Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bock

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. --Core desat 04:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bock[edit]

Non-notable local politician. --ROGER ^TALK 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was reduced from this to almost nothing because of Biography of Living Persons concerns among editors over the subject's controversies. A rewording of the controversies in a more neutral point of view manner would make for an article worthy of keeping in my opinion. The subject has been the subject articles in major New York and Buffalo newspapers. His position as the town supervisor in a town of 36,318 puts him on par with mayors in medium sized cities. Royalbroil 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the articles are cited. It is obvious from the history that here are serious editing questions about this. I dont think deletion should be used as the way of resolving them. DGG (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can suggest another way of going about it, that fulfils WP:BLP's numerous requirements I'll happily withdraw the nomination. However, one requirement is if someone is is notable mostly for a single incident then they should be covered within its article and not in their own article. Biographies of living people have to be complete and balanced. I should point out, by the way, that whatever some editors feel this person is clearly held in considerable regard in his community as is evidenced by the civic posts he still holds. --ROGER ^TALK 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not really familiar with the position of town supervisor as practiced in NYS, but our article suggests it is not a particularly powerful position. The article appears to give Bock primary responsibility for oversight. It's also not clear to me how the town administration could "cover up" a school budget problem (hinted to be some sort of larceny). In most of the US school districts are separate entities from municipalities. This troubles me as it gives the article the appearance of a smear. --Dhartung | Talk 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Tom 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The history of this article is yet another ugly chapter in the history of Wikipedia. That an attack article was allowed to stay up for so long is a complete disgrace. Unfortunately, there are too many Wikipedia editors who, while not being notable themselves, feel empowered to create attack articles (or sections of articles) against people who are more notable then they are. It's sickening and it goes on all the time. Fortunately for the victim in this case, he is not notable enough to merit an article. What's left of it should be deleted. Come on--a councilman from a town so small nobody ever heard of it? One shudders at the petty decade-old hatred that inspired an attack article of this sort. Lets bury the remains right now--not just in the name of Wikipedia policies, but in the name of human decency. Qworty 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like my version above even though your is very passionate and inspiring :)--Tom 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. While I take umbrage to the suggestion that this article was created as an attack (seeing as I initially planned to write articles on ALL the Town Supervisors in Yorktown, and having written numerous other biographies, none of which have ever been characterized as slanted, it's not my fault he was the subject of controversy; and also, other editors removed the initial attack tag noting that it was not an attack article and it was properly referenced by major sources), I would like to point up that it was up for less then two hours before it was flagged as db-attack and the questionable material was removed immediately. It's hard for me to wade through the grandstanding and conclude that you're truly familiar with the history of this article. I would also briefly note that 'delete per nome' is not an acceptable AfD vote per the guideline. I'd love to share the Times article to verify what the article states, but I do not want to violate any copyright laws. I will note the excerpt from the Times.com archive "An investigation contends that the present situation started out as an innocent mistake -- a typographical error made when a bookkeeper entered the figure $ 23.4 million instead of $ 24.4 million on a tax warrant for the 1993-94 school year. But that innocent mistake has escalated into accusations and counteraccusations of deceit and betrayal among municipal officials, school district personnel, Board of Education members and the public at large. The mistake, which meant that taxpayers underpaid in the 1993-94 tax year and had to make up the difference in 1994-95, was concealed from the public for 10 months." According to the articles, he was not mainly responsible for the oversight, rather, he was responsible for the coverup. It is also in numerous other publications from the time--the New York Daily News, the New York Post, the Journal News, and others. Also, I disagree with the characterization of a Town Supervisor in the New York City Metropolitan Division from a town larger then the capitols of Alaska or Montana that "no one ever heard of". On the one note issue, the closing of the only major equity theater in Westchester County was also a controversial and widely reported issue at the time. That said, this article led me to become familiar with the controversy regarding Daniel Brandt here on Wikipedia. I have come to realize that this is not an issue about the notability of the subject, or the event, or town supervisors, or the town. It's an issue about someone's feelings, and reputation. It actually made me think twice about completing this project without asking permission from the subject being written about. As the author of the article, I think the events are notable enough to be merged into the article on the Town of Yorktown, "decades old hatred" aside. I hope I've made my point as to why this article was never an attack, nor was it intended to be, and that in the future I will be taking BLP into greater consideration. Although it's fairly evident at this point that Rosenberg, Merri. Mistake Raises Ire in Yorktown, New York Times, February 12, 1995, Budget Threatens Yorktown Theater Troupe, New York Times, Late Edition - Final, Section 1 and YORKTOWN TAXPAYERS URGE RESIGNATIONS AFTER TOWN COVERS UP $1 MILLION, The Buffalo News January 17, 1995 are verified, and notable, I do not want to bring any controversy whatsoever to Wikipedia, so at this point, I'd have no complaint if the article was deleted.MrPrada 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MrPrada, thank you for expressing your position. Personally, I feel that a town supervisor is not a sufficiently important position to normally rate an article; our guideline WP:BIO says that only state legislators and up are automatically worthy of individual coverage. In this case, it's a more nuanced problem, which is that there is insufficient material to write a truly balanced article. Neutral point of view is one of our core policies, and in the case of living persons, we enforce it aggressively. If Bock were in the "automatic" class we'd feel obligated to forge ahead with what we have, at least a stub, and only the parts of the controversy that we could reasonably cover and comply with policy. Here we don't have to take that choice, as there's nothing demonstrating normal levels of notability for the individual in the first place. The coverage is for a controversy that doesn't seem directly connected to him in the way that, say, a civil lawsuit might be, and has serious verification problems given the relatively few available sources. In any case, it's not about you or your motives, it's how the article comes across to editors who have no knowledge of the case. --Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no notability for this person outside Yorktown and/or neighboring areas. I don't think people of such small notability should be included in wikipedia. Corpx 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am now convinced. --Dhartung | Talk 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx and Dhartung --ROGER ^TALK 04:45, 28 July 2007 (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.