Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 8

8 July 2011

Thomas_James_Ball

Thomas_James_Ball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm well aware that the AfD discussion was FOR deletion (though in the first days the debate had leaned heavily to KEEP) and that the AfD was quickly closed after 5 days, and I know the politicized nature of this hot topic makes it particularly difficult to review; I'm not questioning that and I don't want to rehash old arguments. However, I strongly suggest that the entire community take a second look at this issue. Thomas James Ball self-immolated himself in front of the Cheshire County Superior Courthouse in Keene, NH to protest a number of grievances with the government, and quickly became a cause célèbre for a large swath of Americans in several political movements and groups, not only confined to a narrow slice of people in the men's rights movement as one editor in the discussion claimed, but also became a cause among libertarians broadly construed (not just the "Free Keene" group and the Free State movement who'd obviously latch onto an event in their hometown) and has also spread to leftist groups as well. Most of the aforementioned groups I vehemently disagree with, so please be assured I have no political axe to grind; be gentle with me as I only ask people to re-think. This has been covered by news sources nationally and internationally, and the question immediately spread: when the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi over government grievances happened on December 17, 2010, he became a pan-Arab cause célèbre that sparked mass protests that led to the bloodless Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia 28 days after, but a political self-immolation here in the United States drew no mass protests at all? WHY? This question, and the debate Thomas James Ball began is valid and relevant to Wikipedia's coverage in multiple topic areas.

While the Thomas James Ball article was deleted per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, they don't apply because 1) it's covered nationally and internationally for its implications and what it says about the impact of the U.S. system in toto on its citizens more than as a single news item and 2) it's not merely one event but a persistent cause célèbre that cuts across several political movements. I am making a new argument: not the one event but the cause célèbre Thomas James Ball became and the important questions his self-immolation (and posthumously-published manifesto) raised, merit inclusion in Wikipedia. The issue should be and can be described with a NPOV. I believe it was deleted mostly out of overkill application of WP:NOTADVOCATE, the concerns over turning the Wiki into "an online venue for promoting causes" are palpable among us experienced editors; but the fact that most of the voters for Keep were newbies startled this information wasn't there when they wanted a neutral and comprehensive article on it should make us re-examine the prevailing groupthink. One of the readers posting in favor of keep had to do so on the AfD talk page, as the AfD closed and sentiment for Keep remained. New users on the AfD were alarmed that this serious political matter was cast aside while countless gigabytes of puffery remain; the process of inclusion is baffling and byzantine and opaque to the readers we should focus on serving. I implore the community, take a bird's eye view of this and see it's something important we should cover, and it can be written in a NPOV! Please, rethink this deletion. NickDupree (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• HUH I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THIS SHOULD GO, AT THE TOP WHERE PEOPLE WILL SEE IT, OR POLITELY AT THE BOTTOM WHERE ONE CAN EASILY OVERLOOK IT, BUT on July 10, 2011, The Boston Globe (owned by the NY Times) published a lengthy news article, NOT OPINION, on the Ball Suicide. Dad leaves clues to his desperation - A grisly suicide after a 10-year divorce battle by reporter Mark Arsenault -- thanks 72.222.210.123 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse (full disclosure - I was the original AfD nominator.) The AfD closed for valid policy reasons, and it was left open that the subject could be revisited if it was covered by multiple reliable sources and/or in the fullness of time demonstrated an ongoing coverage or historical significance. That still remains the case. Are there multiple reliable sources or not? The AfD got bogged down with forum and blog references, none of which were helpful. At the end of the day, there is no deadline; Wikipedia is not news. Give it an appropriate amount of time and look back to see if this person became notable. Singularity42 (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - no reason for us to be buffaloed by outside canvassing efforts and people with obvious agendas to push (no, Nick, I don't mean you). As I said just before it closed, this is actually an example of WP:UPANDCOMING: "OMG, everybody who reads the same blog I do knows about this and how could you not cover it just because the Evialll Mainstream Media Feminazis Are Trying to Suppress The Truth!" If Ball's case ever actually gets substantial coverage in reliable sources, then and only then should a new, non-biased article be written. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment here are multiple RS that should be more than sufficient:

Keene suicide saw jail in his future – New Hampshire Union Leader, prominent NH newspaper

Last statement sent to Sentinel from self-immolation victim – Keene Sentinel, hometown newspaper

American Father Self-Immolates To Protest Against Family Courts – International Business Times

Man Literally Sets Himself On Fire On The Courthouse Steps – Above The Law, a legal tabloid, news and commentary about the legal profession

New Hampshire man lights himself on fire to protest America’s decline – Business Insider magazine, dateline Oxford, England.

AND HERE TOO, FROM JULY 10 | Dad leaves clues to his desperation - A grisly suicide after a 10-year divorce battle Boston Globe

Endorse and Comment - though this could easily have been swept under ONEEVENT, it certainly isn't covered by NOTNEWS. There are plenty of RS for the matter, including local, national, and international articles. All of the above sources are more than enough than necessary for inclusion. -Deathsythe (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's easier to find opinion pieces on this than hard news. NO that shouldn't guarantee its exclusion. The aforementioned RS are more than enough for inclusion. NickDupree (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment to add a reliable source: Dad leaves clues to his desperation - Boston Globe. Article specifically reports notability: "[h]is death and final writings have resonated within the father’s rights movement." 184.59.26.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

• That appears to be a plausible search term and it's not unreasonable to think that people would turn to Wikipedia for more information about Mr Ball. I agree with the earlier decision that he shouldn't have his own article because it's one event, but I think he may well merit a one- or two-sentence mention in mens rights movement or some similar article, and I'm minded to convert this title into a redirect—not least because it's a bad idea to leave a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse I generally don't agree with closing AFDs early but the consensus was so blindingly obvious that we can accept a snow here. I'd withdraw and close this DRV as its simply serving to try and subvert a wider consensus and its clear that at best you will get a relist here and the arguments have already been raised and the consensus is already stark staringly obvious.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. A paradigmatic application of WP:NOTNEWS, ratified by community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - Someone became the proverbial an hero, routine news coverage was found in sources, the end. The arguments of WP:NOTNEWS and such carried the day, and the standard "DRV is not for "I don't like it"" notice applies. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse- Tragic, yes. Encyclopedic? Not really. WP:NOTNEWS was properly considered. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - It's strange that public opinion and the groupthink here have such an enormous gap. I think the comparisons with Tunisia and the questions raised are valid and important. New users and readers won't understand this at all. We should always be able to put ourselves in the shoes of a new user, I think a lot of us are so used to spouting policies (wikilawyering to abide "by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles") that we can't see the average guy's perspective at all. I'd be interested in User:S Marshall's compromise proposal but see Thomas James Ball's self-immolation and posthumous manifesto as much broader in their concerns than "men's rights." The unibomber's crazy manifesto is covered in great detail on Wikipedia, and there are enough sources to give Thomas James Ball some proper WP:WEIGHT, even if minimal by comparison. --NickDupree (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  Accusations of group think, a very easy term to throw around, generally used to mean a set of people who disagree with me. If the outcome here were different would you be complaining of the group think overturning the deletion? I suspect not.

  Accusations of wikilawyering, please tell me how the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS is being sacrificed for the letter of it? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Response For example, this is not a single news item and it's not merely one event but a persistent cause célèbre that cuts across several political movements. My argument: not the one event but the cause célèbre Thomas James Ball became and the important questions his self-immolation (and posthumously-published manifesto) raised, merit inclusion in Wikipedia. NickDupree (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't ask for you to repeat your argument. I asked you regarding your claim of wikilawyering regarding the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS vs your believe that it has been ignored by sticking to the letter of it. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• The spirit of WP:NOTNEWS is all about keeping single news items, obituaries, and other content typical of newspapers out of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This policy goes hand in hand with the one event policy. The consensus against inclusion for Thomas James Ball rests on the letter of the policies, when I see the spirit of the policies would be to allow inclusion because this isn't about a single event or obituary at all: it's about the cause célèbre he became and about the important questions and commentaries his self-immolation (and posthumously-published manifesto) sparked. NickDupree (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd disagree, the spirit of not news goes well beyond that. What you are describing is essentially a desire to synthesise the "story" into a broader discussion etc. i.e. Journalism, something which the spirit of NOTNEWS specifically excludes. The fact that as DGG below observes it's not had much broad or lasting impact somewhat suggest it is indeed a short term news story. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• endorse As the article cited above from Business Insider says "Hardly anyone seems to have noticed. Conversely, when a 26-year old Tunisian man lit himself on fire a few months ago ... it launched a wave of revolution across the Middle East." Events intrinsically trivial become notable because of their consequences. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment As the closing administrator, I just wanted to chime in. As I've said multiple times, I'm truly sorry that Thomas James Ball committed suicide - whether or not he was a good person is not at question. The fact is, he died, and the event is a tragedy. As a human being, I feel compassion and sympathize with his loved ones and supporters. However, Wikipedia is not an obituary repository. As it stands, his article would be an obituary - there is very little information on his life, very little information on his accomplishments. He remains famous for his death. Again, tragic - but not what an encyclopedia article demands.
  To those who are newcomers to Wikipedia policy - bloggers from A Voice for Men and similar blogs - I understand that it feels like you're being targeted, but that's not the case. There are many articles that are turned away due to insufficient qualifications, and yes, we do turn away as many articles on Pokemon-like and fictional characters as we do real-world subjects. This judgment is applied equally to every article, and we do not play favourites. We're only trying to build a better source of information. Cheers, and thanks for understanding, m.o.p 02:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful, I think, if the actual requirements for notability were somehow clearer. I posted a reliable source above that specifically reported on the event's notability. Is this not sufficient, and if not, what would be? Would it at least be sufficient for the inclusion on the list of notable self-immolations? 184.59.26.110 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• See here. To quote the opening line of that section (emphasis mine):

“ Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ”

• As was mentioned above, people notable for one event that go on to bring about other notable events - for example, if somebody self-immolated and, in doing so, started a revolution - then this policy is not applicable. However, in this case, consensus is that the policy applies.
• As for a mention in said list, if the sourcing exists, then go for it - however, I cannot make that decision, as my involvement in this case could potentially make me an unfair mediator. Cheers, m.o.p 03:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)