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 delete. On the whole, the delete arguments have it: crime produces news coverage, because if it bleeds (or greeds, I guess), it leads. But this is not such a significantly unusual or noteworthy crime as to rise above the routine, expected coverage of criminal activity that follows most vaguely interesting criminal deeds for the purpose of selling papers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Gardner[edit]

Clark Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. There are quite a bit of news coverages and legal opinions regarding Clark Gardner. I believe it may make sense to rename the page to Clark S. Gardner, as most of the articles come up when the name is searched with the middle initial. Sources include SEC and FINRA official documents as well. I believe the article could be slavaged. Possibly need to remove some details that are thinly sourced, but the bulk of the article is well-documented. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't meet GNG. Stealing 1.5 Million USD is not that much in the US security industry. Article is mainly sourced to PRIMARY court and enforcement agency documents. Coverage in news is lacking. "Clark S. Gardner" does not bring more results than "Clark Gardner". Finding coverage of him in secondary RS is difficult - mainly some local papers and not much else.Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for original research or sourcing to primary sources, which this article is full of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, I don't mean this in any offensive way, but it appears that you are a fellow BYU alumni/attendee and fellow Mormon. I hope this does not cloud your view on the deletion of a criminal alumni and this view of deletion is purely based on impartial review? Your comment supporting deletion is fairly brief. - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to open a comment by saying you do not mean it to ve offensive it clearly and without question is. As has been said earlier, SEC official documents are primary sources and add nothing to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But one could argue that the SEC documents don't actually violate WP:PRIMARY because they are removed from the situation after the fact, however, the primary sources, such as the SEC documents are reported on in secondary sources including these places: Daily HeraldJohn S ChapmanIsrael S NeumanKSLFitapelli Kurta - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Is should be noted that Anon1-3483579 (article creator and commentor above) had 150 edits, mainly related to Steve Down (Clark Gardner is/was an employee) - which is also full of issues of BLPCRIME (though perhaps notable).Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause a ruckus. Yes I am the creator of the page, and I created it as a sort of offshoot of the Steve Down page (which has been overhauled and still needs more overhaul) when I noticed he did not have a page but had a large web presence, as he seemed relatively notable to me. But if this discussion decides otherwise then so be it. Just trying to offer my two cents as to why I believed it to be notable.- Anon1-3483579 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of good sources. Coverage are good overall for this person, though article it needs some changes as mentioned above. Article status are good overall. Name change also an good idea.BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject of article has received WP:SIGCOV and the article itself is sourced properly and i see no reason why this article should face such scrunity because on average the subject is notable (see WP:BASIC) and if notability is present, it deserves a stand alone on the encylopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clark Gardner meets WP:GNG. I welcome the discussion cause in cases like this it is important that the coverage is significant. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Changing to delete by the tougher WP:NCRIME standard. This article is basically about crime. gidonb (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A run-of-the-mill white collar criminal who stole enough money to buy a single run-of-the-mill mini-mansion in an ordinary upscale neighborhood. There is nothing at all notable or encyclopedic about this person or his pedestrian crimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Plenty of good sources points towards different.BabbaQ (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is even more clear to me now that the sources shows clear notability here. Both for WP:GNG and COVERAGE. Tending towards change to Strong Keep. But will stay at Keep from my !vote above.BabbaQ (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, will you please do me a favor? Please point me to the very best two or three sources that provide significant biographical coverage of this person. Because all that I see is brief routine coverage of a run-of-the-mill low level white collar criminal. If this guy is notable, then hundreds of millions of people are notable. I simply do not see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 I can't speak for BabbaQ, but I'd like to give my input on your question. I believe one sigificant piece of coverage is located here: Daily Herald, as well as these sources: John S ChapmanIsrael S NeumanKSL NewsFitapelli Kurta. In addition, Clark Garder receives additional notoriety from his involvement as part of some other companies, seen in articles like this one: The Oregonian. I don't see what is so pedestrian about these crimes, or why he would fail to meet WP:GNG with this coverage? - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anon1-3483579, if you care about keeping this article, you will have to add sources to the article. By our polices it is not necessary for a keep but WP:BLPCRIME is a sensitive matter and the current sources in the article are not good enough. I looked beyond (as one should) so reached the conclusion we should keep this. Last tip: stop the fixation with middle initials. gidonb (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically add the KSL-TV one and other independent news sources with significant coverage. The legal sources are not independent. gidonb (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anon1-3483579. I read each of those sources that you provided, and I am unpersuaded.

Please read WP:Notability (people), in particular the section about crimes and criminals. Here is the relevant section:

"For perpetrators

The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

These crimes are utterly routine white collar crimes of no historic significance whatsoever. There is nothing unusual or noteworthy about this person's crimes. These are routine embezzlement and investment crimes, the most banal and common sorts of white collar crimes, as indicated by the predictable cookie-cutter writing style of the coverage of these routine cases. There are many thousands of such cases every year, the vast majority of which are not notable crimes, and neither are their pathetic perpetrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the reporting of coverage so far, has been fairly routine. The arrest warrant is not available for establishing notability, as it is merely a by product, an automatic ejection of being arrested. The paper I think has perhaps a duty of care, or for historical reasons, to report the warrant. So it doesn't establish notability. The other references, apart from the Oregon one, are also routine, as they are they agencies that are working on the investigation, or partner agencies, and it natural to report on what your ownself is working on, for advertising purposes. It is white collar crime, fairly routine. scope_creep (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ignoring PR releases, the subject has been basically covered in a 4-5 local newspaper items (after you ignore unrelated "Clark Gardners" (a not uncommon name - these is a meth dealer [1] and a number of unrelated (except common name) people who have more coverage than this one). The primary court/SEC/FINRA documents do not establish any notability (and are borderline for us). This is simply not enough to demonstrate notability of any person - let alone an article with rather serious BLPCRIME/attack-piece concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. There are multiple good arguments to delete, and the only one to keep is that newspapers have included his name in news stories. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of substantial coverage in RS. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:06, 16 November 2017 (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.