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. Now, I know it's only been five and a half days instead of the usual seven. However, there's reason for an early close;

I believe community consensus is clear - policies such as WP:BLP1E exist for events such as this one. While Mr. Ball's death is tragic, there is no evidence that it will make him historically notable - there are very few usable sources on the matter.
That being said, my sympathies go out to the family and supporters.
This deletion does not mean that a minority viewpoint is being suppressed, as is being alleged by some. We are not censoring anybody. We're simply abiding by policy.
As others have said, the option does exist to re-create this article at a later date if it gains widespread attention and is support by policy. Unfortunately, we do not have a crystal ball, and do not have foresight of such a development, so the article will remain deleted unless some notability arises.

Thanks, m.o.p 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas James Ball

[edit]
Thomas James Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT. There is no lasting or historical significance of this event. The coverage has been limited to local news, and there are few GHits. Singularity42 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Historical significance: This is the ninth act of political self immolation in modern United States history. All other US political self immolations have wikipedia pages.
(2) No Censorship: This political self immolation was made in protest to perceived injustices both in written law and in the application of law. The laws and legal practices that the self immolation protests are actively promoted by a community with a large and influential wikipedia presence. To delete a minority opinion that challenges the prevailing point of view is contrary to the wikipedia no censorship policy WP:NOTCENSORED.
(3) Media coverage: Coverage of the event has been limited, consistent with histrical precedent when political activists defend unpolular/minority points of view. However, many such minority points of view (including feminism itself) eventually came to become influential and main stream.
(4) Importance to a minority: Multiple organizations which lobby for recognition of points of view which are contrary to the prevailing legal practices have voiced their support for Mr. Ball's actions.
In summary, although the event constitutes a protest against a majority point of view, there exists a significant and growing minority point of view that challenges the established dogma. In so far as the "self immolation" event is tied into the evolving national discussion about gender and equality under the law, it is both historically important and serves the purpose of recognizing the existence of alternatives to the prevailing points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I do not believe the points you raise address the criteria in WP:EVENT. Specifically:
  1. All other US political self immolations have wikipedia pages. That's an unproveable assertion. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability. If the political self-immolation was not notable, it would not have an article. Nor is there a list anywhere of every person's suicide for political reasons, no matter how non-notable. Most of the articles I looked at had coverage from numberous signficant secondary sources. Finally, if there exists one or two articles that don't meet the criteria, that cannot be used to justify this article not meeting the criteria. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
  2. To delete a minority opinion that challenges the prevailing point of view is contrary to the wikipedia no censorship policy. That is not why this article is being deleted. I couldn't care less about family law issues in the U.S. I have no interest, no conflict of interest, and I am objective. My nomination is simply on the basis that there has been very little coverage of this incident, and a politically-motivated suicide it not inherently notable.
  3. However, many such minority points of view (including feminism itself) eventually came to become influential and main stream. And if this gets significant coverage and becomes notable, then it might get an article. But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political expression. See WP:NOT.
  4. Multiple organizations which lobby for recognition of points of view which are contrary to the prevailing legal practices have voiced their support for Mr. Ball's actions. Has this been verified by third-party reliable sources? Otherwise, that doesn't help this discussion. Might not change whether this is notable, but the assertion cannot even be considered without it being properly verified.
  5. An open letter has been sent to the president of the United States by an organization with a membership exceeding 10,000 individuals. Lots of organizaitons send letters to the President. That's not notable. This last reply was in response to a fifth point raised above which was subsequently removed after I wrote this. Singularity42 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A list of all political self immolations is available on wikipedia List of political self-immolations. The only political self immolation without a wikipedia page is Gregory Levey, and the event nonetheless has a wiki stub, implying that a full wiki page is desirable. A political self immolation is intrinsically very different from any other kind of suicide, because of the historcal perception that the act is so exceptionally difficult to endure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not !vote multiple times. I have striked the second !vote. Singularity42 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[List of political self-immolations is not a list of all political self-immolations. As per the opening sentence, it is a list of notable political self-immolations. It is illogical to argue that there is a list of all political self-immolations - non-notable ones by definition are generally not noted. Singularity42 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked from editing, therefore, !vote is stricken. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —Qrsdogg (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 173.48.112.20 has made no other edits.

KEEP The political self-immolation of the man in Tunisia that sparked the Jasmine Revolution (after being publicly slapped by the female official for questionning her power to deny him his livelihood and ability to support his children as a fruit seller) also did not receive press attention for several weeks following the event. Moreover, the US Supreme Court currently has before it a case (Turner v. Rogers) in which the High Court will determine whether unemployed fathers in the US may be jailed repeatedly, for up to one year on each occasion, without benefit of an attorney, just because they do not have the money to pay child support. That is precisely the situation Mr. Ball faced. This article should be cross-referenced with the Wikipedia article covering Turner v. Rogers and a Wikipedia article regarding the practice of jailing of indigent fathers in the US (see the Law Review article subtitled: The Quiet Return of Debtors' Prison), not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.32.130 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) — 38.111.32.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: I don't fully understand how these edit discussions work. I apologize in advance for my luddite tendencies. However, I cannot see how this article about Tom Ball could be deleted. It strikes me as neutral and involving very important content. Please do not delete it and let Tom Ball fall into anonymity. Whether you agree with his actions or not, he made a very powerful social statement that deserves to at least be witnessed before being individually judged. As a father going through divorce and who has been unfairly kept from his adored 6-year-old daughter (thankfully, in this incidence, the courts appear to understand my situation and are trying to grant me more time with my daughter), there is a very clear societal and systemic bias against fathers, often regardless of the facts. Many of us are simply guilty until proven innocent, and meanwhile, despite the fact that some of us are loving house dads, we are missing the most precious years of our children's lives. It's heartbreaking and tortuous. Believe me.

-- OK, Will do. Sorry if I've not done this well. The interface is a bit daunting to some of us.


Keep: Evidence of spreading social significance (Tom Ball's act discussed in respected and well-read blog of James Howard Kunstler) : http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/06/man-down.html


Update on google hits (by author, in support of keeping the page): Initial google hits were limited for "Thoamas James Ball". Currently, the number of google hits stands at 8,400,000. This is significant evidence that this event is highly relevant. By comparison, a google search for James Whitney Bulger results in 168,000 google hits. The event of the capture of Bulger is the front page news item at this moment on cnn.com, even though it has generated only a tiny fraction of the amount of interest that exists in the Thomas James Ball event. Absence of coverage by the main-stream media does not indicate absence of national significance. Note that James J. Bulger has a long wikipedia page, further evidence that the Thomas James Ball event should remain. The presence of interested/non-neutral pro-keep parties in this discussion (sometimes called sock/meat puppets) should not be used as a justification for removing the Thomas James Ball page. The only proposed argument for removal of the page (lack of significance of event) has been rebutted by (1) the exponential growth in the impact that this event continues to have in the blogosphere and in non-traditional media outlets, as well as by (2) the very large number of google hits (fixed in response to comment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get 95,500 hits for "Thomas James Ball" and 4,260,000 for "Alexander Hamilton". There is no such person as "James Whitney Bulger". It is James "Whitey" Bulger. Whitey is a nickname. His article has existed since 2004, so is not dependent on the news of his recent arrest. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and forums do not meet the criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 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.
  1. ^ http://www.army.mil/article/43038/Army_releases_report_on_suicide__high_risk_behavior/
  2. ^ http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/164827/20110617/thomas-ball-self-immolate-child-support.htm
Category