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. The discussion, in general, surrounds the issue of whether or not the subject is notable only for one event - but consensus for this cannot be found in either direction. The prevailing reason for our WP:BLP1E policy is to avoid biographies that give undue weight to the event and to avoid conflicting with a neutral point of view. Because the article, as of now, is fairly sourced free of these concerns, and because no consensus on whether or not current coverage derives notability, waiting further to see "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" further becomes may be the best course of action. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ely[edit]

Eric Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete Not notable person, one event controversy. WP:BLP1E Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am still working on this article. For example, I just added more information to the lede within seconds after this AfD nomination. Even before the current controversy, Ely was a "go-to guy" on school budget issues in New York. He managed a 9-figure budget. There are numerous reliable sources in the article, many of which are exclusively about Ely. Every sentence is properly cited per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E writ large. This is a news story about an event, masquerading as a biography of one of the players in the event. WP:TABLOID fail. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ely easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. His budget of $161 million is twice that of the City of Schenectady ($78.8 million - see here). The sources show news items, legislative testimony, letters from the state's deputy Comproller, etc. This guy has been notable for long time. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those obsessed with Google, "Eric Ely" gets 24,600 ghits, and after removing the usual cruft, there are still over 10,000. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep finding more sources them and adding them as I find them, especially from 2006-2009. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Ely fails WP:POLITICIAN which has 3 criterion, none of which he meets. "1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." - clearly not. "2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." - not. He is not a "major" local political figure, nor has he received "significant" press coverage, except for the BLP1E. "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." - this one illustrates that he would not be considered notable at all, apart from the BLP1E.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Superintendents of Schools in large cities are almost certain to be notable. There's always press, as Berian has been showing . It will of course be necessary not to emphasize any one of the events. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Schenectady is a small town, not a big city.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be taken into account. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Schenectady is a medium-sized city in New York. It's not a town. The school district is also the largest in population in the Capital District with almost 12,000 students. It comes close to half the size of one of the Big 5 districts in the state (Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, NYC, Yonkers), so it's a sizable district that's well-known in the state. upstateNYer 23:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upstate is correct. And his correction is a significant one. It's no-doubt a good-faith error. Uncorrected, however, it inadvertently misleads editors, by inaccurately downplaying the nature of the ninth-largest city in the U.S.'s third-largest state. By comparison, the states of Wyoming and Vermont don't even have one city that is that populous. I note that the error does not just appear above, but is repeated twice below as well. That suggests that it is a significant foundation of Jimbo's analysis, and IMHO accordingly brings that analysis into question.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schenectady, New York "As of the 2000 census, the city had a population of 61,821, making it the ninth-largest city in New York." No small town would have a budget that big. Dream Focus 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I trust User:Bearian as a dedicated and trustworthy editor who I believe will continue to improve the article. Some issues that must be addressed however are the use of blog entries and other citations that arent RS or at best iffy (also I'd say eight references for one sentence is over-kill).Camelbinky (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked two as needing better links. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there can never be overkill for WP:BLPs. The more controversial the statement, the more citations are needed. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, trust User:Bearian. I don't agree with him on this case, but he is neither irresponsible nor a bad editor by any stretch of the imagination. I think that our mutual respect for Bearian shouldn't have too much bearing on the policy question, as reasonable people can certainly differ.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't trust Bearian. Nor do I mistrust him; it's just that I barely know him. But I agree that that isn't the issue. I also believe the article has to be judged as it stands. I don't see this !vote as a policy question, though, but rather as the application of existing policy to the article at hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must raise two delecate issues, the first procedural. Why, of the hundreds of proposed or discussed articles for deletion every single week, has the Chairman of the Foundation gotten involved in this one? Of all of the gin joints, why this one? Has the subject of the article or a friend of his contacted you? Somebody did. It would not be without precedent (for the Chairman or the subject), and for both persons, it has not ended up well. The more substantive, but no less delicate, issue is habits of the subject. Ely spent four solid years chasing the local media, members of the legislature, and local officials. After peddling his wares for those years to become a public figure, suddenly he wants privacy. Hogwash. The last thing Wikipedia needs is more publicity that we are trying to censor a tragic story. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Jimbo is not Chairman of the Foundation. He is Founder of Wikipedia and Chairman Emeritus of the Foundation. Secondly, Jimbo was asked for his views on this article on his talk page and has frequently made his views known on subjects related to biographies of living people. --Tango (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, to answer for myself, no, neither the subject of the article nor a friend has contacted me. I have no connection to the subject in any way as far as I know. I was shown this as an example, on my talk page, as Tango says. I take an interest in BLP issues, particularly where - as in this case - I think we are likely to get it wrong.

"The last thing Wikipedia needs is more publicity that we are trying to censor a tragic story" is a very nice statement of what I think is wrong with this article. This article would not exist, but for the controversy, because the man is simply not notable. That's what makes this a classic BLP1E situation. This article is a fit subject for Wikinews, and a question of whether or not Wikipedia should cover it is not a question of "censoring a tragic story".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the article to Wikinews would mean that the work spent so far was not wasted, and would be available if this Eric Ely guy ever becomes notable other than ex-officio or for this single scandal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I hate voting against an article because so much work is devoted to creating content and so often, articles are nominated for AfD because of long-running disputes. But I fully agree with the nominator in this case. WP:BLP1E states Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. In this case, the article states He generated ongoing national news… yet there are precious few citations in that article (none that I could find in a quick scan, actually) that link to a national source such as CNN. In fact, both citations to that last quote were to a local newspaper and the local CBS affiliate, cbs6albany. This subject, while no-doubt a big deal in Schenectady, has made barely a blip in the national news—let alone “ongoing” national news. I would say it is demonstrably a “single event” of a “low-profile individual” and, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, does not belong on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Greg's comment is off the mark in a couple of respects. First, it shouldn't matter to us how much time the editor put into the article. If the article fails our criteria, it should be deleted, without fanfare or regrets. Second, I don't agree with Greg's dismissive treatment of the refs in this article. I note with some concern that he renders a conclusory opinion after having only engaged, by his own admission, in "a quick scan" of the refs. I do think it is incumbent upon those who comment at an AfD to engage in a more complete review, before submitting their opinions. Opinions expressed here that have as their foundations only "quick scans" suffer from a paucity of information that ineluctably leads to a less-than-fully-informed opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator and in agreement with Greg L. It is relevant that Schenectady is a small town, that we would not even be considering the article were it not for the WP:BLP1E single event, and that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the event itself. (We quite properly don't have an article about the arsonist.) Small town bureaucrat under fire for not dealing correctly with an employee issue isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia entry. If this guy runs for governor someday, or something of that nature, then perhaps an article could become viable. But as it is, he's simply not notable but for this controversy. (I am commenting as an ordinary user here, not making a decree or anything wild like that!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Our article says he controls a budget of $161m. Would we have an article about a CEO of a company with a turnover of $161m? Probably not unless the CEO was notable for some other reason (and this guy doesn't seem to be). I think the same principle applies to the public sector. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changed to Delete, as per my comments generally and their logical consequence for an opinion, though I appreciate the work referencing this subject. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I was going to suggest deletion as nothing strikes me as particularly remarkable about this person or his life. But to show appreciation for the meticulous work in referencing this article (I've been doing some of this lately and it takes a lot of work), and to prevent a pile-on, I am suggesting keep. I'm sure any admin would be happy to restore this article if it is deleted and should Eric Ely surprise on the upside in the future by actually doing something significant. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the same way, Stephen; we seldom want to see any editor who has labored to produce encyclopedic prose have it flushed. I go to bat whenever this is done out of spite due to a long-runniing feud between editors. But there is no Wikipedia guideline that grandfathers an article just because the editor did a fine job on an otherwise non-notable subject. I do, however, very much admire your having the backbone to weigh in here after Jimbo and stand up and speak your mind for what you think is the *right* thing. Greg L (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it's not popular, but I'm not here to court popularity. In a case like this, I prefer to change the editor rather than the edits. One good editor can make thousands of good edits. I think this editor already knows that other articles like this are at risk, and he will take this into account when deciding which articles to create and improve in future. On the other hand, a demoralised and disenchanted editor helps no one. If everyone was as tough dispassionate as me, I'd be happier with deletion. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I was pleasantly surprised by how thorough this article was and happy to see that it didn't just revolve around the scandal. It's also well sourced and pretty well written. I made some wording changes to be more correct to the terminology used in the education system in NY. While I see the points for delete, I think this is pretty grey. If nothing else, this is actually a really good source for information on the case and much more centralized and complete than you'll find in any news article in the local papers, which only talk about Raucci. As far as I'm concerned, it's been successfully rescued. upstateNYer 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to full keep per User:Epeefleche. upstateNYer 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is very well-referenced now and I believe it goes beyond the original event and has sources that are about outside information. Silverseren^C 00:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. BLP1E is clearly inapplicable. This seems to be one of the least understood guidances, and I often wonder whether those who invoke it have read past the phrase "one event". First, BLP1E does not apply--because, as can be clearly seen, it is not the case that "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". The article clearly reflects RS coverage with regard to more than one event. That, by itself, is enough to get one out from under application of BLP1E. Second, if we judge whether a person is "low-profile" by the number of articles in RSs that discuss the person, it is also not the case (I would submit) that the "person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". He had RS coverage before the main event discussed in his article, he now has the highest-level office he has ever had (superintendent of New York's ninth-largest city's school system), and we should therefore expect future coverage at least as great if not greater than that he had before the "one event". IMHO, the RS coverage of Ely and of his actions and statements reflects notability consistent with that called for by our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable for more than just one event, as Epefleeche convincly demonstrates by reference to the proper interpretation of BLP1E. This guy would merit an article even without the controversies. But the one event concerns do need to be addressed: I would suggest paring back the controversial sections of the article. A single section of three to four paragraphs would suffice. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Outback the koala (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I vote delete for marginally notable BLPs, especially ones that contain negative info, this is at best marginally notable. Sole Soul (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Have the people praising the sourcing for this article actually read the sources? From what I can see, none of the sources that discuss Ely in any detail are independent. In fact all of them appear to be affiliated with the Schenectady school district. The bulk of the rest mention Ely's name once or twice, but are generally only passing mentions that note he is the superintendent of the district where "issue a" or "issue b" is being discussed. At least two are from blogs associated with newspapers, and one is an editorial. Outside from the pages supplied by his employer, the only sources that discuss him in depth are related to the arson controversy. This fails WP:Politician and the sourcing is dreadful. This needs to be deleted. AniMate 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, AniMate, the cited sources do not support the assertion in the third paragraph of the article’s lead that reads He [Eric Ely] generated ongoing national news. There is this UPI article, picked up by Moldova.org, but it wasn’t about the Ely scandal proper, and was instead about how “lesser charges” were possible in the case of the teen who dressed up as a woman to take the test. As for news coverage about Ely and the scandal around the allegations that he knew about the criminal allegations, the links are predominantly from local newspapers and TV affiliates like the Albany Times Union, WAMC, WTEN, WRGB, and the Daily Gazette for Schenectady, NY.

    Though this scandal is no-doubt a big deal in the Schenectady area and is on the lips of town locals as they socialize, the article clearly needs citations that properly support the necessary claim that the scandal saw significant and prolonged coverage in the national news. Failing that, it requires quite a stretch of the imagination to think that this subject has the widespread (outside of the Schenectady area) notability required for inclusion in an internationally read, English-language encyclopedia.

    It certainly would have bee nicer if the shepherding author of this article had better understood Wikipedia’s policies before devoting so much effort on this; his or her efforts would have been far better utilized elsewhere on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia’s policies permitted this sort of story, I might have put my story about Murder on Mica Peak (a big deal locally) in mainspace. Greg L (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • LOL. If I wrote up the things that had happened in my life (so far), my only defence against libel would be that people wouldn't believe they could have actually happened! Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this isn't the place for policy debate, I will point out that notability guidelines here are a bit hypocritical. While some will interpret policy to support this article's deletion, Wikipedia is actually the best place to host information on locally important topics and subjects, and this is how I've been using it lately. I just recently got Joseph H. Allen to GA level, yet nobody outside Rensselaer County (or even just the town of Brunswick) would have even the slightest interest in the man; however he is historically significant to locals. Whereas we have a superintendent here that has garnered (without question) state-wide notoriety for this issue (this issue has been everywhere for me). Basically, what I'm saying is because this is "controversial", we get a significant amount of concern on the article where as other people not notable but to a town level are completely left alone. Just an observation on my part. upstateNYer 21:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the point exactly. If an article is the least bit controversial, then the people that are on the side that dislike it will come out and, almost always, try to vote delete or break down the keep votes with whatever policies they can, because they don't like the subject. That's how things work on Wikipedia and why I feel that it is one of the major failings of making the project work. Everyone here is biased one way or another, instead of looking at the subject neutrally and rating it based on the sources and how policy would apply to those sources.

      And I also have no doubt that the fact that Jimbo voted on here is swaying people's votes, either one way or another. He is too important of a person for his vote not to influence the AfD as a whole. I know he isn't doing it on purpose, but the fact remains that anything he does in a discussion like this drastically curves the result. It's inevitable.

      I am also rather suspicious about the fact that it was Guy, who voted Delete here, that informed Jimbo about this. It is not enough to be called canvassing, but it is still highly suspicious. Silverseren^C 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • The fact that Wikipedia may or may not be the correct place to host articles of people with limited national appeal or the fact that Guy left a note on Jimbo's page do anything to make the sourcing on this acceptable. The only sources that discuss Eric Ely in depth are hosted by his employer. Everything else is boils down to tangential mentions in articles about other things. AniMate 22:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's good to have someone of Jimbo's experience in the debate. And it's implausible in the extreme that he would bias his view because anyone asked him his opinion - even someone so illustious as JzG. And of course, loads of people read Jimbo's talk page, so this is hardly a very directed canvass. Please address the issues with the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I'm concerned, public school districts in New York State are reliable sources. Most will host information (that is correct, legal, and indisputable) that other RSs will not. My district, for example, is small, so little mention is ever made in any local newspapers. Schenectady, thankfully, has its own paper, so its district is covered in more detail, however nothing can compare to district newsletters and the district website when it comes to information on a school district and its dealings. Obviously an issue so specific (reliable sources relating to New York public school districts) isn't covered here by policy, however, take it from an expert that these institutions are the most transparent in New York State government and their information is more than reliable. upstateNYer 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In your expert opinion, are school districts independent third party sources? They may be honest, but I'm fairly certain in this case they are not independent or a third party source. AniMate 03:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This, unfortunately, is where the policies of Wikipedia impinge upon its own progress. Unfortunately, most times, school district related information (at least in New York) comes only from the school district itself. If these policies are to be followed to the letter, our coverage of the topic will be disparagingly incomplete. upstateNYer 03:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If the information is notable, won't independent third parties pick it up? This is part of Wikipedia's notability-testing infrastructure. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's my point, that local information is many times not picked up. I'm not questioning that he's at least notable on a state level for the scandal, but his general biography won't really be picked up because his law-abiding history isn't exactly newsworthy, however it is encyclopedic (and necessary) in the article. I'm pretty impressed the Bearian was able to find as much as he did. That said, try to write an article on a mid-size to small school district in New York without using sources from the district itself. In general, it's a flaw in our policies and is much more general than just BLP. upstateNYer 23:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've created the article Schenectady City School District. Unfortunately, most of the best information is currently not available because the New York State Education Department's website on school report cards is down (and has been for a month) while they update last year's stats. Not sure why they have to take the site down to upload new documents, but it seems they prefer this backwards system. Will be updating accordingly a bit later. There was a bit of a scandal by a board member last summer in which he (and his wife, who's a teacher at the school) had pictures posted on Facebook of them doing kegstands at their son's graduation party. It's an interesting district, to say the least. upstateNYer 18:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment UpstateNYer: Good job on Joseph H. Allen. Allen is dead and is not covered under WP:BLP1E. Is that fair? I’m not seeing hypocrisy here. Deciding what is sufficiently notable and encyclopedic is a bit like I know it when I see it, where U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart pointed out that is rather difficult at times to *define* hard-core pornography, but added “I know it when I see it.” In this case, Joseph H. Allen is a now-dead, historical figure. When I look at that wood-cutting-like picture and read the article’s lead, it strikes me as an encyclopedic article that is well done. It’s difficult to buttress such an opinion by citing existing Wikipedia policies. But let me give this example: If we had an article on—say—some city councilman who was caught dressed in drag in freeway restroom engaged in lewd conduct with someone, and a policeman let him off because of who he was, that might very well be big, scandalous news somewhere (but not nation wide). Moreover, more people will likely know about the city councilman in drag it than will ever know about Joseph H. Allen. Like Justice Potter, if I use my old *common sense-o-meter*, I can tell that Joseph H. Allen is an article that is a welcome addition to Wikipedia and rightly belongs in a fine encyclopedia; the dude wearing nylons and a bra inside a rest stop outside of Walla Walla Washington doesn’t. If some future wikipedian wants to write about the guy 115 years after he died, then—for some reason—it might be encyclopedic then. Greg L (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So the moment the guy drops dead, this article, should it be deleted, could be restored? Is there a time limit as to when it would be safe to rewrite the article? In time, this scandal will still be locally notable, and it's most definitely going to be a learning situation for the state and how school boards and school districts run (see Roslyn School District on Long Island, the after effects of which led all school board members in the state to have to have 6 hours of training to stay on the job - something that should have been required starting 50 years ago). That's why I have minor issues with a number of the policies here. That's where I see the hypocrisy in some ways. upstateNYer 01:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah… pretty much. The key is the “LP” in WP:BLP. If he drops dead and, 120 years from now, some wikipedian who zooms around standing atop a Back To the Future hoverboard digs up some info on Ely and marvels at how corrupt our society was back in these times (or fallout/plutonium-free it was), and thinks the subject is instructive and notable, it might well one-day be an encyclopedic topic in 2130—just as Joseph H. Allen is today. Right now, the Ely affair is clearly newsworthy and of intense local interest. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone the Schenectady Daily Gazette. Greg L (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually WP:BLP1E, which is more accurately referred to as WP:BIO1E, doesn't distinguish between the living and the dead. That's why we don't have articles about non-notable murder victims. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Though, with most people, the likelihood they will generate future RS coverage by their actions that raises their profile -- a consideration under WP:BLP1E -- tends to dip slightly after they expire.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't really answer my question though. You keep referencing 100 years from now. I'm not. Once he's dead, it's no longer a BLP. What is policy in that case? Is there a min time period to wait before we can have at the article writing again? The fact that he's alive doesn't really take away from the fact that he seems notable to me. The difference between pulse and no pulse shouldn't dictate the difference between article and no article. upstateNYer 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• UpstateNYer, there appear to be two to four governing policies. Here are links that take you to the precise, salient verbiage: WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability. The objective is to avoid filling up Wikipedia with current events unless they receive persistent national or worldwide coverage.

  Note our Lloyd R. Woodson article. It survived this AfD because—in part—it was clear that this claim in the article: …received national attention… was true and was supported by evidence in the form of copious national citations spanning quite a period of time. I suggest you visit the Woodson AfD and study the arguments used there to defend it; perhaps some will apply favorably to this case. Please take particular note of the 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC) post by Fiftytwo thirty as it lays out a thoughtful list of tests the article passed.

  Be mindful though, that an earlier incarnation of the Lloyd R. Woodson article failed to survive this first AfD because—at that time—it did not demonstrably pass the tests of WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability.

  Ely’s keeling over and assuming room temperature is not the key, enabling distinction here. In all likelihood, the “Ely incident”, a hundred years after he dies, will still not be considered to be a notable event worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia in ca. 2145. The only way for Ely to get into Wikipedia now, that I can see, is for some new event surrounding the scandal to blow up onto the national stage, or for him to become notable for something else. Greg L (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would debate your last sentiment and send you back to my reference to the Roslyn School District above. The State Ed Department is very much a reactionary group. Laws and Commissioner's regulations may very well be written to keep this from happening in the future. upstateNYer 23:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Up here in the upper left-hand corner of the country, I’ll keep an eye peeled for such a development on the national news. Once again, I genuinely hate voting “delete” on these things; you and others did a good job. Happy editing in the future. Greg L (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The news coverage indicates that this is a newsworthy event, but I don't think it is an encyclopedic topic. Peacock (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That news coverage you refer to -- do you believe the sources that it appears in are not reliable sources? Or are not independent of Ely? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment References to WP:POLITICIAN are in my mind irrelevant to this discussion. The subject of the article is not a politician and never has been. Superintendents in New York are chosen by their respective boards of education, in a similar way that university presidents are chosen by a board of trustees or that a CEO is chosen by a board of directors. They are not politically appointed positions nor are they elected positions. The board of ed is a collection of elected individuals from a given district, however the process is non-political. No political parties are represented and the board members are not paid. They serve as volunteers and the superintendents serve as CEOs of their districts. upstateNYer 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I don't understand at all why that policy is being referenced by so many people. It has absolutely nothing to do with the article. He's not holding any sort of political position. School superintendant is not political. Silverseren^C 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being guilty of restating what others have said, this person does not satisfy Wikipedia's well-defined notability guidelines. In simply doing his job as the superintendent of a school district, there has been controversy that is related to the district, not Ely per se. I am impressed with the number of references, however almost all of them deal with the district, not Ely. Truthanado (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant public figure, head of a major school district, ample coverage in press and other sources. He crossed over from being a 1-event person when the coverage extended to his job search, which reflects, IMO, a strong interest in him personally on the part of the popular press. Ray^Talk 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Decent article, well sourced, and not about a politician so half the comments here are invalid. Easily passes notability - no more or less notable than many non-politicians, like Jim Wales for example, who also has an article yet is only famous for one thing. Weakopedia (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales is of course famous internationally. Eric Ely appears not to be widely known. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ely appears to be well known in Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio, and Masachusetts. What more do you want, Kansas? Bearian (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice of you to ask ;-) One concern was that your work would be wasted, but with the Wikinews idea, this is not an issue. What I want in any article (and a BIO in particular) is a subject which generates sufficient ongoing interest to ensure the article can't be corrupted while no one is looking. My concerns in this particular case are that his publicity relates to his job, and not to himself. If he takes a lower profile job (he has apparently been considering moving), will there be any interest in him any more? If someone vandalises the article, will anyone notice? Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the scandal is not going away anytime soon - the coverage continued today and he is the issue in the campaign culminating in May. Secondly, I know that I am watching this article, and I am sure that others, are too. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - a good AfD debate is good for that. But what about in 5 years time? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the families of the four girls who committed suicide due to bullying in Ely's schools will recall him in five years. I think Steve Raucci will remember him while he sits in prison five years from now. I suspect, from my experience as a litigator, that the lawsuits against the SCSD will still be dragging on for years to come. The candidates running "against him" now will be up for re-eelction in 2015. Once notable, a person is always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• @Streater--I said above that I don't see this !vote as a policy question, but rather as the application of existing policy to the article at hand. I fear your suggestion, as interesting as it is, takes us off course. It doesn't appear to me to be an application of existing policy, but rather a suggestion as to a change in policy. This isn't the place for that, I would submit. If you do want to change policy in that manner, the policy guideline would be the place to go. And if you would do so, I would suggest that--instead of substituting your and other editors' guesses as to how many views the page will have in x years' time, you use real-world view info (as in, if the page has not been viewed by x viewers in y weeks, then it should be deleted). At this AfD, however, I would hope that you would adhere to existing policy, and not vote !delete for reasons other than non-conformity to existing policies.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason I state reasons for my views is so the closing Admin can give them due weight. I do feel that, like the Bill of Rights, policy is not exhaustively defined on those pages. I take the point above about timescales, and the usual looking backwards nature of my approach. There is of course a difference between notability and notoriety. We wouldn't want to become a sensationalist tabloid (is that a UK term)? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking you to task for stating your reasons for your views. I find that laudable. With all due respect, though, I believe that reasons not based on existing stated policy should be weighed far less by the closing admin than those based on existing stated policy. Which, I believe, is in accord with policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I still think that out of honesty I have to state my reasons. It is always easier to keep your head down, but where would WP be now if everyone did that? Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, once again. I admire that. And I hope you don't get too lonely, in your travels in these parts.  ;-) --Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I too am surprised by those that talk about applying policy/guidelines regarding politicians to this article about a non-politician while at the same time I see AfDs regarding mayors (an actual political position) close-out as Keep even when they are mayor's of cities of smaller population than that covered by the Schenectady School District (one city I saw was 50,000). I'd like to point out that the Schenectady City School District is the second largest school district (and largest city school district) in the 1 million+ person Capital District of the state of NY, I'd be surprised if it wasnt in the top 20 largest school districts in entire state. Would the mayor of a city of 75,000 people be put up for deletion? Would the sources be any better? Probably not, and those mayor articles I see routinely being kept are heavily skewed to local newspapers and the city website and press releases. Please tell me what I'm missing that makes a mayor inherently notable but a superintendant not, even though those in favor of deleting here have been banding around the politician guidelines.Camelbinky (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even without the one news event that got massive news media coverage, this person would still be considered notable. He gets coverage for other things, before the scandal took place. Dream Focus 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is journalism/blogging, not encyclopedia writing. --JN466 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have not included, in the article, any of our opinions. Every sentence or clause is referenced to secondary sources. How is that journalism or blogging? Bearian (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all the sources are primary sources, local papers, or blogs. The article is focused on a single controversy, with a disjointed smattering of random mentions of the guy ("In March 2009, Ely contracted with Schenectady mayor Brian Stratton to share fuel services with the city.") which do not help to make the article more encyclopedic, or less in breach of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS, but just make it more odd and stalkery. I am sorry for the work you have put into this, but this is a quite negative article about a marginally notable person, who as far as I can tell hasn't even broken the law, and we should apply Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. --JN466 04:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To my mind, a pretty clear case of BLP1E. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "clear case"? Many of the sources were written before Raucci was convicted in March 2010. Several of the sources are new this week. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from the one event in question, this person doesn't seem to be any more notable than the average school superintendent. I could probably piece together a Wikipedia biography on the local superintendent by digging through isolated articles in the local paper, but that would constitute original research by synthesis. I think we fall into that trap when we synthesize "biographies" on people who have received no real biographical coverage from reliable sources, and who have only been covered in the context of specific incidents in which they were involved or alleged to be involved. *** Crotalus *** 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus, I accept your first argument as legitimate, although we disagree on the outcome of that. Was Ely notable before People v. Raucci? Will he probably be notable in five years from now? I think yes, on both points, as may be seen in the article. Reasonable people can disagree, as noted above, and the closing admin may very well tilt your way. I have never argued that all school superintents are notable, cf. Dr. Edward Costa. On the other hand, I can't see where there is even a sentence of synthesis. Heck, if a student handed this article in to me, I would give him or her a C, because there is hardly a speck of original thought at all. WP:SYNTH concerns piecing together two thoughts, and creating a conclusion from that. Perhaps the only synthesis I can see objectively is the implication that he was considered an expert in budget matters until two months ago. However, I do not think that is much of a stretch. He was called to testify before the New York State Assembly Committee on Education. He created a presentation about how to get a school budget passed, to share with other school superintendents. The local radio, TV, and newspapers sought him out for his opinion on educational budgets. He made sure the media reported that he disciplined a cheating student in the same National news cycle as the story broke. Ely has spent four years striving to become a well-known figure, an expert on budgets, and has been compensated by his district ($189,000 per annum) in good part for that expertise. I can't see how that is the stretch of thought prohibited by synthesis of sources, but again, some sysop will have to make that decision. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all unusual for superintendents to make six-figure salaries (the local papers in my region report the superintendents in several neighboring districts each make over $200,000 a year, and this is not in an area with a particularly high cost of living). Nor is it unusual for them to do managerial-type stuff. That's what they are there for! Again, I don't see how doing relatively mundane budgetary stuff, which is part of a superintendent's normal job responsibility, is notable. *** Crotalus *** 20:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Crotalus--The main thrust of your rationale for your !vote above was with regard to your assertion of synthesis. Bearian responded to that assertion; rather convincingly I thought. I'm not sure I see your immediately-above comment as responsive to his remarks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2010 (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.