Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Gardner


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Gardner
Deletable. My reasons are stated well enough here. -Ste|vertigo 06:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - changing vote. -Ste|vertigo 16:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -changing vote back, after reading the article again, and attempting a futile rewrite. -Ste|vertigo 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No keep this on it goes to show wikipedia helps society in many ways sometimes strange --Kyle G 06:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia helps society??" ROFL. -Ste|vertigo 16:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Noteworthy.. See also precedent AfD case Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer).&#160;—  The KMan  talk  06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet notability standard.  Inclusion of this article seems to be inherently POV (in this case, biased towards topics that are even tangentially related to Wikipedia).  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only WP:BIO criteria that comes close is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events", which is so nebulous as to be almost useless. Notoriety within the WP world yes, in teh real world? Methinks not. --bainer (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Does television coverage on CNN count as the real world?&#160;—  The KMan  talk  07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, much of the media coverage (especially the original ABC article) seems to focus more on the kids who uncovered Gardner. Moreover, none of the sources paint Gardner as being exceptional among sex offenders, since many use false names and identities. --bainer (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes him exceptional is his media coverage. The vast majority of sex offenders don't get interviewed on NBC.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  08:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kman. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Terence Ong 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CITE. WP:BIO includes "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Kman, also this is encyclopedic because the use/abuse of the Internet (including Wikipedia) was so widely documented and the deception lasted so many months. This has become a somewhat notable case of Internet identity fraud (of which there is a lot) in the early 21st century. Only as a point of reference (but not as justification) I believe this article is more encyclopedic than Sollog, never mind about a half a million other articles on the English WP. The Witch 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, he made CNN. I'd also prefer if people would post their rationale here instead of to their livejournal. Rhobite 17:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per KMan and Phil. Madame Sosostris 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a noteworthy event with an unusual twist that garnered major media coverage (like, say, the Anna Ayala case). The nominator's reason for deletion seems to be a dislike of statutory rape laws. Dynayellow 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Kman, although well referenced, it may need a cleanup to remove all the quotes, parts read like a news article. Grandwazir 20:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh... Keep... this is rather newsworthy and will continue to be, IMHO. --OntarioQuizzer 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Kman. His highness may have been a fraud, but this page is not. TomStar81 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rhobite. Also, that would be His Fraudulent Grace, not "His Highness". Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I stand corrected. TomStar81 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per KMan. -- Dwheeler 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's a well known sex offender with extensive coverage of his actions, which just happen to involve Wikipedia. Jamesday 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nonsense article that Gardner created claiming to be the fifth duke got AfD'd, but with this recent to-do, this is encyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The stuff's in the news for crying out loud! And I need it to do my final paper! 129.97.252.63 07:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I know, this AFD is doomed to failure, but I voted to delete Brian Chase as well so I might as well be consistent. There are thousands of offenders like Gardner who we wouldn't think twice about deleting, and just using Wikipedia to do something ill does not bring a person closer to meeting WP:BIO standards. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: for me, the (minor) Wikipedia angle doesn't even enter into its notability. It's the strange "pretending to be royalty while enrolling in high school" combined with his discovery by students themselves. If you wrote a story like that, no one would believe it. Dynayellow 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because although I have a lot of sympathy with the delete voters, this really is so strange it will probably be remembered. I'd still have let it simmer for a couple of years before creating the article though. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep due to widespread media coverage and sheer oddness. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm going out on a limb - I agree with the nomination (but in future please state your reasons here, not on another site). I think this story is all a fuss over nothing and this issue will be very quickly forgotten. I agree with JZG, except that I think it should be allowed to simmer for a couple of years. --kingboyk 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Joshua Gardner is insane and need a therapy. After the therapy he should be anonymous. Only than he can start a new life. Without rehabiltation the chance of his criminal career is very high. Don´t forget: This boy is not a killer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.163.204 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a killer, but a sex offender (if that makes it any better). It's a bit too late for anonymity, since this has gone through the news networks. Also, in the United States, where these servers are located, criminal's names are not censored by law.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  12:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A majority of the US-people lost their feeling for human rights and are betraing Jesus. You´ve to attend the quality of the crime and if the offender is insane. J.G. has to serve a sentence. But afterwards we´ve to give very young people like him a chance. But what I´m writing. The US-police hundcuff a nine year old boy, if he give a kiss to his classmate.
 * Delete. There are millions of sex offenders and crackpots in the society. Don´t open the door to list them in wikipedia. It´s not the sense of an Encyclopedia. --> Wikipedia shouldn´t be a register of sex offenders and crackpots. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was first edit by Christianluther (talk &bull; contribs).
 * weak delete -- Wikinews, sure. But Wikipedia, for his 15 minutes of notoriety? The voting looks like a keep, of course, and I'll not lose any sleep over that, but in my opinion being on today's headlines does not give you sufficient notability for your own article. dab (&#5839;) 17:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, No plausible reason to delete.  Adrian Lamo ·  (talk)  · (mail) · 20:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, news mentions doesn't automatically mean that a subject should be in an encyclopedia, though it can be used as an indicator. This is a news story that will be forgotten in time. A Wikipedia article should be relevant for a much longer period of time than a newspaper or magazine article. I'm sure there have been similar situations a decade or two ago that no one remembers. If it is kept for reasons specific to Wikipedia (showing its benefits and such), it should not be in the article namespace because such a rationale indicates that it is not encyclopedic, but advertising. Summaries of news stories like these could be put on an internal page. -- Kjkolb 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nom wrote at great length their reasoning, but failed to give just one good reason for deletion. Its fairly obvious the person is now notable.  Also, it seems the noms principal reason, is they their sympathy for Gardner.  Apparently he has some problem with "an arbitrary age milestone" in laws regarding consent for sex, which is a POV the nom is entitled to, but shouldn't be used to justify the deletion of an article.  We do properly have articles on people who have criminal convictions for things that some of their supporters don't think should be labelled as criminal.  Finally, it's not our role to decide which persons, and which events should be deemed notable.  Rather, we are to find what has deemed notable.  That's a key distinction.  --Rob 20:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that notability may be a standard, and in that regard, it may be better that we simply have an article which actually explains both sides of the issue. Still, it seems that deferring to either a local label or to mere news notablity is huge problem, when those labels can be so variable, when news notability can be so baseless. Putting the both of them together doesnt make it any moreso 'notable' nor encyclopedic. (There's Wikinews though, too.) For example, the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping was once named Elizabeth Smart (kidnapping victim). The issue then was to disambiguate from an author (IIRC) and that Smart (then only 13) wasnt herself 'notable', and only the kidnapping was. I objected strongly because it seemed ridiculous to make an article about a person and then prejudice it of a sorts with a label of 'kidnap victim'. The person is a person, and though they may be notable for being a 'kidnap victim', thats not in fact what they are &mdash;especially someone only 13 who's got a whole life ahead of her. The same thing goes for someone only 22, who has carried the label of being a 'sex offender' since he himself was only a teenager. Minnesota AOC is apparently only 16 years, which makes the label even weaker. Even though its not in the article title, the very existence of the article seems to be more dependent on the label of 'sex offender' than the actual offense. The damn thing (as its written) doesnt even phrase it according to NPOV ("according to the state of Minnesota, Gardner..."), or to even mention that the AOC is only 16. Amateur writing at best. I suppose it could be a good thing to keep it, as a good example of a ridiculous abuse of justice. -Ste|vertigo 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete leave the guy alone.  Grue   17:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete We can't have a page and mugshot for each person in the news. I don't see a page regarding Thomas Jefferson and his statuatory rape of his 16 year old slave. Leave this guy alone, he's been though hell already. ~ This user has left wikipedia 02:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Newsworthy. Arbiteroftruth 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kman. Sarah Ewart 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Newsworthy is not necessarily notable. A flash in the pan. Wikipedia articles should have some staying power. Herostratus 07:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting and apparently newsworthy story. We're going to see more of these types in the future, I'm afraid.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 10:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not all sex offenders are notable, but this one is, because of his rather bizarre story (claiming to be British royalty and getting exposed because of Wikipedia, of all things). J I P  | Talk 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep clearly notable ➥the Epopt 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per extensive coverage and borderline notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to a new section in Duke of Cleveland. --Neutralitytalk 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Cruft! Only a communist, fascist, fundamentalist or/and peeper vote for keep. They´ve no idea about human-rights.

Comments

 * Just out of curiosity, what are you people's ages? Ive seen two or three responses from users who are only teenagers. Combining this fact with the fact that many responses are simply claiming that if its on the news, its encyclopedic, I'm not sure if high school kids are really capable of understanding the difference between what local news outlets consider news (i.e. a chimpmunk waterskiing) and what's actually encyclopedic. While notablity is a genuine factor, 'he made the Today Show' is not. Wondering who here is unclear on the difference. -Ste|vertigo 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, if you think it's okay for 18 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds, well, you're entitled to your opinion. However, I find your attitude towards this debate, and your above comment in particular, insulting. Dynayellow 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. what do people think of this template for placement in articles. One of the early keep votes inspired it.
 * No offense, but I don't think it is appropriate. As per my comments above, it is advertising in the main namespace under the guise of an encyclopedia article, if the reason the article is kept is because it involves Wikipedia, especially how Wikipedia "helps". The article should be kept or deleted on its merits alone, not its association with Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No way. How the heck did this help the world? They guy wasn't comitting a crime, just violating his probation. I think the whole thing is a black eye for everybody. Just because some Junior Spies used Wikipedia to finger some poor schmuck doesn't mean we should crow about it. On the contrary it makes a point for Daniel Brandt's contention that Wikipedia is a way to air out anyone's dirty laundry on a very high-traffic site. Criminal or no, this guy is not a public figure, and the idea that citizens can have low-profile lives, make low-profile mistakes, and have low-profile private sorrows is not something that I would throw away. No, this is something that Wikipedia should hope best forgotten. Herostratus 07:05, 23 January 2006 (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.