Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Frampton


 * 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. While I understand the concerns of the delete !voters, the article subject is notable by our standards per, among others, WP:PROF. The defamatory content in question can be removed and, if it really is that bad, rev-del'd. Remember that deletion is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  04:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Paul Frampton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject has requested that the article be deleted because he believes it contains inaccurate and defamatory material regarding his entrapment in a drug scam in Argentina. JerryRussell (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article is deleted, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia. I would rather see the defamatory material removed. At the very least, I believe the article should include the exculpatory information that drug courts in Argentina are notoriously corrupt, and well known for unjust convictions. See the article talk page for discussion. JerryRussell (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it difficult to understand why the subject should wish to suppress coverage of his conviction here when he has written and published a book about that self-same subject himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In the book, Frampton has a chance to explain himself at much greater length than our Wikipedia article could allow. After having scanned through it myself, I came away feeling that it's pretty unlikely Frampton signed up to be a drug mule to supplement his income. Whereas, the idea that he made a dumb mistake under Cupid's influence is very plausible. Apparently that sort of "reasonable doubt" is not a consideration in criminal court in Argentina.


 * Don't underestimate Wikipedia's influence. It's near or at the top of any Google search. JerryRussell (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there's any jurisdiction in the world that would make a distinction between acting to supplement one's income and acting under Cupid's influence when deciding whether a man is culpable for his actions. It certainly wouldn't be a factor in the UK or the USA, the two countries with which Frampton has the greatest connection. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IP86, intent is an absolutely central factor in the US criminal justice system. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law). JerryRussell (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see Mens rea, The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty...As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law." JerryRussell (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's immaterial whether that intent is based on financial considerations or "Cupid's influence". Any poor Nigerian woman found entering the UK or the US with that amount of cocaine would be convicted and sentenced to a far harsher sentence than Frampton received, whatever excuse she came up with for doing so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A poor Nigerian woman would probably be offered a plea bargain in the US, or just as likely deported back to Nigeria. It's interesting that you assume any explanation that such a woman could come up with, would be an "excuse". And it's original research for us to be putting ourselves in the role of judge and jury. But it's pure conjecture to assume that Argentine courts are capable of rendering justice in a case like this, even in the face of reports to the contrary. Our BLP policy is to remove conjectural interpretations of a source. JerryRussell (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You really need to get off this track. He was found guilty. He is guilty. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, which all state he was found guilty after extremely compelling evidence. We dont care about hypotheticals involving possible Argentine court corruption. Otherwise every single court system in the world would be open to that argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously -- Frampton easily meets our notability standards. He was notable (WP:PROF) purely on the basis of his academic profile, i.e., before the drugs incident.  That incident doesn't make him less notable -- rather the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Previous discussion at BLP/N can be found at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive173, Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174, and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive235. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and I can't see anything remotely defamatory in the current content. The controversial parts are well sourced and well balanced. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as currently and repeatedly being used as a coatrack for the "He is a CRIMINAL" editors who seem to pop up so often.    The concept that this single event is "making him more notable!" is contrary to any common sense approach to biographies of living persons on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia being used as a "public pillory" is not the intent of Wikipedia, though, again, I have found some editors more intent on such sensational tabloidification  of this project than of seeking to give important information to readers.  I ask any closer, moreover, to disregard opinions that favour this tabloid use of this encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Clear keep. The article is balanced with regards to the facts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. His professional activities and criminal conviction are notable, both, for example, being the subject of coverage in the New York Times.  The article isn't defamatory because the negative content is factual. Martinlc (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Putting his criminal conviction aside he is barely notable. His criminal conviction got so much press because of his position at the time. Were he a shoe salesman he wouldnt even have an article. Its a case of two relatively unencyclopedic events reinforcing each other to meet our notability threshold. There is no possible way he could have a biography here without his conviction being covered, it got more press over an extended period of time (he was convicted, he took his employer to court, he then released a book about it) - its easily the most sourceable thing about him. On the rare occasion I disagree with collect - in this case his article is not being used as a coatrack, a number of editors have tried to keep his criminal acts described in a neutral manner and have actually given far more weight to his academic achivements than they deserve by editing standards. But the subject (who still claims innocence) would rather his criminal activities were not mentioned at all. Which is just not going to happen. I still think the article should be deleted - we dont have articles on every person convicted of drug trafficking, and given his relatively minor academic achievements, the subjects own request to remove it, it can go and the encyclopedia is not going to suffer a loss. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting thread about his academic notability here: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5618
 * His H-index is 43, and his work has 6900+ citations. One person says: I think it’s fair to say that Paul Frampton is/was a world class physicist, but not necessarily in the division of current/past top world class physicists.
 * The NYT article discusses Frampton's own calculations of his chances to win the Nobel Prize. They seem non-negligible, especially if the Large Hadron Collider discovers proof of his axigluon particles or bileptons, or otherwise provides experimental proof of his many theories and models.
 * Having said all that, you might be right that it would not be a fatal loss to the encyclopedia if the article is deleted. His physics theories are still described in the topical pages, and I'm sure there will be much more coverage when and if experimental verification is available.
 * Your statement above "He was found guilty. He is guilty." -- leaves me wondering if you've understood my legal argument. In order for Frampton to be found guilty of drug trafficking according to US or UK common law, the prosecutor would have to show that he intended to transport the drugs. If he didn't know he was carrying drugs, and his intent was to visit his girlfriend, then he would be found "Not Guilty". He would also be entitled to a jury trial, where the jurors would look into his eyes and judge his character. They would have far more information that we do as armchair judges. Of course if Frampton were a poor black woman, he wouldn't be able to afford a lawyer for a jury trial. But then he wouldn't be famous enough to have a Wiki article, either. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, which all state he was found guilty after extremely compelling evidence. You would only think the evidence is compelling, if you don't understand the issue of criminal intent. The sources all leave plenty of doubt as to Frampton's intentions. JerryRussell (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay let me be more blunt: I do not care about any legal argument you come up with. It is completely irrelevant, its WP:OR and has zero influence or bearing on the issues. Neither wikipedia, his article, or this deletion request is the place to appeal, debate or otherwise relitigate his conviction. That would be in Argentina. As has been explained to you multiple times now, wikipedia reflects what the sources say, which is that he was convicted by a court of smuggling drugs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Frampton almost certainly passes at least 2 notability criteria for academics. First, he has held a named chair at UNC Chapel Hill, which passes the named chair prong. He also almost certainly passes criteria 1 where in the notes on it we learn "The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1," which implies that since there was a Festschrift for Frampton published we can conclude he passes academic notability criteria 1.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as the article explicitly states an honorary professorship at a major university, and that was enough for WP:PROF alone. SwisterTwister   talk  02:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Collect and Only in death have won me over to their point of view. This article must be deleted to comply with WP:BLP. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Presumption in favor of privacy -- Avoid victimization: This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. It is highly plausible that Frampton is the victim of a scam. Deletion of BLP's of relatively unknown subjects: Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, maybe closed as delete." While Frampton is an accomplished and notable academic, he is not a publicity seeker. Even his book about the scam has not been widely promoted. See WP:LOWPROFILE for guidance on establishing whether an individual is a public figure. Notability is not the same thing as high-profile. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.
 * Collect is right that this article has become a coathook for tabloid journalism. It seems to be impossible to maintain it, or to obtain a consensus to remove the defamatory material, or even to include exculpatory information. Only in death says he doesn't care about my legal arguments, but it seems to me that it's as clear as that the sky is WP:BLUE that the article is defamatory. WP:SYNTH should not be a suicide pact, but if we can't get consensus to remove the defamatory material, and we can't even get consensus to include exculpatory information, then the article has got to go. JerryRussell (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the nominator for this AfD. It's unseemly at best to !vote on your own nomination.  At a minimum, one should acknowledge this in one's !vote... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As for "tabloid journalism" -- I don't think any tabloids have been used as sources on this article. The main source for the drugs smuggling conviction is the New York Times...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only the nominator, but also the person who said "If this article is deleted, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia." just up there, ^^ points ^^ up there ^^ -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If anyone seriously believes that the current material is defamatory then they should raise the issue at BLP/N. This is not the place for such discussions.  But you might want to review the previous discussions at BLP/N, linked above, before starting that process.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that nothing here is remotely defamatory. In fact the article bends over backwards to present Frampton's point of view that he didn't see anything strange about being asked to transport a cheap empty suitcase, that he didn't notice that it weighed far more than it should have done, and the text messages that he sent about drug smuggling were jokes. The legal arguments presented here are completely spurious. The court decided on the evidence that Frampton knew what he was doing. The fact that he probably did it for love rather than money wouldn't get him off the hook in any jurisdiction in the world, and in some jurisdictions he would have received a death penalty. And if he wanted to keep the matter private he wouldn't have written and published a book about it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to Nomoskedasticity and Roxy's concern that I am !voting in my own AfD, I checked the policy and here it is: WP:DISCUSSAFD, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I'm sorry if my initial comments were unclear, but I meant to say that I was nominating the article at the subject's request. I was feeling considerable uncertainty and discomfort about the deletion, so I refrained from making a vote. I had to watch other people's responses, and actually spend some time studying the policies, before I felt ready to vote. I see strong arguments on both sides, and will respect the closing consensus, whatever it is. JerryRussell (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there was nothing wrong in your giving a "delete" opinion here, because you made it clear at the top of the discussion that you didn't think then that deletion was the best result. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan commented above that defamation issues should be discussed at BLP/N. I did raise a new ticket there. Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I posted a link at the article talk page. Maybe I should have posted the link here too? Anyhow, discussion is ongoing there, if anyone wants to participate. JerryRussell (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion at BLP/N has now been archived at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive247 for those who are interested. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: He was obviously notable before his drug incident, and the incident itself is not presented in a defamatory way. Ceosad (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2016 (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.