Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Lee Riches (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. John254 01:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Lee Riches
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The reason I think that this entry should be deleted isthat Jonathan Lee Riches is merely a prisoner in the federal prison system. Nothing more. He's done nothing particularly of note. The many lawsuits that he has filed are merely a desperate ploy to get attention, and, anyone is able to do what he did. Wikipedia, in my opinion, is merely giving him what he wants by giving him an entry. All that he has done is wasted time and taxpayer money by inundating the judicial system with lawsuits. Kyleandrew1 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did someone else before Wikipedia give him the attention you claim he is seeking? To the point where he became notable? Then he is notable and the article stays. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia notability guidelines,


 * "Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability."

Jonathan Lee Riches has achieved notoriety ONLY because of the many frivolous lawsuits he has filed. Those frivolous lawsuits are merely tools of self-promotion. Without those lawsuits, it is unlikely that he would have become known. Hence, no one "independent" of Riches considered him notable. A district court judge opined that Riches' lawsuits were merely tools of self-promotion. If a judge had actually entertained his claims, perhaps Riches would meet the notability guidelines. But, in my opinion, he does not meet these guidelines. The notability guidelines say that biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations do not prove notability. My point is this: the American court system guarantees anyone, who files a lawsuit, access to the courts. Thus, the American court system is akin to a dictionary that accepts self-nominations. Simply because a person has filed many lawsuits does not mean that he is notable, just as the self-nomination of a person to a biographical dictionary does not guarantee notability.Kyleandrew1 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you think this article is an autobiography? Plus, the fact you say he reached notoriety "only because" is not an argument for deletion. What matters is that he did reach notoriety. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be significant press coverage of him. Clubmarx (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Previous nomination resulted in a keep and this nomination's reason simply does not seem like a good reason for deletion. Just because you dislike the guy doesn't mean he should have his article removed. Since it was previously established that he has notability, there is no reason to believe otherwise now. Furthermore, even if he is "self-promoting," if he receives coverage in several major news sources, he is notable. D ARTH P ANDA duel 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's getting all the attention because the people he is suing are well-known. Not because he himself is noteworthy. "Notability is not inherited" applies here in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By that note, we should try to delete Sara Jane Moore, who did nothing other than attempting to assassinate a rather notable person. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The threshold of notability for a biographical article is widespread coverage in reliable sources. In addition to what the article already has, from 2008 alone Google News produces this from NPR, this from Madison County Record, this from Fox News, this from Hartford Courant, this from Rocky Mountain News, this from Philadelphia Inquirer, this from The Observer, this from Herald Times, and this from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. His notability is not temporary; coverage in reliable news sources stretches back over several years beginning with coverage for the crime that actually got him incarcerated on CNN and The Houston Chronicle (both already in the article.) I don't believe inherited applies here. I'm sure it's true that his being a celebrity stalker (of a highly unusual kind) is what gets him most of his press coverage, but doing something to celebrities can itself create notability. Not in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but simply to call to mind some other people who have achieved notoriety because the people they did stuff to were well-known: Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley, Jr., and Margaret Mary Ray (I can't believe we have an article on her! Tempted to AfD that one myself.) He easily meets the coverage criteria. The only reason I can see to delete the article would be following the spirit of deny—not recognizing his actions for fear of encouraging more—but I think adopting such an approach could lead to our policing an awful lot of articles to govern social impact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see anything here to suggest grounds for overturning the previous AFD keep decision. Plenty of good sources -- in fact perhaps more so than is needed for an article of this length, though there's no policy or guideline on that. The only concern I have is it goes without saying that WP:BLP needs to be adhered to very closely due to the subject matter. I am curious how the nominator came to the conclusion he did nothing notable, even with all the sources showing to the contrary. 23skidoo (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because I've heard of this guy, and the only reason I've heard of him is that I've read many articles about him in many reliable news sources. Basically, many reliable sources = notability, no? -adavidw (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm pretty sure it's less about 'get attention' than 'kill time'. His lawsuits make me and many others laugh which is more than most comedians can say. Chris Croy (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Like it or not, people keep writing about this guy. Lots of news sources. Over a long period of time. Avram (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significan press coverage, meets WP:RS and WP:BIO. Nominator's rationale is invalid, too. &mdash; neuro(talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The lesson we learn here is that sometimes self-promotion works.  And you have to admire anybody willing to sue Plato.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from everything else noted, this article itself has received press coverage, according to the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2008 (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.