problem, however the info that it purports to verify is verified by one of the other refs. Kevin (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Note - I have removed the Wikipedia ref, in case anyone is looking for it. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The secondary sources are rather impressive, including international coverage. I don't think the article serves primarily to mock or disparage its subject either. Maxamegalon2000 16:00, 10 June 2008 (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.