Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Lee Riches

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 Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lee Riches

Delete No independent notability established per WP:BIO. Few of the sources seem to be wholly about this individual and are simply about cases he has filed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid - see WP:NOT#NEWS. This should have possibly been placed up for speedy since per WP:CSD since it was already deleted. Anyway, I don't see how this is a workable article since it so easily violates WP:BLP with this talk of lawsuits and its reliance completely on media speculation and rumors. Strothra (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there's a case for a BLP violation, considering that the article is thoroughly sourced; there are more references than sentences in the article, in fact, all to reliable sources. Ubernostrum (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep --- crackpot? yes. notable? clearly. references include print newspaper article about the subject, with subject's name in the lede. --- tqbf 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS states, "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."--Strothra (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't WP:BLP1E --- subject appears to be at the center of multiple incidents, all about him. --- tqbf 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Not News" does not mean that anything made notable through the news media should not be included. Plenty of sources and verifiable for a variety of events (or cases). Joshdboz (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Joshdboz. Not news doesn't apply here because this is over a long period of time; three years, not a week and a half. That level of media attention over a period of years makes him notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - The Fox and Boston Globe (actually AP) articles alone are enough to satisfy WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with tqbf. The article is about someone who is notable, not merely for a single trivial incident, but an ongoing, well-known, and newsworthy chain of events. It would be a loss to the encyclopedia to not include him. Plasma (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this fellow is becoming a cultural icon, and is still producing a body of work. See [1]. Quite noteworthy. Erie lhonan 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete being in the news for being bizarre is far from an establishment of notability rather it is an establishment of noteriety. These are not the same thing. This is not the kind of article that belongs here, per WP:NOT. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Too bizarre for Wikipedia"? Did I miss a memo? =) --- tqbf 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:NOT is remotely applicable to this, including WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't a one-time newsflash. This is a person whose actions over a period longer than a year have resulted in people taking notice and reputable news organizations writing about his work. It doesn't matter if his work is ridiculous or surreal; there is nothing in Wikipedia that excludes an individual if they've behaved absurdly. It doesn't matter if you personally do not appreciate his work or label him 'notorious' instead of notable. The simple fact is he is notable, and that notability has been established by multiple articles about the subject from multiple reliable sources. Torc2 (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - So Mr. Riches is too weird for Wikipedia, but Kibo is notable? :) U (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it's a bit of a pain making sure that the article stays within BLP guidelines, I believe that the individual is sufficiently notable for an article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Dreadstar † 03:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO and WP:HEY. --Shark face 217 20:52, 30 December 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.