Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kokal


 * 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. Black Kite 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

John_Kokal
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previously deleted, non-notable.  Bevin  bell  23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the sources are both blogs and there is lots of commentary that is not cited. I can't find the archive of the previous deletion discussion, if anyone can and post a link would be appreciated.  Bevin  bell  23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time I have attempted to put an entry for John Kokal up on Wikipedia. The last entry was deleted because it was identified as not applicable to Wikipedia, although I was not told the precise reason why.

While this issue is very personal to me, I have tried to write the entry in the Wikipedia form.

Since 2003, most of the articles regarding John Kokal has disappeared from the Internet. Most of the articles that are left are of a conspiratorial nature, which talk about John Kokal and in the same breath talk about how the 9/11 Attacks were done by the US Government itself. For many people it is hard to tell if John Kokal's suicide is the product of a bunch of conspiracy nuts or is a valid subject for being chronicled in a historical medium such as Wikipedia.

I would like at this time to admit that I worked with John Kokal at the Department of State. I have tried to keep original research about him to a minimum in my article. Additionally, and unfortunately, I actually was leaving work about 5 minutes after he jumped off the building. I saw the body down in the stairwell as Diplomatic Security rushed to contain the scene. I continue to have nightmares about it to this day.

To this day, no one has satisfactorily explained to me why he committed suicide. We were quite grief stricken in the weeks after his death as well as very busy because of what was happening in the Middle East. Eventually, John Kokal became an unperson who none of us talked about.

I would very much like this entry to stay in place. I would hope that other people who have facts or information concerning the events surrounding John Kokal's suicide could post them on this Wikipedia Entry, perhaps on the talk page like I have done.

Why is remembering John Kokal so important? When it comes to events such as the the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech there is a huge amount of information concerning why these events took place. If John Kokal's suicide was due to mental illness and/or stress at work, I think this information should be made public so that future employes can learn from this horrible experience. Also, if his suicide was due to mental illness, I think it might be important to know what type of illness it was so that people who have that specific illness think twice about applying for a job in the Intelligence Community or perhaps any position in the Department of State.

My fear is that there is a large file in the depths of Diplomatic Security that has all the facts concerning what happened. Yet, for some reason, it has not been released.

Again, I hope that the entry will be kept as a testament to John Kokal, who was a good man.Bf20204 (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment (Redacted) I must also add that Bevinbell just belittled me on my own talk page, telling me to "not attempt to out me, use sockpuppets, or do other odd things as folks will be watching your edits to make sure this stays an encyclopedia." I never outted Bevinbell in the first place and in light of my history with the Department of State I think that the using "sockpuppets" remark and the "other odd things" remark is demeaning and discriminatory. I sincerely hope that people of a higher level in Wikipedia than Bevinbell keep the John Kokal entry up on wikipedia and watch Bevinbell closely.Bf20204 (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject is not notable. No Ghits in any category. Reference cited in the article is not reliable, apparently focused on conspiracy theories.  Kokal's death, while tragic, is not in itself noteworthy nor is Wikipedia for memorials of friends and loved ones. (GregJackP (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * CommentI just wanted to add an update that I found a reputable news source that did a story on John Kokal, TF1, which is French. I think the slam dunk for keeping the John Kokal entry in Wikipedia would be the Washington Post Obituary. I'm going to attempt to look for it and may actually spend my own funds to get it from the Washington Post's archives. The references that I made to DS calling John Kokal "The HST Jumper" comes from some documents that I received from a FOIA Request. I don't know how I can site them on Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated.Bf20204 (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP, according to your thesis for deletion, shouldn't wikipedia also delete Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, the Binghamton shootings, J. Clifford Baxter, and David Kelly (weapons expert)? Actually, I think the David Kelly comparison is the most applicable as John Kokal and David Kelly both worked on the same topic. David Kelly, who worked for the UK'sMinistry of Defence, committed suicide because he worked on Iraqi War Intelligence Issues. Why is the David Kelly wikipedia entry allowed to stay on Wikipedia while John Kokal's is not? Bf20204 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My dad had an obit in a major paper also, but he wasn't notable enough to rate a Wiki article. An obit does not grant one notability. It may support it, but not notable by itself. We are also not evaluating the Columbine shooters, or the V-Tech shooter, et al, we are evaluating Kokal.  If you don't think the others should be kept, Prod or AfD them - but I won't change my mind over what other entries are out there.  Look at the standards.  That's what I'm looking at.  Posting the FOIA request could be in violation of WP:NOR by using primary sources to draw your conclusions. You have stated that this is very personal to you - both here and in the article's talk page.  Take a deep breath and step back.  There is one brief mention in TFI - do you have anything else?  Show me something. As it is currently, I don't believe he's notable, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. (GregJackP (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * CommentAlso, why is it ok to keep the Jason Altom entry while deleting the John Kokal entry? Or what about the R. Budd Dwyer entry, the Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide entry, the Suicide of Ryan Halligan entry, and the Hanadi Jaradat entry? If the John Kokal entry is deleted, I can't help but feel that it would be an affirmation to a double standard on wikipedia and a Pro-U.S. Government Bias. I also hope that the person that decides whether or not to keep the John Kokal entry has not in any way ever worked for the United States Government. Bf20204 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - if Wikipedia accepts the BBC television news taken from the Internet  as gospel,  then it can accord the French TFI with  the same frespect. There's your reference. There seems to  be an almost  inescapable fact  that  a massive media clean up  has nevertheless been undertaken regarding  this incident, making  the search for further citations extremely  difficult. The incident  is important. The irony  is, that  this very  lack  of sources makes this article a common  sense exception  to  the rule that  verifiability  not  truth  proves notability - and almost  every  Wikipedia guidline or pilicy  concludes with  saying  that  it's not  written in  stone.--Kudpung (talk)

Another issue which is of a tertiary nature is that I'm pretty sure that John Kokal and Kendall Myers worked with each other at some point. If Kendall Myers had figured out that John Kokal had some sort of mental problem, he might have related it to the Cubans who then might have related it to God knows who. I worked on the same floor but in a different area as both of them, as I didn't work in INR.Bf20204 (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Stay on track: Please remember that  this is a debate  about the eligibility  of the the article on  Wikipedia and is neither  a discussion  about  the subject  matter nor  a discussion  about other other articles that  may have been kept or deleted. Please remember also to  use correct  AfD page format when adding  keeps, deletes, or comments. Thank you.--Kudpung (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sorry for getting a little bit too emotional on this page. This is something that I have been privately dealing with for many years. I think I've said everything that I need to say regarding this entry. I would hope that advocates on wikipedia that are in favor of free speech will take up the fight to keep this entry active. Thank you. Bf20204 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Sad though his death may be, simply dying does not make a person notable. The stated aims of Bf20204 - to help people with mental illness or stress at work - are noble aims, but do not fit within an encyclopedia. Notability has not been demonstrated. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - sympathy to the author, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. He died, his death was briefly reported, there are mutterings on conspiracy-theory blogs - this simply does not meet our notability requirements. The argument about keeping it to warn people against applying for jobs in intelligence really does not stand up, nor do the What about article X ones. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 24 February 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.