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. Sr13 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulus

[edit]
John Paulus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable individual. The subject's only notability comes from claiming to having had sex once with pop singer Clay Aiken. He might (or might not) have withdrawn the claim recently. The article is thinly-sourced, chiefly from gossip columns. The subject does not appear notable in any lasting fashion. Also, he has begun editing the article and requested that it be deleted. I see no reason to keep it. Will Beback · † · 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)arro[reply]

Delete. Individual is notable only for making a claim in the tabloids. Even the Enquirer, which originally published his claim, has disputed the credibility of statements he has made since. Were everything based on tabloid/gossip sources (all based solely on the individual's claims with no independent verification) to be removed from this entry, there would be nothing left except his ignominious exit from the military in 1997. This entry should be deleted. -Jmh123 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI: some disputed material has just been removed by Ken Arromdee. Some comments in the following discussion prior to that deletion may not make sense unless edit history is consulted. -Jmh123 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More material has been removed by another user this morning, following statements by Ken Arromdee in "talk". I wonder if it would not have been better to just let this AFD process take its course rather than intervening as Ken Arromdee did. -Jmh123 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There you go again. The National Enquirer DID NOT say that my claims were in question. You are rewriting history. Bias are you? That's the problem with this particular article it is skewed and infested with Claymate opinion and NO fact. And reference my military exit. At least I served my country. --JohnPaulus 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Scoop, the Enquirer did "question statements you have made since" just as I said. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The National Enquirer NEVER questioned the validity of the allegations as you have cleverly tried to insinuate. It's imperative that you keep to the facts rather than mending them to suit you and your agenda.--JohnPaulus 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Enquirer did not specifically question the validity of your allegations, they publically questioned YOU as a reliable source, stating that you were “completely distorting” the story of your interaction with them. Triage 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "keep" vote below, the sources are the NY Post gossip column (Page Six), the NY Daily News gossip column, the MSNBC.com (per below, under Cyrus Andiron, that's a website, not a broadcast network) gossip column (the Scoop). The People reference is not related to Paulus, but to a frivilous lawsuit launched against Aiken over an unauthorized biography that he didn't endorse. -Jmh123 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability: By definition, gossip columns report rumors and allegations, not facts. The Post and the Daily News can and do report that 'the Enquirer said that so and so alleges...'. Page Six & the Scoop are places for gossip and rumor, not "fact checked" news. Google articles about the Post's Page Six writer caught shaking down a millionaire last year--if he'd pay a quarter of a million, they'd stop printing lies about him. To step outside the world of celebrities, how about this one on acquisition rumors? [1] In the linked article you have the Post vs the Wall Street Journal with warring financial rumors. -Jmh123 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


But for you convenience you cite Realityblurred as an independent surce that did nothing, but regurgitate information provided to them by Claymates? They never called nor did they attempt to verify the facts with me. Sounds like a double standard and reinforces my argument that there have been a few that have compromised the integrity of Wikipedia by using it has a propaganda tool to promote an agenda.--JohnPaulus 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about whether something is true it's about whether something is notable. Unless you're suggesting that everything in Category:Hoaxes and Category:Urban legends be deleted, arguing that something be deleted because it's a rumor has no foundation in Wikipedia policy. Whether Paulus ever met Aiken or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there are reliable sources reporting on the allegations, and dismissing reliable sources on the basis of their being gossip columns is ridiculous. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gossip is gossip, Otto. It isn't "unquestionably reliable." Paulus, in an entry full of gossip, it is only fair to cite gossip on Aiken's behalf as well as yours. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If you can cite something that says that gossip columns that appear in fact-checked publications or are broadcast over the fact-checked MSNBC don't qualify as reliable, then pony it up. Otherwise the dismissal of reliable sources stinks of WP:BIAS. Otto4711 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, the MSNBC broadcast network is not cited in the entry in question; please check your own facts. -Jmh123 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you asserting that the New York Post and MSNBC have fact-checked their gossip columns like they (are presumed to) do for their actual journalism? I don't have firsthand knowledge but I have very strong doubts about this. The Post has a horoscope section too; are you asserting that their horoscopes meet WP:RS because they appear in that paper? Delete per Guy, per WP:BLP, per WP:ATT, and so forth. Barno 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one were writing an article on Astrology and the continued interest of the American public in it, one could certainly use the horoscopes as a reliable source to document that interest. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gossip, by its definition is nothing but rumors. Also, the alleged encounter could only be verified by Aiken, who refused to comment and Mr. Paulus, who claimed the encounter happened, then retracted, then claimed he never retracted. I'm going out on a limb here, but that doesn't seem too reliabe to me. Just because a gossip columnist chooses to publish his story, that doesn't make it any more true or reliable. I would point you to Jmh123's comments above about reliable sources. Otto, you continue to amuse. --Cyrus Andiron 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continue to either misread or misrepresent Wikipedia policy. Do you have credible evidence that the Post or MSNBC allows reports in any of its outlets without a fact-checking process in place? It sounds like you're making assumptions about what these media outlets are and aren't doing that fly in the face of standard journalism and legal practice. The truth of Paulus's allegations is irrelevant to the existence of them, and there are reliable sources that attest to the existence of them. Something does not have to be true to be on Wikipedia. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the review process which led to this AfD began two months ago, before the subject came on the scene.[2][3] I think we'd presumed the subject would want to keep the article so when he indicated he also wanted to delete it there was no longer any reason to wait. -Will Beback · † · 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material should be deleted from the Aiken entry as well. It is simply non-encyclopaedic. FNMF 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know that will never happen. Allon Fambrizzi 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
I don't believe that perpetual inclusion of malicious, controversial, insensitive, unsubstantiated non-encyclopaedic sexual allegations is a foregone conclusion. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP at Aiken as well as here. Furthermore, the failure to apply policy by editors at one entry does not justify deciding not to apply policy at another entry. This material does not belong in any genuine encyclopaedia, neither under the heading of Paulus, nor under the heading of Aiken. It is up to editors to enforce policy, rather than come up with a "fair balance" on the grounds policy will not be enforced at either entry. FNMF 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about coming up with a "fair balance" (your term, not mine), it's about developing policies that are realistic in the first place. This information will survive at the "controversies about Clay Aiken" page and at the main Clay Aiken page (why don't you try and delete it and see what happens?), but the John Paulus page will be gone, with the result that the controversy revolves around Aiken, not Paulus. Allon Fambrizzi 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
I appreciate the logic of your argument, but as the retraction has now been deleted from the Paulus page by Ken Arromdee as a violation of Paulus's WP:BLP, and he will brook no discussion on the matter, your argument is moot. Paulus gets a pass and his allegations stick to Aiken whether the Paulus entry as now written is deleted or not. -Jmh123 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. There's no reason that material can't be deleted from the Aiken page too, and tabloid-style allegations should be. Ken Arromdee 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see it happen. Ain't there for lack of trying: See Mediation Cabal Case plus 13 archived pages on Talk:Clay Aiken. -Jmh123

Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

– Jimbo Wales

AllDone 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened ... Wikipedia is made of articles about things that happen - and if something notable happens - regardless of whether it makes someone else look bad - we have it. That being said, delete due to a lack of notability.danielfolsom 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it most probably did not happen. All that there is to this is one person's story to a tabloid. Absolutely nothing else to substantiate it. Which would make it potentially libel. But in any case - it would be the event that would be notable IF it actually happened, the person in question is not notable enough for an article, and he is requesting that the article be deleted. 66.82.9.103 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danielfolsom said "how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened." The only source for that story is John Paulus and the same John Paulus also retracted the story and said it was a hoax. He then wanted to retract the retraction because he said he was fibbing. There is no verifiable information whatsoever that it did happen. The alleged incident is the only thing that would be notable but there is no evidence that the incident ever occured. AllDone 03:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It makes no difference whether the two actually had sex. What is being discussed is the allegation that they had sex. This allegation is sourced in accordance with every applicable Wikipedia policy and guideline. Something does not have to be true to be in Wikipedia, as the existence of the articles in Category:Hoaxes ably proves. If the article read "Clay Aiken had sex with John Paulus" and they did not have sex, then it might be libelous. But an aricle saying that Paulus claimed to have sex with Aiken is not libelous. Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel. Otto4711 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 said."Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel." Then it must also be reported that he confessed that it was a hoax and the article be moved to Category:Hoaxes. His allegations were published in tabloids and later the tabloids were cited as the source in gossip columns. The gossip columns in People, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and MSNBC are not high quality references.

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

* Verifiability * Neutral point of view (NPOV) * No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

AllDone 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if the article was stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken, then you're right, there would need to be better sourcing than what exists. However, the article is not stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken. It is stating that Paulus said he had sex with Aiken and the sourcing for his statement are solid. Otto4711 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, the question is whether a guy who says he had sex with a celebrity once, who by virtue of the celebrity's notability, not his, got the attention of gossip columns and tabloids for a little while, is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't think he is. -Jmh123 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BLP policy has improved since this article was written. It now includes a caution to use high quality references and to be careful when including biographical material about living persons in other articles. Tabloid and gossip columns certainly cannot be considered high quality. The subject of the article is not himself notable and the article circumvents the policy as it would be applied to Aiken's article. - Maria202 16:19, 10 May 2007 (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