Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Janke

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 delete. BLP1E applies Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Janke

Scott Janke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is classic WP:BLP1E. The man was a non-notable town employee until it was discovered that his wife had appeared on pornographic websites and the town fired him. Although the incident received media coverage, there is no notability beyond the single event. Even local coverage quickly dropped off, indicating WP:RECENTISM is probably a factor, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. In reality, he wasn't even fired for something he did himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - What next? Youtube links to the videos, then maybe it will become a BLP2E and both will have articles? Sorry, non-notable at this point. Even if it becomes a major First Amendment court case, the man himself won't be notable because of it.  Frank  |  talk  01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for keep related issues I can fully understand why some would want to delete and why some would cite BLP1E. I would expect many votes using this reason. I also note that even I thought at the time I edited the article that some people would not like the article and would want it deleted.
However, AFD is not a vote so I present some ideas that would support a keep.
1. Niteshift36 notes that "he wasn't even fired for something he did himself". This makes him different (notable by some, not notable enough by others).
2. Frank notes "even if it becomes a major...court case, the man himself woun't be notable because of it". Plaintiffs in major cases do have their own article.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUser_F203&diff=304322655&oldid=304236583 Shows that an editor in Finland looked up Wikipedia to see if we had information on the man. Wikipedia provides an unequalled source online for information. If we were to strictly keep only what is encyclopedic, huge sections of WP would be deleted such as video games (which is covered by fan sites anyway) and minor politicians.
In short, this article covers a person and incident which is very unusual, has (US) First Amendment and marriage law issues, and which actually gets a lot of traffic. If there is a question over keep, this could be a classic IAR (ignore all rules). For the administrator who decides, I can see if you wish to assert that strict rules be followed but these comments above are simply the comments that would be in the keep column and the other two are obviously the comments in the delete column. User F203 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being fired for something you didn't do yourself doesn't make you more notable or different. No, plaintiff's in major cases don't always have their own articles (and this won't become a major case anyway). And it really doesn't matter how far flung the people who saw a blurb somewhere and came here looking for it are. There are many topics that pass notability that don't have their own article. Likewise, the news is littered with topics that aren't notable. We have wikinews for those things. This fits squarely in the WP:BLP1E category and there is nothing historic about a)being fired, b)having a wife who appeared on a porn website or c) having the actions of a family member affect someones employment that would be an exception to BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "If we were to strictly keep only what is encyclopedic, huge sections of WP would be deleted such as video games (which is covered by fan sites anyway) and minor politicians.": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers; content which would be held by specialised video-game encyclopedias is appropriate. But either way 'encyclopedic' is a difficult criterion to pin down, which is why we have strict notability guidelines. None of 'unusual', 'being a plaintiff in a case having implications for legal cases' or 'getting a lot of traffic' are in those guidelines, and I don't see what makes them grounds for IAR here: if they were good reasons to keep this article then they'd be good reasons to keep other articles and we'd put them in the notability guidelines. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before you make too much out of the legal issues you think might come up (see WP:CRYSTAL, are you aware that Janke was an at will employee who served at the pleasure of the council and his contract specified that he could be fired without cause? That's going to make most kinds of civil action difficult to pursue.Further, he would have a tough time convincing a court he had standing to file a first amaendment case. His right to speech/expression/association etc were not impeded. Nor were his wifes (and he couldn't file on her behalf anyway). Do I think the guy got shafted? Yeah. But that doesn't make him notable. The fact that the local coverage, let alone national/international coverage, has dropped off, is strong evidence that this is recentism and a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge to the city's article? The Janke article could probably be condensed to 1-2 paragraphs and fit nicely into the much larger Fort Myers Beach city article. User F203 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Actually, I didn't realize this article existed until someone tried to put this mess into the Ft. Myers Beach article and wikilinked Janke's name. Putting it into the FMB article would still run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM and would still have lingering BLP problems. As DGG said, this isn't a tabloid and this is straight tabloid fodder. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a merge or a redirect. I agree with the nom that this is indeed an example of classic BLP1E. WP is not a tabloid. I am very reluctant to overuse BLP or expand its scope, but this is just what it was meant to exclude, and rightly so.DGG (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and very limited merge I have carefully thought about this article. After guidance from a very senior editor, I believe that there has to be weighing and balance between an encyclopedia that has articles that people are trying to look up and wacky entries. This article seems to be on the wacky side. I realize that I am not using the usual WP lingo, but the concept is there. Since redirect is a tool to assist readers and we know that readers from more than one country is looking this up, redirect is the way to go and redirect to the city. Without explanation, the reader may wonder why Janke is redirected to a city article. Therefore, a limited merge is appropriate. The merge may be as short as one sentence, certainly not the entire article. User F203 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And even though it was removed and a discussion is under way, a discussion you were invited to participate in, I see you just force the mention back into the FMB article. You keep waxing philosophical about what WP should or shouldn't be, but you keep insisting on re-inserting something that could be an example of the BLP1E policy entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E refers to the existance of an article, not content of another article. However, I have asked in your talk page that you work with me to write the town article up to GA standard. If there is a lot of history of the town, then this event will not be very significant in comparison. If nothing has happened in the town, then this is more significant. User F203 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted above, this is a perfect case of WP:BLP1E; before this case, he would never have been considered notable, and a flurry of media coverage over a single incident doesn't overcome that. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear 1E. There is nothing to merge or redirect this to, so simple deletion. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but create page for wife since every porno "star" under the stars seems to have one here. --Tom (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alert to the community: see redirect policy See WP:RCAT entitled "What do we use redirects for?" which lists "People known solely in the context of one event". Janke is known for two things, city manager (which is the #2 or #3 position of the city) and the porn controversy. However, many think he is known for one event, the porn controversy. Therefore, following the rules, we must redirect. If you do not agree, you should work to change to rules. I can see what others are saying and would help you change the rules, if you wish. Rules are meant to be followed most of the time, not broken. This case is not an exceptional IAR case where the rules should be broken. Looks to me more like the rules should be modified. User F203 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Janke wouldn't be "known" as the town manager. That vast majority of people in his own couty didn't even know his name prior to this. And as a town manager for a less than 3 square mile town of 6,500, he wouldn't qualify as notable on that basis. If you google his name and remove his wifes name, porn and pornographic, his hits drop to 1,900 and of those, 11 of the first 20 dealt with the firing anyway. They guy just wasn't known before this. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 2 August 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.