Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Kjer


 * 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. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Karl Kjer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable living person that serves only to tarnish the subject's reputation. Should be deleted for the following reasons: WP:BLPCRIME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPF, WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:BLPGOSSIP, Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCOI — Kjerish (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 26.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article in its nominated state seems neutral, non-sensational, and properly sourced. I don't think the crime rises to the level of notability for all the reasons cited in the nomination, but that's irrelevant because it's not what the article is about. He passes WP:PROF for highly cited publications and #C5 for (albeit temporarily) holding an endowed chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. To be clear, User:Kjerish is Karl Kjer, the person who the article is about. Following WP:BIOSELF, he should realistically not be editing the article at all, nor nominating it for an RfD after he attempted several days ago to simply delete the page himself. He has several options in terms of requesting oversight to ensure objectivity. The claim he has included in his RfD, that the article exists solely to tarnish his reputation, is clearly false, given that article was created by Dr. Kjer himself - no one creates a page solely to harm their own reputation. I will also point out that WP:BLPCRIME, which Dr. Kjer has invoked in this RfD, does not apply, as he was tried, convicted, and sentenced, whereas BLPCRIME is intended to protect the reputation of those who have only been accused but not convicted. Likewise, he has also invoked WP:BLPNAME, which also does not apply, as the trial and conviction were fully public; this is not privy information suddenly being made public via WP, which is what that policy is intended to prevent. He has also invoked WP:AVOIDVICTIM, which is also entirely inappropriate, as he is most definitively not the victim in this case. Again, the bottom line is that if he is notable enough to have a WP article (which he clearly felt was the case when he created the article originally, and no one else has disputed), then any and all notable public information about him is fair game to include in the article. WP's underlying policy is objectivity, and this is at risk if Dr. Kjer is claiming that only he is allowed to decide what appears in the article about himself. Dyanega (talk)
 * While I am a blood relative of the subject, I am not him. He does not advise me either, all of my edits are entirely my own. Of what bias I have, I also feel that this article may have some adverse affect my own reputation, which is grounds for WP:LIBEL. Both of the editors who have responded so far work at the same university as the subject, so I'm not sure they are impartial either. As for the basis of your argument, I agree that the content is open to the public. However, 1. as the subject has been fired and has discontinued all research, the merits of his original notability are dubious 2. the subject is not notable for any other reason than the crime, and 2b the crime does not have a sufficient scale of interest to the general public. As for the subject's own victims, I'm not sure they would like constant and public reminders of what have happened to them either. – Kjerish (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to prolong this, then: if we accept your claim of being a blood relative of the subject, that is still a considerable conflict of interest, and you should not be creating or editing or deleting articles about your own blood relatives. As for myself, you'll have to accept my word that I am impartial; I had never heard of Karl Kjer until recently, and never crossed paths with him, either in person or via communications - UC Riverside and UC Davis are in fact different universities, and I know a grand total of 5 people at Davis, which I could say about virtually any other university in North America. As a semi-aside, your claim that victims of sexual harassment probably don't want publicity is strongly contradicted, e.g., by the entirety of the "Me Too" movement, as it focuses quite explicitly on public exposure of the perpetrators. Neither stance (allowing offenders to conceal their offenses versus actively exposing them) is particularly objective, and therefore your comment is a bit of a red herring. Dyanega (talk)
 * I don't disagree, I am eager to see how that movement shapes society. At the time I created the article, I figured perhaps the subject was 1-in-10,000 for the reasons listed above, and it appears others do too. Just wanted to be clear about not being a sock puppet. As for this dispute, I have made my argument and have respect for consensus. – Kjerish (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability does not change with negative coverage. Deletion is not an alternative to hide conviction information. Shyamal (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - as holder (however briefly) of an endowed chair, the subject clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC, regardless of the criminal conviction factoid. And notability doesn't cease just because the subject doesn't hold the chair anymore. The COI editor's concern about WP:LIBEL seems ridiculous. Historical facts are not defamatory. If there are reliability concerns with the source, they should be taken up on WP:RSN rather than edit-warring in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete It should be deleted, just a nonsense topic and non-notable. I would like to go for Deletion of it under following reasons: WP:G1, WP:G4, WP:G7, WP:G7, WP:G11, WP:A7, WP:A11, WP:BLPTALK, WP:BLPEDIT, Blueparticle (talk) — Blueparticle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And all of those deletion reasons are not applicable here. In this discussion we are concerned with notability, specifically WP:NACADEMIC, which the subject passes. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject clearly passes WP:PROF by having once held a named faculty chair. I can not help but to feel a bit of schadenfreude when an individual writes a COI biography and finds that they can not control the content. That said I think we need a source which directly ties the conviction to his resignation before it may be included in the article. The resignation letter is a primary source and the article noting his conviction does not refer to his faculty position. Without a direct linkage I think BLP requires we not include a misdemeanor conviction with no documented link to his notability.  Jbh  Talk  17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep But only in accordance with WP:NPF, which would most efficiently mean removal of factoid and locking said page from future vandalism, which as the history indicates, is bound to occur again. Under WP:NPF, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources."  The subject is notable as indicated by others as they pass WP:PROF and WP:NACADEMIC, but that is all they are notable for. If we adhere to WP:NPF "include only material relevant to the person's notability" then the disparaging factoid is irrelevant to their notability.  I am confused how one could link said factoid, even if it did mention his resignation to the subject's reason for -low-profile- notability in the first place.  This page is about the subject's professional life, which is notable.  It is not about the subject's personal life.  If it were, then by the same logic we should write an entire biography about them including when he was born, the elementary school he went to, what he studied, important childhood life-changing events, his fear of spiders, why he chose what he studied in school, whom he married and when, his other interests and hobbies, his favorite ice cream, and an unlimited amount of other such details, but it doesn't because those arn't related to his notability. Just as about no other page discusses an individual's personal life, this one should stick to what he is notable for.  That's why WP:NPF exists.  Additionally the secondary source is not credible.  It is a local newspaper which says the subject "allegedly" did such and such and therefore contradicts itself - participants in this debate are encouraged to read it for themselves.NHreigh (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — NHreigh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:BLPCRIME seems to answer this pretty succinctly i.e, "unless a conviction has been secured", which it has. That aside, what level of criminal background rises to the level of being worthy of inclusion??  The source is absolutely credible; it is New Jersey's largest electronic periodical.  He was convicted and sentenced.  There is no "allegedly" save for the reporter's own sloppy wording.. one could link to the NJ criminal court case database however it requires CAPTCHA and a search. 2600:1001:B006:D8FD:1D6B:7D3D:AFD8:1FCC (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jbhunley pointed out, "That said I think we need a source which directly ties the conviction to his resignation before it may be included in the article."


 * The disparaging information is mutually exclusive from the subject's reason for notability.


 * The act of resignation is voluntary. The reasons for resignation are included in the resignation letter.  The only source that could tie the conviction to the resignation would be the subject, Dr. Kjer himself, due to the literal nature of what a resignation is.  Any other attempts at creating said linkage would be speculatory and actually fall under the category of a conspiracy theory.


 * What level of criminal background rises to the level of being worthy of inclusion? A level notable enough on its own to substantiate creating a Wikipedia article about the subject (I do not believe a misdeamonor qualifies) or is related to the subject's reason for notability, which it is not, unless the subject has stated it is.


 * 2600:1001:B006:D8FD:1D6B:7D3D:AFD8:1FCC, You firstly made a statement about WP:NPF which was incorrect. Not only was it incorrect, but it was purposefully incorrect in a way that confuses others such as to spark more debate.  This is a common tactic used by journalists.  You have, however, edited what you said to now throw out a straw man argument, "WP:BLPCRIME seems to answer this pretty succinctly i.e, "unless a conviction has been secured", which it has.", which is irrelevant.  Should we make Wikipedia pages for everyone whom has been convicted of a DUI, or any other type of misdemeanor?  No.  What if they already have a page?  Not unless the DUI is directly related to said person's reason for notability.  Throwing out a straw man is another tactic journalists use just as asking open ended questions is.


 * Judging by this, stating that a news outlet has "absolute" credibility when news tends to have a well known negativity bias, familiarity at looking through certain databases, and having an IPV6 address, one could speculate that you are part of the media, if not THE source media which seeks to retain a link to their website from Wikipedia for search engine optimization reasons or just spark more debate. Thus, you have a COI.  However, this is all speculation on my part.  In fact, one could say it's a conspiracy theory...just as linking the factoid to the subject's reason for notability is.


 * "Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." WP:BLPCOI


 * If the source is participating in the discussion and thus has a COI due to it benefitting from not only perpetuating the discussion, but retaining the backlink if it were to stay, then I strongly believe the oversight team should immediately get involved.NHreigh (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — NHreigh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Your conspiracy theories are getting the better of you by far. I have never been affiliated with any media outlet.  1. It was not a misdemeanor, it was an indictable offense: 2C:14-9B(1) Invasion of Privacy - Recording Sex Act  Without Consent, 3rd degree, per the county court website. This isn't hard to look up. 2. If you don't think a notable University professor recording young girls in his shower is in itself notable enough to warrant wikification, that's fine.  We can differ there. 3. I could care less which source is referenced.. as I said before, use the Court instead of the NJ.com article.  You can't get more legitimate than that.

2600:1001:B006:D8FD:A26F:2E6C:15EA:5ED7 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. For reasons in my reply to NHreigh above and in concurrence with Shyamal above. 2600:1001:B006:D8FD:1D6B:7D3D:AFD8:1FCC (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks Like, Above Author is just here to favor NJ link than New Jersey, If you peoples are promoting news. Search there will be more great source for it why only these two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4056:208A:4D66:B888:7CF7:D5CF:4FD2 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC) — 2409:4056:208A:4D66:B888:7CF7:D5CF:4FD2 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.