Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Dach

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. obvious example for the proper use of BLP 1E. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dach

[edit]
Jonathan Dach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural Nomination / Nom Not a delete !Vote - An editor purporting to be the reputation management consultant for the Dach family [1] has requested this page be deleted as a violation of BLP1, stating that Dach is only known for one thing (his alleged involvement in the Summit of the Americas prostitution scandal). I am nominating it on the COI editor's behalf as a courtesy. The editor's rationale can be read in more detail here. LavaBaron (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:BLP1E allows a person involved in a single event to be the subject of an article if "the event was significant." Given the breadth and international scope of global media coverage of the SOA prostitution scandal, I believe this event meets the BLP1E threshold for inclusion. Sources cited - which include the Washington Post and other reputable news outlets - deal with subject specifically and exclusively, and not merely in passing. LavaBaron (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Hello, I am the Dach family consultant LavaBaron mentions, and I appreciate the willingness to make this nomination in spite of the disagreement. For what it's worth, I was asked not to simply have it deleted, but to determine whether it could be ameliorated. In my own reading of the news stories mentioning Mr. Dach and relevant Wikipedia policy, I came to the conclusion that deletion was the best outcome. I've explained the circumstances more fully on Talk:Jonathan Dach, but since BLP1E is the key issue, let's consider its three conditions:

We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
These are easily satisfied:
  1. The reports are all in a single context: the news stories mentioning Mr. Dach, which are now approximately 18 months old, all relate to an allegation that the White House tried to interfere with a DHS investigator's claim against Mr. Dach, who had previously been cleared of wrongdoing by the White House, and the investigator soon after resigned amid questions about his credibility.
  2. Mr. Dach is otherwise low-profile and clearly intends to remain so: the "biography" of Mr. Dach as it appears in Wikipedia contains scant details about his background and his career, and clearly gives "undue weight to the event"—in large part because WP:RSs have little else to say about him. Mr. Dach was a private figure before the Washington Post story that publicized his name, and even there he was not mentioned until the 11th paragraph. In the years since, he has remained out of the public eye.
  3. His role was neither substantial nor well documented: the merits of the claims against him, including the Post's decision to name him, were called into question by media outlets as diverse as The Huffington Post and Fox News. In a report only weeks later, The New York Times chose not to name him, referring only to a "a volunteer member of a White House advance team". The shaky nature of the allegation and his passive role in the controversy suggested the Times felt it was improper to mention him by name. As far as I can tell, they never did.
That The New York Times chose to omit Mr. Dach's name from its coverage, combined with the dearth of WP:BIO coverage about him otherwise, as well as the satisfaction of all three conditions, strongly indicates this is a clear-cut BLP1E case, and I trust that editors will exercise their best judgment in this matter. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respectfully question that your client, Mr Dach, "clearly intends to remain ... low-profile" when, just today, he had birthday wishes published to him from the editorial staff of Politico [2], a major beltway publication, and he's regularly photographed mugging for the camera in official, public-directed communiques from United States ambassadors [3]. This isn't exactly the M.O. of a shy hermit who just wishes the world would leave him alone. Mr Dach is a member of Society, which is fine, but isn't really compatible with the "simple hobbit from the Shire" frame. LavaBaron (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Politico's Playbook wishes "happy birthday" to literally thousands of Washingtonians every year, most non-notable; at least 18 people are mentioned in this list. (But how's that for timing, eh?) Second, the photo you mention is from December 2014, and it's the same one you uploaded to include in the existing article, in which he is furthest from the camera. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sur-Reply: I counted and they only wished Happy Birthday to 297 people last year, not "thousands." And, Dach is featured in multiple ambassadorial communiques. I appreciate the 30 year-old Dach's dad is buttering your bread, but we should not be intentionally deceptive. LavaBaron (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mugging for the camera", LavaBaron? Really? I see no grimaces, attention drawing behavior or gang signs. Just an out of focus group photo of him with his boss and another American and several other people in the Congo. Do you really think that a person becomes a public figure if a political blog mentions them in a long list of birthday greetings? Give us a break. And did you really count all the greetings for a whole year? Why would you bother do that unless you are deeply invested in this hit piece? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all WWB_Too, I would like to thank you for handling your conflict of interest appropriately. You are correct in that this discussion revolves around WP:BLP1E. Additionally, I think that the first two points are satisfied - Dach is clearly only known for his involvement in the scandal and is otherwise low-profile. Your third bullet point is what makes me think this is a keep. Dach's role appears to be both substantial and well-documented. Therefore, I think this is a Weak Keep on this basis. The claims of undue weight are not correct in my opinion, but this is the wrong forum to discuss them. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, and I'm not sure what I was thinking above. This should ideally Redirect to 6th_Summit_of_the_Americas#U.S._security_misconduct, but failing that, Delete .Tazerdadog (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueSalix: Sure we all resent paid and conflict of interest editing. But perhaps you should come up with a better reason to keep a gross attack page on an entirely non-notable living person. AusLondonder (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as flash-in-the-pan BLP1E, possibly retaining a redirect to the E. First, thanks to all who are handling the COI in a very correct (letter and spirit) way. I agree with their point that the person was associated with the event, and reported in reliable sources as such. But indeed it's also reliably sourced that the person was cleared? And that there is (apparently) nothing else reliably-sourced to say about the person? That's a great example of only "notability by association" or not independently notably exccept in relation to this event. If there were anything else notable or in-the-media about this person, I'd say keep; if the accusation against this person in particular or his personal response and individual followup/fallout were of reliable-source interest, I'd say keep. But "some guy is accused, and cleared" doesn't alone make that guy notable. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was he cleared? LavaBaron (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a credible allegation? (Would that negate BLP1E even if there was?) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an undisputably RS source (the Washington Post) with a real-world, legal personality that could be subject to libel action for false or malicious reporting, conducted an investigative inquiry and made an unambiguous allegation, and has stood by that allegation without retraction or correction. That is the definition of a credible accusation. The WaPo's investigation was separately confirmed by Slate, another RS. This isn't exactly idle blog chatter. LavaBaron (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes the DHS investigator planned to include Mr. Dach in his report, but as the facts show (yet the existing article curiously does not) the matter ended when the investigator resigned following serious questions about his judgment and ethics. As I explained above, when the NY Times reported on the administration controversy, it opted to leave Mr. Dach's name out, without sacrificing any informational value. Wikipedia would be wise to heed its caution. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was the investigator in the Secret Service scandal, not the Dach probe. DHS has more than one investigator, the article to which you linked says nothing about Dach. LavaBaron (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only one investigator was named in the press coverage, and that is the individual whose resignation is the subject of the NYT article linked, which indeed says nothing about Mr. Dach because it only refers to a "volunteer member of a White House advance team". And there was no "Dach probe." WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, WWB_Too, you will be better off if you stop arguing. The case is obvious, textbook BLP1E, so you're going to win unless you change this into a referendum on paid editing. Which you could do. So, please, don't. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Almost a candidate for speedy per WP:ATTACK. The suggestion by LavaBaron that this page should be kept because Dach received less than a sentence of a birthday wish amongst a long list of others from a website that basically serves as a Washington DC staff newsletter is preposterous and a serious error of judgement. I have never seen a more textbook case of WP:BLP1E. The only reason people want to keep this gossip is that we resent paid and conflict of interest editing. However, this article is the worst kind of gutter yellow journalism (and pathetic moralising "Oh my dear God, no sex please, we're Americans") that any family would wish to protect themselves from. AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. His name appears as a one-sentence afterthought in the last line of 6th Summit of the Americas#U.S. security misconduct. There is no doubt that the event was significant, but his role in it does not appear to be all that significant. If the details of that event were trimmed or removed then this article is barely a stub on a non-notable person. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as there's nothing at all to suggest solid notability, it seems he's only an advisor for the office, not an actual government position. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 2 June 2016 (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/Jonathan_Dach&oldid=1089551403"