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 no consensus. you don't have to delete an article to prune it of POV issues but there is no consensus to to anyting here. ONEEVENT may be an issue but plenty of keep voters addressed the point and there are lots of sources. An artiel on the death of is sually the compromise between BLP1E/ONEEVENT and GNG anyway so overall I'm not seeing an outcome and relisting certainly won't make it clearer Spartaz Humbug! 03:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Philip Gale[edit]

Death of Philip Gale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply put, this is a suicide - tragic but not notable. A bright lad at MIT took his own life.

Looking at the "impact" of this, to assess its noteworthiness, I see three things:

  1. A magazine ran a story on suicides at MIT. That series used this case as a key example ("featured it"). Well, that would perhaps justify us also using it as an example on in an article on suicides at MIT - but we have no such article.
  2. MIT in light of this investigated how to deal with student suicides. Well, you'd hope so.
  3. Since the chap had been a Scientologist, an investigation by a journalist got caught up in a Scientology stonewall (allegedly). That led to an earlier version of this article being non-neutrality written to link his suicide to Scientology. However, no verifiable fact makes that link - he'd joined another religion some time before. Mark Ebner's interaction with Scientology ought to be recorder on his bio, and not be a reason for a detailed article on Philip Gale

In short this is a sad thing, but despite good hard work re-writing it from the COATRACK it was, there's no evidence of significance whatsoever. Scott Mac 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with my tastes here. But a decision on notability is more than doing sums with sources. The point isn't the quantity of references you can haul into the "impact" section (as important as it is to have sources) it is also the content of what those sources say. The sources do not have the "Death of Philip Gale" as their principle subject, and do not indicate that the death is particularly significant. The notability of this cannotbe reduced to doing arithmetic with citations.--Scott Mac 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources of the article actually have the death of Gale as their subject. But in any case WP:GNG explains us that the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. All what is needed is that they address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. --Cyclopiatalk 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cite the GNG as if they were Holy Scripture. I'd rather look at the material that's been sourced and use some judgement here. Content is what counts. For the reasons I've given above, I think it is fairly clear that notability is not established. We'll see if others can actually find a significance I've missed.--Scott Mac 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is (tongue-in-cheek) the "Holy Scripture" when dealing with notability. It's the consensual WP criteria about the concept, the one that the community has decided to gauge it. While you rely on your judgement, I am more humble, and instead of relying on my own personal judgement I rely on more objective criteria like existence and persistence of source coverage. These criteria make the case soundly notable. The reasons you give above are just your opinion that downplays the case: what it makes fairly clear is that you do not think notability is established, nothing else. --Cyclopiatalk 02:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not, and you do. So we discuss it here, each using their own judgement and we reach a consensus, which may or may not accord with my judgement or yours. That's how it goes - there's no textual fundamentalism here. The whole array of existence that Wikipedia has to discuss, and make judgements on, cannot be reduced to arithmetic, rules and formulae - such things are good guides, and poor masters. Anyway, I think it time for you and I to be silent, and allow others to exercise their own judgement.--Scott Mac 03:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG are not policy. If we didn't have to use judgement then we'd simply do a sum and not need a debate. Individual judgement certainly doesn't prevail here, consensus informed by discussion and perhaps influenced by precedents does. In the end, that's all the GNG are - a summary of things discussions have tended to consider which are set down to inform the judgement of future discussions. Personally, I don't use guidelines, I simply look at a case on its merits and the strength of the arguments. Show me where I'm misjudging and I'll think again.--Scott Mac 13:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, the GNG are policy, as I understand it. WP:N is certainly policy, and WP:GNG is the first section of WP:N, and contains no notice that it is less than policy. By my reading, the GNG establish the rebuttable presumption of notability, meaning that if the GNG are satisfied, the burden of proof shifts to those who think the topic is not notable even though it satisfies the GNG. YardsGreen (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW is it really necessary to have a section called "Impact" immediately following the section on him jumping out of a window? John lilburne (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of changing that particular section title. YardsGreen (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so your "routine news reports" include "NPR all things considered" national coverage 5 years after the event, a "Chicago Reader" report 4 years after the event, and a "New Times Los Angeles report" that occurred around a year afterwards, not to mention the local reports that reported on the incident when it occurred. And all of those sources tie it to Scientology, not the article. I'd say this does qualify as significant coverage both geographically and sustained through time that remains faithful to the reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something today. Newspapers are there to sell newspapers. They do that by sensationalizing stories, and making more out of them than the facts allow for. No one is ever going to bring a newspaper into court for perjury. Take this article here about a cluster of suicides in Bridgend in the UK, it is one of several such reports, there is one that blames it on phone masts, wikipedia mentions links to cults based on an article that says there no links to cults. I've no doubt that various aspects of this nonsense will be repeated by conspiracy nuts, and others for years to come. John lilburne (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Its a suicide, one event. I have no interest in attacking Scientology, its an anti cult coatrack. Delete - let the guy alone is my position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are there to sell newspapers, but the sources cited here aren't conspiracy nuts or tabloids, they are reliable sources and as such their content and views are considered not only reliable but they are in fact the measure of neutrality and the measure of how much content is allowed on Wikipeida, and in this case they tie the death of a significant individual to the church of Scientology. These cry's of "it isn't neutral" aren't being backed up with a bunch of sources saying something different, they are only being backed up with "it is negative toward the church of Scientology". Well...that is what the reliable sources say, so not having the article reflect that view is censorship by not respecting the what the reliable sources have to say.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR report is about a string of suicides at MIT (see [7], [8]). The Chicago Reader article is about someone else, but it does contain a brief (one-sentence) reference to Gale. --JN466 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and the other 15 are about the suicide specifically and in detail and many (about 8) tie the death to the church.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the Scientology aspect is fine, but the NPR and Chicago Reader pieces supported your argument that there was long-term significant coverage, making this an encyclopaedic topic rather than a news topic. I remain unconvinced of that; to me it is a news story. --JN466 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the NPR and Chicago Reader pieces do establish that there is long-term significant coverage. Including the Gale suicide as they did shows that both sources consider it to be a "significant member of group X." I don't think that long-term significant coverage must necessarily be long-term in-depth coverage. YardsGreen (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right Jayen, I imagine so though I don't know. I'm guessing that's not because of compassion though, but rather because they can't easily change their information once inserted and don't have the staff for the hassle or legal problems. BE——Critical__Talk 21:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting stance to take. Would I be correct to paraphrase like this "We can post it here because no one going to take responsibility, and any one pissed off about it is just going to have to sue some indigent warming their toes in a library". John lilburne (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that our job is to make a service to our readers, by being a thorough, complete and NPOV encyclopedia, not by cherry-picking flattering portraits of living or dead people, ignoring the less flattering and shiny aspects of life. If being "compassionate" goes against the objective of being thorough, complete and NPOV, then being "compassionate" by hiding information is not the right thing to do. (Although I still fail to understand which compassion exists in putting fingers in our ears and screaming "lalalala" while such information is publicly available a Google search away; but people have funny beliefs). If other encyclopedias behave differently, that's their problem, not ours: if we can provide a better (more thorough, more objective) coverage, then we ought to do that. --Cyclopiatalk 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one disagrees with that. The issue is that any thing that anyone says about anyone, be it positive or negative, gets sucked up and regurgitated in these articles without the least bit of discernment as to whether it is worth repeating. All that matters is that someone once said something about whatsisname or wadjamacallit in an article 10 years ago. This isn't encyclopaedic, at best it is spinning raw data into a significance that a close reading of the sources does bear out. With this article we have a someone who shone for perhaps 2 or 3 years at the start of the internet age, and 80% of the article is attempting to connect a suicide with some scammy religion. With the best will in the world that isn't a biography. John lilburne (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently in the UK there is a murder enquiry going on, some one was arrested and released, the wikipage on the murder has 20% on this arrests with a dozen references into the guys personal life etc. What is remotely encyclopaedic about collating together all the little bits of gossip about some dude simply because, between the time that the police questioned him, searched his car, then let him go, the media had enough time and nothing better to do than to run around the local gossips? John lilburne (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You seem to think that by regurgitating everything the press have written about a subject, we arrive at a "thorough, complete and NPOV" article ... --JN466 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way: by cherry-picking what information we like and leaving aside the one we don't like, without a shred of objectivity, we surely don't. --Cyclopiatalk 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then let's cherry-pick with some objectivity and good editorial sense, which, just for your information, people have been trying to do. I note we don't have a BLP on the suspect John was referring to. If it turns out that he is innocent, as it looks at the moment, I hope we never will; and if we do, I hope you won't turn up on his bio's talk page arguing that there was plenty of nationwide coverage, and that we shouldn't be "ignoring the less flattering and shiny aspects of his life". --JN466 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclopia Developing a sense of proportion would be a good thing to start with. John lilburne (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayen466 The Jefferies thing is padding. Where he worked, what his tenants had to say, the type and colour type of his car etc. None of it has anything to do with the girls murder. It is tittle-tattle a collection of factoids added when he was THE SUSPECT in lieu of anything else to write, none of it advances the article, and currently it is simply an aside. "The landlord was questioned for 2 days, his house and cars were searched, and then he was released". At this point all the rest is balls. John lilburne (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No it's not a campaign to delete Scientology articles, only the one's that use WP:RS that criticize the church.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are both poisoning the well here with unfounded accusations. There is no campaign of that nature. There is an effort to clean up the NPOV issues in this area. That some entries get nominated for AfD in the process is only natural.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to any articles that have been created or expanded as a result of the campaign? It looks like it has resulted mostly in the deletion of text or articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to a NPOV problem that has been identified in this area that could be solved by adding text to entries or by creating new entries? If a majority of the problems are best solved in one manner or another, then that's hopefully how they will be solved, and yes if deletion of text and/or entries is part of the solution then so be it. You're just insinuating all kinds of baseless things again. Can you please stop doing so and discuss the actual issues at hand, like whether or not we should delete this entry and why. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
almost every article nominated has proportionally without bias represented WP:RS that have been critical of the church of Scientology. This campaign has systematically attempted to expunge a viewpoint held by reliable sources critical to Scientology. Articles such as this one where reliable sources report that people are tying his involvement to scientology to his suicide are being attacked as not neutral, not because there are a large group of WP:RS not being represented, but because having reliable sources talk about how Scientology may have contributed to his suicide is "non-neutrality written to link his suicide to Scientology."Coffeepusher (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Győry - that article was a pro-Scientology piece on a non-notable BLP. However, in general, what I've seen so far is that almost every article touching upon a subject even remotely tangential to the CoS appears to have sources critical of the Church in them. You appear not to like the efforts by neutral parties to fix the problems they are seeing, but from the look of it you're one of the Scientology partisan regulars. I guess it isn't a surprise that you're complaining like you are. All I ask is that people like you and Will Beback not show up at AfDs and start flinging around unfounded accusations about non-existent campaigns. State your opinions as relevant to the topic and argue within the scope of the discussions. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-partisan and non-regular in CoS matters (where I just begun to have been involved with the recent effort), I must say that there are symptoms of whitewashing. Yes, the Gyorgy case was mostly pro-CoS but in general it seems like we're just removing CoS coverage, good or bad, instead of factually checking for NPOV problems. That said, this is a discussion probably best held elsewhere. --Cyclopiatalk 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, how do you "factually check for NPOV problems"? WP:UNDUE is a major part of WP:NPOV, and as far as I can see editors are doing their best to follow that policy here. In the article being discussed for deletion, for instance, it was Jayen who actually did a thorough read of the major sources to determine that news coverage of Gale discussed Scientology at a fraction of levels that our entry did. Is that "factually checking for NPOV problems", because I think it is exactly that. You have now successfully added another unfounded accusation of "whitewashing" to the AfD, so thanks for the added well-poisening. I agree that this isn't the right forum. So why don't you strike your remark and take it to an appropriate forum? Better yet why don't all three of you start a thread at the neutrality project or WP:NPOVN so that you can present real evidence of whitewashing and we can discuss the matter with input from others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yah I know "but from the look of it you're one of the Scientology partisan regulars."...anyone who edited any Scientology articles prior to "operation Cirtwatch" is suspect... you know what scientology protesters do to wikipeida articles? They put Balls on the page. Big Hairy Balls. So just out of curiosity how many pro-scientology "coatracks" have you guy's found?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeepusher this is a complete red herring. The neutrality project is open for anyone to suggest articles that need attention. If there are pro-Scientology coatracks then please list them on the page. I have only been paying attention to the articles listed there. You cannot prove a negative. If there are no, or perhaps very few pro-Scientology coatracks then clearly they will be very hard to identify. If not, then again, do us all the favor or adding them to the list. I hope that this is the last I hear of this nonesense unless you've tried to add such articles and have been rebuked in which case you actually have something to talk about. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are you sure it is open to anyone...even people who are constantly accused of being partisan by members of that group when every argument they have is around what they believe to be a correct interpretation of reliable sourcing and neutrality?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and in fact I referenced WP:EVENT sub-sections in my !vote. --Cyclopiatalk 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
  • "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."
  • "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance."
This event does not appear to have had "lasting significance". Reliable sources only covered the event in the year or two after it happened. I just removed a source that was from a few years after that because it had a one liner about Gale in it only, but as far as I can tell that is the only source even mentioning this suicide more recently. If this were significant, past the initial new coverage, it would continue to get mention in reliable sources about suicides because it would be considered an important "case study" (see the third point above). No such sources appear to exist. Per WP:EVENT deletion of this is a nobrainer.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's clearly room for disagreement, since the article seems to fall between the second and third points quoted above. Immediately after the event, there was quite significant "further analysis" and "discussion" in WP:RS, making it more significant than described in the second point. More recent reliable sources did not cover the event to the depth of a "case study" but it was covered, years after the event, in the context of lists of significant examples of suicides. Such sources should not be removed, especially in the middle of an AfD centered on those sources. I believe it is highly disingenuous to remove a recent source and then claim there are no recent sources. YardsGreen (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to be fair Griswaldo did explicitly state the existence of the source. I've reinstated it because I see no reason to remove a source which, by putting the event in a larger context, may be useful to the reader -even if it just contains a mention of the event. --Cyclopiatalk 10:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was nothing "disingenuous" about it at all. I clearly made everyone aware of the fact that I removed the afore mentioned source in my very statement. Your description of the source, is however, not factually accurate in any way. The only reason it mentions Gale's death is because it is describing the contents of a list at FACTnet.org. The entire text spent on this is as follows -- "In 1998 Philip Gale, whose mother worked for the church's Citizens Commission on Human Rights, also jumped to his death from a tall building--on Hubbard's birthday." This source is not discussing Gale's death at all, it is merely discussing the contents of a list on FACTnet.org. Is FACTnet.org a reliable source? I highly doubt it. We don't back door the contents of unreliable sources because a reliable source is describing those contents. If anything, that is "disingenuous". More on the article talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also please note that this disputed source is not actually "recent", it is simply more recent than the rest. It was published 4 years after the event, but that is now 9 years ago. Yardsgreen also referred to such sources in the plural ... where are the others? Even if this source is acceptable it does not in any way satisfy the WP:EVENT text I have quoted since it is a passing mention only. The other sources don't either since they are in the year following the event. Significant discussion "just after" the event clearly does not do the trick.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:EVENT can't be used to exclude all events - huh? It is only a guideline, and as such it doesn't suggest deleting "all" events, just the ones that haven't received sustained coverage. Your argument here appears simply to be that you don't like the guideline.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and you apparently don't like WP:GNG, so you're even. Anyway the event has received some sustained coverage, it's just that for your personal opinion "old" sustained coverage is not enough.--Cyclopiatalk 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG and WP:EVENT are both only guidelines, but be that as it may, WP:EVENT, like other guidelines about specific types of topics, clearly trumps GNG. Different topics have different concerns, and community consensus here on Wikipedia clearly approves of dealing with these concerns in different ways. You can deny this all you want, and keep on waving GNG around despite the consensus but you're clearly going against it. It isn't simply a matter of "my" opinion in other words.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that people are waving at WP:EVENT as if it is magic fairy dust with little to no acknowledgement of the sustained coverage. There is plenty of sustained coverage of this event, more than enough (IMO) to overcome the bar that WP:EVENT sets. That coverage can be found in the article already. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Griswaldo, it is matter of your opinions, sorry. Time to step down from the WP:BATTLEGROUND and accept that your point of view is not necessarily the only correct one, and that maybe it doesn't even exist a single correct point of view. First, it doesn't seem that my interpretation is against consensus so far (I may be proven wrong of course but the debate so far seems pretty even, if anything it's leaning towards keeping). You are completely wrong on that "other guidelines about specific types of topics clearly trump GNG". Specific guidelines are meant to extend GNG (for example WP:ATHLETE allows articles to exist that wouldn't be allowed by GNG), not to substitute it: WP:N says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right. (emphasis mine). --Cyclopiatalk 15:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're mincing words like usual. GNG provides the most basic level for notability. In specific contexts other more exacting criteria are required since not every type of topic is alike. When I said "trumps" I meant only that when more specific guidelines are available for a topic area those extend the criteria above and beyond the basic guideline. The basic guideline is often too vague and open to interpretation. An event, for instance, can get significant coverage as it unfolds but then become forgotten. The guideline clearly states that such an event is not notable. This specific guideline is needed since GNG does not make the timing concerns of coverage clear at all. If you were correct then there would be aspects of EVENT that allow a broader inclusion criteria, and you know as well as I do that EVENT does not do that, in fact it limits notability drastically. I will not respond to you again, because you never stop repeating yourself once you start. So feel free to have the last word. Oh, and the irony of you referencing WP:BATTLEGROUND in terms of the behavior of others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, as WP:N states, per your own quoted text in fact, GNG establishes notability when something is not excluded by WP:NOT and that includes WP:NOTNEWS. WP:N specifies further down the page how to resolve a clash between the two: "For guidelines on whether an event is notable, see Wikipedia:Notability (events)." Of course Fences & Windows already said exactly this, to which you replied as if you understood. Like I said, have the last word. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Since I had already answered to F&W, I didn't think I had to re-state that EVENT is indeed a different case -I was only countering your (demonstrably false) statement that other notability guidelines trump GNG. GNG is a reference; most other guidelines give additional alternative criteria; EVENT gives instead additional criteria for guidance -a guidance which main reference is anyway to GNG. Is it clearer now? In any case, these philosophical considerations, although important, are not relevant here: there is continuing coverage meeting WP:EVENT, despite your claims. --Cyclopiatalk 17:41, 13 January 2011 (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.
More