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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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

Overturn 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Endorse. A paradigmatic application of WP:NOTNEWS, ratified by community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Endorse- Tragic, yes. Encyclopedic? Not really. WP:NOTNEWS was properly considered. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• Relist, please, because a significant source seems to have appeared after many of the comments in this DRV were already made.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Globe article - while a new development in terms of reliable sourcing - is only the one puzzle piece required for an article to meet notability. Concerns related to WP:BIO1E still need to be addressed. m.o.p 11:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Considering he died in the process, I think WPBLP1E really isn't applicable anymore here. -Deathsythe (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I mistyped. I meant BIO1E. m.o.p 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• BIO1E is what applies after he's dead. But neither BLP1E nor BIO1E are reasons to delete an article. They're reasons to turn it into an article about the event rather than the person. Doesn't change the need for a relist, because there's been a genuinely significant development.—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Comment especially with the Boston Globe article added alongside other RS, Thomas James Ball meets all general notability guidelines and should be included. Re-read WP:GNG and see, this hits all the requirements for enduring notability. Because he is a cause celebre for several groups, the concerns mentioned by User:S Marshall that new users will re-create the article anyway are not insignificant. –NickDupree (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this is NickDupree's second !vote on this DRV. m.o.p 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Sorry, wasn't my intent NickDupree (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's never been a question of whether or not the GNG is met in this instance, the question is whether or not an overriding policy, WP:NOTNEWS, applies. To put it another way, the consensus was in the AFD that, in this instance, this was a story that, while making a lot of news right away, did not have lasting encyclopedic value. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse While more people have written, but this still is an article/cause that conflicts with BIO1E. Hasteur (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe people who are known for a single, destructive one time event, such as Bernie Getz merit inclusion in Wikipedia, so WP:BLP1E isn't a blanket ban on everyone notable for one incident alone. NickDupree (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that people like Goetz have significant and extensive indications of notability. Goetz spurred nationwide interest, created legal ramifications - things like this do not fit under BIO1E. m.o.p 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those citations there for Goetz are from a single source, NYT. Moot point - just pointing it out. Back on point - obviously WAX is what most people will throw at the argument here, however given the coverage (listed in an above comment), and the precedent set by Goetz (think the Truthiness justification for malamanteau a year or so back), I think we should be able to look past BIO1E and turn Ball's article into a well sourced good article. -Deathsythe (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that the New York Times is a notable paper, there are seventy-four citations in the Goetz article from quite a few other sources - Time magazine, the Daily News, the New Yorker. Goetz' notability extends beyond one incident; though it may stem from one incident, it has grown to be quite substantial. Ball, on the other hand, is known for only one incident (and the notability of said incident is still disputed, as seen above). m.o.p 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe Wikipedia should re insert the Biography of Thomas James Ball and enhance it, primarily by adding his Last Testament, which is a significant and revealing commentary on the affects of Government Agency and Legal Interventions in our post 20th century society showing the possible detrimental effects this is having on the nuclear unit (family group).

Ball’s Last Testament, is really a very good source on this event and a detailed alternative commentary on the issues of family law. It may be said that a person who takes his own life has an unbalanced mind, but this does not make his statements invalid, in fact in Ball’s case it clearly illustrates the incredible tensions he was under in this complicated modern world.

There is great deal of interest if not clear unrest in the current state of family law. In the US we have the American Fathers Coalition, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the Coalition of Parental Support and the Fathers’ Manifesto all lobbying for change in the framework of family law. In the UK Fathers 4 Change creates a lot of news with its’ Fancy dress stunts by alienated male parents. This event of self-immolation by a father who believes he is victimized by the legal system is a first in the United States and has focused attention on this issue. For Wikipedia to ignore it does suggest to some that a feminist agenda has been established by effectively banning any entry on this man and his sad demise, and this is something that should be addressed. There is no downside to making a comprehensive entry on Thomas James Ball, but I would suggest that there maybe one if Wikipedia continues to refuse an entry.

Wikipedia should be in the forefront of records and commentary on modern history, informing readers of things not just of the past, but also of the present. To wait for other Media such as National Newspapers to comment and record first is not sound policy, rather Wikipedia should set the agenda straight by reporting and recording this, disregarding any evaluation on the immediate journalistic ‘news impact’ it might have.

I submit therefore that an entry should be made which also incorporates Ball’s Last Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swsprime (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding comment was copied from the talk page - frankie (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia functions, though. Thoughts on policy - policy shaped by nearly a decade of interaction and thousands of voices - hold no water in a discussion concerning a subject's notability. As has been stated multiple times, the community does not find Thomas Ball notable enough to have an article. m.o.p 23:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD 1|AfD 2)

• Overturn and Restore. Passes WP:PORNBIO with multible nominations in different years. Schmidt, had the best arguments in the last AfD, that wasn´t recognized.

She has nearly 14 mio Google hits, so she is well-known. So the admin made a big mistake not recognising the best arguments. So for what there are WP:Notability, if it is ignored? So this is seeing a blind man that she is notable enough to Keep her in this encyclopedia. Thanks for your attention. --178.24.248.2 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note only - reformatted the header to provide link to 2nd AFD. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This AFD had a full discussion, and there are no defects in it cited. The closer specifically addressed the issue brought out again here. Community opinion supported deletion by a roughly 2:1 margin (discounting the SPA IPs who hadn't edited before and haven't edited since). The consensus was, in effect, that failure to meet the GNG was so pronounced that it clearly outweighed the (disputed) argument that an SNG had been satisfied. A thoughtful and reasonable close, with a well-articulated closing statement, that was plainly within the closer's discretion. No valid, policy-based reason has been advanced to disturb it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you want to delete everything about sex. That´s so obvious. So your pseudo-talk is just trash. --178.25.2.105 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think DRV will help you here, 178.24.248.2. Participants on this page tend to take quite a dim view of WP:PORNBIO and are looking for multiple reliable sources. Which Ms Starr doesn't have.—S Marshall T/C 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion. To the extend that the guideline WP:PORNBIO was met, the consensus at the discussion was that applying that non-binding guideline was not appropriate in this instance. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Pornbio is all but worthless as far as I'm concerned, but just because people may scrape by, barely, on a sub-notability guidelines does not confer automatic inclusion. I also place no value on DRVs filed by IPs. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Disagreeing with the result of an AFD is not a reason to overturn it; it's only to correct obvious errors. WP:PORNBIO is disputed by much of the Wikipedia community and it does not have wide acceptance, so it is well within the rights of the community to disregard that disputed guideline. Reyk _YO! 06:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• She has 14 million Google hits and doesn´t meet WP:GNG, you´re kidding. The last AfD and it´s decision was ridiculous. You have blinkers, if you´re not seeing it. --178.25.2.105 (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because the WP:GNG says nothing about big numbers of google results. Aside that google often reports large numbers but runs out of steam a lot sooner, try navigating to the 1000th result of the search link you've provided. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Stifle was correct that the consensus of the community can decide whether or not a guideline is applicable--the alternative is robot-like literal application of every vague term in the guidelines. Additionally I think we are overly generous in a number of places in considering nominations for awards as a criterion of notability , except for a very few famous awards, like the Academy Awards or the Booker, where there is consensus of major news sources that even the nomination or short list is a major accomplishment. As for the actual notable of the individual, I have no comment. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]