Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Freshwater

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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Freshwater

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:BLP1E article, Freshwater is unknown for anything outside of this dispute. It has not had significant world wide coverage, so may fail notability guidelines. Also it is not apparent that he has been convicted of the alleged crimes (assault) mentioned in the article. Martin451 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly rename or redirect to an article about the event - this event has coverage spanning a full year on the calendar, and therefore has some notability. Sebwite (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ~~Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education (title of case before the Ohio Supreme Court)~~ another title that focuses upon the event rather than the person. WP:BLP1E is a valid concern, but case meets notability criteria, including coverage by such international sources as The Guardian (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8551596 ), MSNBC (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25585916/ ), Canada Free Press ( http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3817 - though not suitable for NPOV, does demonstrate coverage outside the US), and the American Broadcasting Company ( http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5214063&page=1 ), among others. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Per the National Center for Science Education, full title of case is Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education et al. See http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/freshwater-v-mount-vernon

~~I don't think this case is yet before the Ohio Supreme Court.~~ This case in particular was filed in federal court. The writ of mandamus request was dismissed. The rest of the civil cases have yet to even begin, I believe. The only ongoing proceedings are the contract termination hearings, which isn't even held by a court. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few cases here. The parents of the kid filed suit against the local Board of Education and against Freshwater (they settled with the Board); Freshwater is suing the Board of Ed and others, including the Board's Attorney; then there are the termination hearings... I don't think it would be wise to shunt this all to a single case page. And so far all the press has been about the termination hearings. Any other ideas? --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes, I can see how case titling would be problematic. Problem is, any other succinct title I can conceive at the moment would be POV toward one party or another. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the same problem I ran into when thinking about alternate titles. Perhaps someone else might have a better idea. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Comment All charges against Freshwater are civil in nature and still ongoing; there are no criminal proceedings, so the rationale above about whether or not he's been convicted of any is meaningless. There has been some coverage abroad: [1], and the earlier coverage of the events were national with appearances and coverage on national cable news channels. There has been sustained regional coverage, as well. I'm waffling on whether or not to support this nom, but the rationale should focus more on the concerns over notability and BLP1E. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does have some international coverage, but it is not a significant amount. Google news gives about 98 articles about "John Freshwater" in the last ten years, of which about 10 appear to be non US. This does not have the coverage to pass notability guidelines.

If Freshwater is not facing any criminal charges (which seems odd considering the allegations), then I agree that he has not been convicted does not apply. Martin451 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paucity of international coverage is not a reason to delete. WP:N does not distinguish on the type of sources needed for notability. Though I do agree it is a bit WP:NOTNEWSy. I think the sustained coverage alleviates this concern a bit. I'll ruminate on my thoughts before returning with a !vote. --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not quite warrant own article... yet. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has rather more than enough news coverage to warrant an article, on the case of course per BLP1E. (Why not just John Freshwater Case, as one article title has it?) 130 gnews (archives) hits is a lot. Just two, or even one, if it has substantial coverage, as many here do, can be enough. Notnews is a more serious problem, but the extent and duration of the coverage is sufficient to overcome it.John Z (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FFS people this is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation not to mention we are NOT a news site!!! JBsupreme (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:BLP1E, "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." I am of the opinion that this is not sufficient grounds for deletion, especially in this case where no other article (yet) covers the subject matter. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. WP:NOT#NEWS also applies here - which is why I do not agree with Jeff Billman's proposal to move the page to another title. Ray^Talk 03:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BLP1E. Nor is an article on the case justified -- it's just another case, with not the slightest indication that it will have any implications for law or practice anywhere else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable long-term conflict, involving more than one event. Civil suits are notable also. Wikipedia is not limited to criminal matters. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it about the event. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on deletion but rename; I do not see any evidence that the person is notable (WP:ONEEVENT), but given our precedents for court cases the overall conflict may be notable, given the extensive press coverage. I leave it to the judgment of others as to what name the article should take, since there seem to be multiple court cases involved. A Request for Comment might be in order. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per John Z, etc. Notable as event/conflict.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move The person is not notable, but the event and coverage probably is. The current article is mostly a coatrack anyway. (Incidentally, I was living about 5 minutes from Mount Vernon when all this happened and it was quite a big deal around there; no idea how big a deal it was elsewhere, but there certainly seems to be enough coverage.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep This has been a long-term, ongoing controversy over the course of multiple years. Freshwater has given repeated interviews to the news and the matter has gotten international coverage. This isn't a tiny thing. Renaming and focusing on the case may be a good idea but it isn't necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.