Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kernell


 * 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  redirect to Sarah Palin email hack. Non-admin closure.  Jujutacular  T · C 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

David Kernell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Person is not notable for anything else besides the Sarah Palin email hack incident. Relevant content is already in said Sarah Palin email hack article, and it seems like the creator of the article is not intent on any redirect since the creator took it upon his/her self to create a POV-fork spinout of said Sarah Palin email hack article. –MuZemike 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The authors of "Sarah Palin email hack” created many empty articles with different versions of David Kernell's name and redirected them to the Palin article. Additionally, a short article with Mike Kernell's name, his father, was as similarly created and redirected. This violation of Wiki policy essentially brands David Kernell with a onetime incident. Sighting these concerns, I attempted to delete these redirects, only to have the changes reversed and harassing warnings issued. Currently, when one Googles David Kernell, the only Wiki article to appear is the "Sarah Palin email hack". This is a notably slanted article that barks of political enhancement.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —–MuZemike 07:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —–MuZemike 07:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sarah Palin email hack, along with David kernell. Per WP:BLP1E, which states:  Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a 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. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. There is nothing to suggest that this man is notable beyond this event.  Unfortunately User:Constitutionguard, who is somewhat new, has been edit warring in violation of this policy to try to create a new article at David Kernell and also at David kernell.  His logic -- that it's not appropriate for this person to be unduly associated with the event itself -- is sound, but his solution isn't, since Kernell isn't notable enough beyond the event to support an article entirely on his own.  The vast majority of the information that can be said about this man is related to the event in some way and our BLP policy is clear.  &mdash; e. ripley\talk 11:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, I believe that an article about David Kernell is valid not because he is associated with the email incident but rather in his continuing legal battle involving a number of serious constitutional issues that surround the incident, subsequent trial and upcoming appeals. The incursion is finished but lingering constitutional issues remain. His upcoming appeals of these issues will probably take years, but they will be the basis for digital case law. These issues include Fourth amendment search rights of computers, district court's legal ability to subpoena email from outside its district boundaries, the concept of ownership of an email account, and the applicably of present law to digital information. Lack of proper support, has prevented creating an article covering these issues, as in the past, the main stream media frequently inadequately reported testimony. Now, the David Kernell article uses the email incursion as a starting point. Its present content explains simply and briefly the incident, and refers readers  to the palin article. Appeal of his conviction is pending and court documents will be available next week along with digitized versions of various legal opinions to support development this new article. It is a work in progress and by no means compete. My hope is to support it directly with court documentation as much as possible. I agree with the deletion of  all empty articles created solely to redirect to the palin article, such as “ David C Kernell”, “ david kernell “ and others along with preventing  any future redirects of his name to the "sarah palin email hack" article. I suppose an new article entitled the "Constitutional Challenges of the David Kernell Prosecution" may be a better title for the present David Kernell article, and any variations of his name or his father's name should be redirected there.Constitutionguard (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the legal battle and constitutional issues are/become notable and receive adequate third party coverage they are better suited in the email hack article. There is no rationale to say that such issues are specific to the individual in any notable way. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The palin email hack article is supported by news media reports that are generally infused with a political point of view. The entire article reads like a Sarah Palin commercial. I concur that the name of David Kernell should only be an article if he does something more than stumble into an unsecured email of a famous person. It is the legal issues that set him apart from the palin article. The federal government spent massive amounts of money on this case. He was never offered a plea bargain and now faces the maximum penalty for a crime that is rarely prosecuted. If he goes to jail, many will consider him a political prisoner. This will be of public interest, discussion and legal evaluation. The scope of the palin article is too narrow. Again, let us delete all his name variations and start a new article using court documents as support and call it, Constitutional Challenges of the David Kernell Prosecution, or some other name of equal nature.Constitutionguard (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC) The following is added from the discussion page of David Kernell- Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your statement contains lots of ifs and supposition that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Once the trial is done and there is some kind of legal or analytical scholarship that meets WP:RS then perhaps that's something an article here could explore, but for right now it's just a lot of original research and opinion, neither of which are appropriate here. Additionally, court records are primary soruces, which are inferior to secondary sources, generally speaking, per our sourcing policy -- precisely because there's too much opportunity for using them to reach novel syntheses of information that's not backed up by third-party sources. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the potential for the trial to have some kind of constitutional impact? — e. ripley\talk 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC) One further note: This discussion should really be happening at Sarah Palin email hack, not here, since this is likely to end up being a redirect, per the AFD. I have copied portions of this discussion there. — e. ripley\talk 02:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Check out http://circuit6.blogspot.com/2009/07/computer-searches-fourth-amendment-and.html. Toward the end of the article –“I believe that the Kernell case might present an excellent situation for the Sixth Circuit to address the parameters of the 4thAmendment in the digital age, and the district court's actions in this case bears watching.” And later in the article “Maybe Mr. Kernell's case will give them the opportunity to do so, judging from the nature of his motion to suppress. Regardless, I believe this is an issue that is going to be addressed by higher courts in the immediate future, and the defense practitioner needs to take a second look at warrants that simply identify a 'computer' as the object of the search. POSTED BY RICHARD STRONG AT 9:58 AM. “That is one reference I could quickly come up with. Fact is that the trial is over. So is the email intrusion. The court documents are most factual record we have of what really happened in this complex situation. They are not open to interpretation, they are not novel. What comes from the court documents, the motions and decisions too are factual. The rulings of judges are factual. Unfortunately news reports fall short of correctly reporting the facts, this leads to misunderstanding and possible slander. Constitutionguard (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2010 Constitutionguard (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - clear one event issue, content is forked and duplicated. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:BLP1E. Yworo (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per other editors rationale --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * this is copied from sarah palin email hack article.-


 * Seem as though your narrow interpretation of Wiki purpose stifles information transfer and open discussion. Stay simple ?  Most articles that I read on Wiki would fail that test.  Perhaps you underestimate the level of intelligence of people, or their ability to distinguish fact from political manipulation. The Palin article uses news media account to make factual assertions that just are not true.  The sworn court testimony is the only way to correct these mis reports.  There is little need to elaborate or manipulate testimony.  Why would you limit the truth...in any form ?  The cornerstone of a wiki article is that it is written by the collective.  I am sure that any gross over statements will be edited out by those that have references to support the truth. Constitutionguard (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The following is from David Kernell talk, I am not sure while e. ripley does not want to discuss the deletion here. But I am being bold and adding it here because I think those that are judging the deletion should read it. From David Kernell talk- (UTC)Constitutionguard (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Got your message about not copying things over to the David Kernell discussion delete page. I though I was helping since you were copying the discussion to the Sarah palin email hack page. Sorry. I am not having this discussion in terms of editing so I will confine my comments in the future to the deletion talk. Thanks for correcting me. Constitutionguard (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I found this under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page-" "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." I believe that the blog I sited is falls under this definition and should be considered an acceptable source. Constitutionguard (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Per nom. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - clear case of WP:BLP1E and protect the page. Codf1977 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.