Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Buckley (American Jurist)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Buckley (jurist)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Henry Buckley (jurist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Either completely non notable, or a hoax (in which case the creator of this autobiography needs to be blocked). The only page really supporting the claims is this, but it looks as if you just have to pay and declare that you are a justice of the peace to get listed there. Other arguments in favour of the "hoax" theory are the other hard to believe claims in the article (this 16 year old is a Colonel and "justice Buckley holds multiple Honorary Doctorates from various institutions."), and the fact that previously, the same editor tried to claim that they were a Cardinal[1]).

If people agree that this is a hoax, please speedy delete the page and block the creator. Fram (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Massachusetts. Fram (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable source coverage and some of the claims fail verification. But, I don't think it's entirely a hoax (but some of the claims probably are or are exaggerations); they do seem to be on the beautification commission of Hingham [2]. Kentucky Colonels aren't a military position but an honor given by Kentucky and maybe there's some way of joining some interest group about it but I doubt he's actually a Kentucky Colonel. Looks like to perhaps verify if he actually is a justice of the peace (I can't tell if there is any age requirement but MA is a state where it's an application process instead of election) you may need to call the town and/or Commonwealth; searching more there are some MA towns that have PDFs with printouts of all the town clerks of MA and someone matching the name+middle initial is listed for Hingham as a justice of the peace.
    The editor clearly needs to begin communication and stop writing articles about themself but given their apparent age I'm not sure a block is needed yet since they do have edits that are not autobiographical so perhaps there is hope (but maybe a pblock from article space if they don't communicate on either their talk page or this AFD). I'm open to me being overly optimistic. Skynxnex (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They did respond on the talk page of this AfD, maintaining that they are honorary cardinal, a Kentucky Colonel (despite the age requirement of being at least 18), and so on. Fram (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that Skynxnex. Thanks. I guess I was too tired. And thanks Liz. I thought this was his children. --Hagesen 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hagesen. The subject is a child. The author is a child. Both the same person. Wikipedia has policies on the protection of the privacy of children. Including what children write about themselves. Those policies apply here. For yourself you might consider taking a quick look at WP:BLUDGEON. Guliolopez (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON? I am not "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own". Bizarre. I thought his children needed removed (correctly). The policies on the protection of the privacy of children you write about. From WP:BLUDGEON - "Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine." Until now I am replying to the hoax call. I had civil comments with StefenTower under that. "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed." I came here to thanks Skynxnex. "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided." Bizarre. But maybe I look too quick at WP:BLUDGEON? Thanks Skynxnex (and Liz again). --Hagesen 18:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a similar accusation, but ultimately, a serious and potentially lengthy discussion of the editor's behavior and any actions that could be taken with respect to that belongs in a spot like WP:ANI rather than here. Like I said below, we're just here to find a consensus on what to do with the article. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the statement on their talk page mention hononary doctorates and 1 Guinness World Records. So we need to check that out? They are saying "give the benefit of your doubt" - so AGF probably needs be respected. It is written - at the top of AGF - "avoid accusing others of harmful motives" - so I am wanting not to call it a hoax now. Like Jfire said "I'll stop short of calling it a hoax". Maybe a mistake. --Hagesen 23:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an original editor is making claims in an article about them, particularly those that would appear extraordinary, isn't it on them to bring the WP:RS that backs it up? And WP:AGF doesn't mean we can't make a rational judgment after tripping over a number of serious problems in an article that together are suggestive of a hoax or near-hoax. There is no requirement for us to chase down proof for every last extraordinary claim. The original editor has a chance and frankly, burden, during this process to bring the sources, if they have them. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK but that was the talk page. Mix up with talk and article. The article is written in ordinary style. I guess I do not know a lot about Massachusetts Bar Association or advisory boards for state and local agencies or Plymouth County Justice of the Peace. It says Justice of the Peace is "elected or appointed by means of a commission" - so my guess is he did not get that one easy. He cannot make it on his own. Other people have to put him into Justice of the Peace. It looks like a successful career. "When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible" - I will AGF it is not a hoax. Maybe a mistake. But I can't say a hoax. Not for certain. --Hagesen 00:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my !vote says "bordering on hoax". I think it's fair to say a bunch of unsourced puffery is on that level. Good faith is where our assumptions begin but when you see someone treating "Kentucky colonel" like it's a military officer, that faith sours pretty quickly. Pap nonsense does that for me. :) Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 01:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A colonel is military in lots of countries actually. But yeah looks like Kentucky does it different. Kentucky Colonel looks not too military. Is it an ambassador? Hagesen 02:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange because there is Colonel (United States). Maybe he put in the wrong link. --Hagesen 02:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's purely honorary and handed out like candy by the Kentucky governor (no matter who). There's no room for a mistake due to the other info the original author put there around it and how it displayed after being saved. Showing it like it's a military role is a deception at least by appearance. And if he had indeed received this honorary colonelcy, it would be willful deception. Sometimes a spade is a spade. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hagesen, did you miss the fact that this fellow is 16 years old and in high school? Doesn't that put all of these unsourced claims of legal experience in a different light? Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yeah Liz a lot of people saying this man is a kid now. I guess I was too tired. --Hagesen 18:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of WP:V is that every statement of fact must be verifiable. So much of this teenager's puffery isn't. The rest is threadbare. And with that, given that you state that you don't know much about how justices of the peace operate or are appointed, wouldn't you say that it's fair that you might want to avoid drawing any notability conclusions about that? (Provided that this kid is a JP at all, which I'd say is so far unproven.) Ravenswing 07:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not draw any notability conclusions. I replied to writing about a hoax. --Hagesen 18:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This may not be a hoax, but this does hit WP:BULLSHIT pretty hard. There are oodles of unsourced claims, that "official portrait" making the subject out to be a sitting judge in the shadow of the State House is outright WP:NFT -- just this side of cosplay -- and being a retired legal professional and a native of Plymouth County, pretty much what being a justice of the peace gets you are modest fees for solemnizing weddings. AGF isn't a suicide pact, and doesn't require us to give credence to this self-aggrandizement. Heck, I'm a notary public and have one of those ULC minister certificates, and that gives me all the practical powers that this kid claims to have. Ravenswing 00:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Ravenswing, maybe we should have an article on you with those credentials. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, I have an essay setting forth why all the things I've done and been in my life doesn't mean at all that I'm notable. I'm a published author -- to the point that two of my works have Wikipedia articles of their own -- I've been both an elected AND appointed public official, I've been a color commentator for broadcast sports, a concert promoter, a public speaker ... and a whole lot of things that still don't qualify me for an article. Ravenswing 07:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see "Draft:Buckley Island" and "Henry Randolph Buckley". They are red on my screen. It sounds serious if claims are true. But I will AGF it is not a hoax. I cannot see anything. Will look again later. No time now. When I get a different computer. --Hagesen 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AGFing this to show as not a complete hoax seems to ignore all the reasons given to delete the article in this AfD debate. This process isn't to impugn or absolve the author, or declare him a hoaxster or "not a hoaxster" - it is to see whether the article should be kept or deleted. Hunting for a salvageable proven claim in a sea of problems isn't really our job here - it is a misapplication of AGF. There is no great harm in deleting an article, including any particular harm to the subject. If this person later emerges as a notable figure with WP:RS coverage to back it up, they could have a new article. Any discussion on editor behavior is, while not banned here, shouldn't contribute to or deny a result that is based on the article content itself. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People now saying the man is a kid? I thought he looked wrinkly in the portrait. How does a kid get an official portrait like that anyway... --Hagesen 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - actually - it does look like the man might be... a kid. Spooky. --Hagesen 18:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An image, and especially a portrait, that doesn't connect to any hard information where it came from, would not be considered as evidence for this discussion at any rate. In a world of Photoshop and AI, and the author declaring themselves as the image's source, it's simply immaterial. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:43, 10 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Buckley_(American_Jurist)&oldid=1196080589"