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 keep and rename. There is indeed significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here, and consensus to keep the article. However, the sources do not focus on the life and times of Bobby Joe Blythe, and neither does our article – after the first line, "Bobby Joe Blythe (c.1946) is a former marine, karate instructor and currently resides in Hanford, California.", it is entirely about the incident captured on video. Following WP:ONEEVENT, if a person is notable for only one event, then the encyclopaedia is best served by covering the event, not the person.  Skomorokh  17:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Joe Blythe[edit]

Bobby Joe Blythe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria and is most likely a minor temporary web celebrity. Entire article is based around once incident, with trivial news coverage at this point (biggest item is one article in the Washington Post). Highly speculative as the article is mostly based on YouTube videos, creating a BLP issue. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Another news item has appeared on Inside Nova on 8th Sept adding further credibility to and interest in the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.68.172 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - This is bio is related to a significant event both in the martial arts community and as an internet phenomenon. --Mista-X (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:ONEEVENT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - This is an event probably never seen before on the internet. a beating 26 years ago put up on the internet and it galvanized hundreds of thousands of people calling for justice for this event. Bobby Joe Blythe is the main person in the video and the person who set up the beating, it also happened in his dojo in dumfries va. many news articles have been written and news stories have been done on tv also this isnt just some flash in the pan event that people will forget about in a short time, this is something that the martial arts community will remember for a long time. As for notability this is directly from your own rules page "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."this covers Mr. Blythe definately as far as a notability in the martial arts community."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanty22 (talk • contribs) 11:31, September 4, 2009

Sorry, but this comment is more hyperbole than argument. The video seems big on a some MMA-related boards, but that hardly makes up the "martial arts community," much less establishes that he's made any kind of lasting contribution or will be historically significant. It sure looks exactly like other flash-in-the-pan internet memes to me. If it continues to gain press, it might belong in Internet vigilantism, but not yet. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – A shown here, [1], no hits on Google News. Regarding hits on Google, all are either Blogs – YouTube and MySpace type of accounts. None of which are verifiable – creditable – reputable – 3rd party sources. If and when a verifiable – creditable – reputable – 3rd party sources chose to report, will reconsider at that time. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No google news hits? You must be joking. How about you try a real google news search instead of searching just the archives. Second, the hits you see on google news are: The Washington Post (national paper), Inside NOVA (local virginia paper), France24 (looks like an international news website), KMPH (local TV news station), and VK Magazine (looks like a Dutch paper). -- noosphere 22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. There's also the Examiner. Missed that one. -- noosphere 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - And I am to take 8 hits on Google News, under your search criteria as listed above, meets NOTABILITY guidelines? I'm sorry, I set my standards slightly higher than that. If I did not, I would start an article about myself and would ask you to reference. :-). Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you're talking about Reliable Source criteria, not notability guidelines when you're making a comment about the sources? In that case, I'd say the Washington Post certainly meets them, as WP:RS explicitly says, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post." As for the rest, they are clearly not of the same caliber, but I see nothing about them that indicates they are not reliable. They are not blogs, but legitimate news organizations, as far as I can tell (particularly KMPH and Inside NOVA). If you know of something that indicates otherwise, please share it with us. -- noosphere 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - First, we all should be talking about Reliable Source. They are what the foundation notability is built on. Regarding the rest, I think you missed my point. Having one article in the Washington Post does not delineate Notability. Having 10 write-ups in the Washington Post, on the other hand does. A quick mention here and a quick mention there does not establish notability. It may establish that the item was news worthy for that day. But it does not establish that the event is nothing more than news for that day. That is short lived and is mundane and common place the next day. Hope this explains my rational a little better. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, noosphere, didn't you already vote? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does what I just said above look like a vote? Is what you just said a vote? No. They're clearly comments. I voted only once, as should be obvious to anyone who counts the votes here. -- noosphere 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I meant to write this below. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no Wikipedia policy that says all of the sources used in an article have to be The Washington Post (or even that they all have to be from sources as highly regarded as The Washington Post). I've counted 5 sources apart from The Washington Post that have reported on this event. If you have some evidence that they are not reliable, let's hear it. As for whether the event is "mundane and commonplace", again that's purely a matter of opinion. Personally, I have never heard of any other occasion where a martial arts teacher filmed his student beating someone past unconsciousness (a pretty clear case of attempted murder) and posted the video online to brag about it (not to mention the 25 years that passed between when the video was made and when it was released to the public). If you think this is so "mundane and commonplace" (or, as you claimed later, "happens 3 times a day in every major city/metropolitan area in the world") , please show us some evidence. -- noosphere 02:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found yet another news article on this incident on NBC Washington. That makes 7 news articles total. -- noosphere 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new InsideNOVA article just came out. This one mentions another victim of a similar beating at Blythe's dojo. This makes for 8 articles now and shows that there is ongoing interest from the media. -- noosphere 04:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's a new WUSA-9 article about the incident. That makes for 9 articles now, that's 3 more than when the AFD started. Clearly the incident is drawing more and more media attention. Even if there wasn't enough cause to keep the article then, there is now. -- noosphere 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A clearly reliable source [2] concludes that this is an overblown incident. There's a lot of other info in the article sourced to items that don't seem to meet the RS threshold, making this a BLP problem. It's possible that the incident alone (without the other BLP info) has some limited notability, but i'm unconvinced it meets notability requirements for a full article.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's an important incident as can be seen by the coverage, which already includes six (6) news outlets reporting on the story. The Washington Post's writer's opinion should have no bearing on this AFD. It was a shoddily researched article (the writer only spoke to a couple of local cops, who may well be involved in a coverup, and took their word as gospel), so no wonder the writer doesn't think much of the incident. But the fact is that the incident is generating media attention in published, reputable sources, which is enough for there to be an article about the incident, regardless of what the writers of the Washington Post may think. -- noosphere 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you read the articles linked on the article, they focus on the reaction to the video on the web, and peripherally on Blythe and the incident. As a result, it might eventually belong in Internet vigilantism, but not in its own article The KMPH news segment in particular counts for very little, as it's a local station and the spot is entirely speculative, offering no actual facts. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they do offer facts. The main facts are: the video was posted on the internet, the names of the two of the main perpetrators are known, and it is known what they did then and do now, it also gets the reaction to the video from the police. These are all facts above and beyond a mere "reaction to the video on the web". The Washington Post article is even more substantive, citing the recollections of and reactions from local police. As questionable as the contents of those recollections and reactions are, it's still a fact that those were their stated reactions and recollections. And, again, these facts are above and beyond mere "reactions to the video on the web". -- noosphere 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another major important fact that these news reports talk about is the content of the video itself. Again, this is not mere speculation about reactions on the web, but a fact that has now been reported in 6 news outlets. -- noosphere 22:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sorry to say no. If we used your criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, every news event, that gained its 15 minutes of fame, - in every country - in every town, every village, every hamlet, every cottage and so on and so on, would have an article here on Wikipedia. What we have to ask, is Bobby notable - is the event notable or is it just a news item that captured the publics attention for 24-48 hours, has no impact on events, other than filling space on a television news show or 500 words in a paper, Sorry to say, and I do mean sorry, events like this happen 3 times a day in every major city/metropolitan area in the world. For Wikipedia to have articles on everyone of these instances changes Wikipedia the encylodia into Wikipedia the New York Times. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article mentions on various news sites including Washington Post, and the Local Fox affiliate in Fresno, France 24 among others. Multiple websites created to this particular subject, and numerous hits on youtube, accounts to its viral status. RiseRobotRise (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP This is a legal matter which is quickly developing and gaining increased attention weekly. I've uncovered a few legal documents on it already, in addition to the numerous media reports (especially by the Washington Post and Fox). This is a noteworthy matter due to the identities of those involved (persons with ties to law enforcement and the state apparatus). Highly questionable responses from authorities on the status of the investigation make the issue one deserving of heightened analysis. Frank Pais (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would have thought that the number of searches for 'Bobby Joe Blythe' that are directed here from the search engines would be proof enough that there is sufficient notability and interest. I think the credibility of the sources is unimportant as you're largely dealing with an incident that has not received mainstream media attention but this is likely to change in the future. Therefore, is Wikipedia only interested in notable people that have been reported in the mainstream press or notable people in general. I also believe the precedent of posting self-incriminating evidence on YouTube will become a meme in the future and this will be Blythe's lasting legacy on the Internet. 96.48.68.172 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that something may happen in the future is a good reason it doesn't deserve an article (see WP:CRYSTAL). And is Wikipedia interested in notable people in the mainstream press? Well, yes. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this barely escapes the realms of WP:BIO let alone being obvious news.--Otterathome (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has now gotten significant regular news coverage, not just youtubem and not just Fox. If the Washington Post writes an article on the political aspects of it, it's notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think the notability of the incident is debatable, but, putting that aside, I don't think that Bobby Joe Blythe would be the appropriate place for an article. It's the incident which might become notable, but not man himself. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Have to agree with Sχeptomaniac here. Even if I were to concede that the incident deserved coverage I'd still strongly disagree that it should be covered as a psuedo-biography.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep minor notability between the Washington Post, Today Show, and meme-ishness. JJL (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename From the title I would expect an article about Bobby Joe Blythe. This article is about a viral video. If the video is notable enough for an article, rename the article. Otherwise, delete. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google lists around 200,000 hits for "Bobby Joe Blythe", a further 86,200 for "Bobby J Blythe" and 232,000 for "Willie J Dennis". However, only 16,400 can be found for "Jesus Taught Me", the original title of the video. Most people are unaware of the title of the video and adding an article for the video alone would diminish the value of Wikipedia in reference to this incident and the two people primarily involved. I would support the creation of an additional article though and moving the majority of the Bobby Joe Blythe content to it as it seems more logical. 96.48.68.172 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears there has been some offsite canvassing for this discussion. While the forum post says not to encourage voting in any particular way, it's clearly posted in a context where the implied reaction of any readers would be to keep it. People posting in that thread have been obsessing about this video, making over 1700 posts on the subject so far. One poster says it's "important to keep this incident as high profile as possible" [3]. This is just another case of internet vigilantism with little press so far, and not a unique incident. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "it's clearly posted in a context where the implied reaction of any readers would be to keep it" that's your POV, not a fact. The poster clearly states that people should not be directed to vote in any manner, but to make their own choice. The poster does not even state which way they voted. Further, the second post the poster implies that the incident needs to be kept in the public eye, but doesn't say that it needs to be done via wikipedia, just in general. Please refrain from making speculations in order to try to make the people voting for a keep look bad. --Mista-X (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's post 1622, on a thread that was already investigating the subject, so the tone was well set before that post. I notice that the poster also posted asking for sources, so sounds like a good faith attempt to improve the article to a quality where it should be kept.--Nate^t/_c 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep If you've seen the video I don't think any reasonable person would not want to help seek justice for the victim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazbotter (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP Possibly retitle but this is a significant event and must be kept in. adouglasmhor (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Rename Seems more to fall under WP:ONEEVENT --Nate^t/_c 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Due to the despicable, callous, and cruel actions depicted in the video, Wikipedia has a moral obligation to help keep this individual front and center in the public's mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Solomon (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.