Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Kern

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Kern[edit]

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

Non notable person of apparent ill repute, a few press mentions for banal criminal trivia, but no true notability WuhWuzDat 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- extensive criminal history chronicled by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the general notability guideline as well as the notability guideline for crooks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Telegraph calls him a "legendary conman" [1], he's been featured on BBC TV Britain's Great Pretenders and Top Gear [2], plenty of other RS have articles about him New Straits Times, Scotsman, Herald - and tabloids inc. Mirror, Daily mail...there is plenty here to satisfy WP:GNG, I really do not understand this nomination. Chzz ► 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because you missed out on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page where even the page title is an attack? (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've found that page here in the archives, so thanks for letting me know. However, that discussion was regarding the now-deleted previous version, and I don't consider that a factor regarding this discussion. I think that the person passes notability requirements, and that is the baseline requirement for us to have an article. If some of the current content is not appropriate, then we can remove it, but I still believe it is possible for us to host a valid, acceptable article on this individual. Best, Chzz ► 11:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work, however, the subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:PERP. Among the many sources, he was featured on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries (their website) and the primary subject of at least one book. Location (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful about the book as a source. It's autobiographical and self-published. See below. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - After taking a closer look at all of this, the BLP concerns I have are enough to warrant a withdrawal of my recommendation. Although there do appear to be various mentions by reliable sources, I acknowledge that there is the potential for a disgruntled individual to work the web and various media outlets. I'm really not sure how to balance the two right now, but I know I don't like Wikipedia being used as an attack page or to further an agenda. Location (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article is currently written, there is so little coherency it reads like an attack page and could be deleted on those grounds. At the very least, there needs to be an effort to place the subject's activities into context and provide some narrative. It may still end up being uncomplimentary to the subject, but it won't read like a rap sheet compiled by a drunk committee. Ray^Talk 04:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - right now it looks like an attack page, users vote commenting Keep in such a situation should be working to improve it. Trimmed, as it is now moving to neutral - bit of a one event person with limited notability, just about passing the WP:GNG.Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What it actually is is a book advertisement that has been speedily refactored in good faith by Chzz and others. Here's the background:
  Elizabeth Grzeszczyk is the author of a self-published book (ISBN 9781411622548, self-published via Lulu) about her experiences with this person. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk · contribs) is obviously this person. Her first page was explicitly written in the first person, addressing the reader in the second person, and talked about "my book". Then the aforelinked BLP panic set in at the Administrators' Noticeboard. After deletion, Elizabeth Grzeszczyk created this page, written in the third person but with largely the same content. It came to AFD, was speedily refactored, and here we are.
  This isn't the work of a "drunk committee", but it is the product of a page written by a person with an abundantly clear agenda (A quick bit of research with Google Web shows a campaign of search-engine optimization, from web logs to people directories all created to include M. Kern's name, to get this person's agenda given prominence.) being rapidly refactored in good faith. It's fairly clear that the original purpose here was to abuse Wikipedia to further that agenda, to advertise the self-published book and to employ Wikipedia as a further search engine manipulation tool. Whether we can bring that into line with what Wikipedia is actually for is a matter for consideration. For more background on that, see the comments by the article's creator on the article's talk page. It's worth noting that this, second, page was changed to address some of what I pointed out on the noticeboard. There is some hope. (I sense an accusation of being an optimist and assuming good faith coming my way, again. ☺)
  Closing administrator, please courtesy blank at least the above two paragraphs upon closure. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the details - I have trimmed the BLP and removed any suspect comments and cites. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks rather neutral, if thin, at this point. He clearly is a notable conman with considerable coverage VASterling (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks onion-skin thin to me.....notability is slushy at-best. I certainly don't know that he "clearly" is a notable con man. Maybe if a Wiki-god could do a monster re-write with some good sources....maaaaaaaaaaa-ybe.....but for now, I vote delete.Buddpaul (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with sources in the Mail, Guardian and Independent, all major UK newspapers. Kudos to Chzz and Off2riorob for their efforts on the article and with the original editor. Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a clear case of WP:BLP1E to me. The only significant coverage relates to the Lotus theft in 1998; he's not really 'notable' apart from that, and that isn't enough to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is also significant coverage relating to Kern impersonating Jonathan Palmer, former Formula One Grand Prix race car driver and BBC motor racing commentator.Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have included in my comment above that Kern's impersonation of Jonathan Palmer is mentioned in References 2,4,5,6 and 7 in the article. Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2010 (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.