Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Ryne Goldberg

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. Swarm ♠ 22:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ryne Goldberg[edit]

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

CRIME article but the person is not famous and hasn't been convicted.

I want to delete this because I found these instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and he has not been convicted.

Persons accused of crime[edit] See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators Shortcut: WP:BLPCRIME A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information. Punstress (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous Wikipedia articles about persons accused of high-profile crimes that have not been deleted. If we take your interpretation at face value, Wikipedia would not be able to cover any crime accusations or trials .Also, due to the worldwide media coverage, Goldberg is certainly no longer an "relatively unknown person"Redfip (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because the arrest (not indictment apparently) can be an article but not the fellow's name. Punstress (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the language and reasoning in the above are very unclear. Please clarify Redfip (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it's not true that Wikipedia would not be ablet o cover any crime accusations or trials because they can make the article about the arrest or the crime but not put it under the fellow's name. I am trying to follow the instructions but there's too many to learn. You seem to know a lot of the ins and outs of Wikipedia and you've only been a member for a week. Did you take some kind of class? I've been a member almost 10 years and I can barely figure out how to add to this page. I'd appreciate any advice, but not too much reading. Thanks. Punstress (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I said "not indictment apparently" because the article said he had been indicted but none of the articles I saw said "indicted," just arrested. I read elsewhere that the indictment will come later. Punstress (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's decided to keep it, then I will be adding his birthday and political party affiliation back (which matters because, since he played both sides of multiple debates, people are trying to figure out where his actual leanings lie) and there should be no objection. Punstress (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS. There may be enough in the future for an article about the event, but we should avoid having a biography. — Strongjam (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep considering that there are hundreds of reputable news stories covering this person in multiple countries the article easily meets WP:GNG, and considering that there are strong links to the Garland shooting in which two people died, and many more could have been killed if the attackers succeeded, posted pictures of bombs he allegedly manufactured, and is accused by the FBI of planning a heinous bombing in Kansas City, as well as the alleged planned shooting attacks on synagogues in Australia, there is plenty of justification for keeping this article. There are many cases of alleged or convicted terrorists who have arguably "accomplished" less, or the same such as John Walker Lindh, Derrick Shareef, Zachary Adam Chesser, Syed Fahad Hashmi and Tarik Shah none of whom were closely linked to any deaths as the subject of this article is, and all of whom have biographical articles. Also apart from Lindh, none of the others received the level of attention that Goldberg has, in the press. Furthermore, Goldberg's actions as the high profile "Australi Witness", (a link established twice, once by Australian journalists, and separately by the FBI), indicate that he was clearly seeking publicity, to the extent of giving an interview to a newspaper-the idea that there is a special need for privacy of an "unknown" or "private" person" is rather weak when that same person sought out the attention of journalists . Also, coverage of Australi Witness has been ongoing for months, since the Garland shootings, meaning that claims that this story only began a few days ago are inaccurate, and it is likely that coverage will continue for a while yet. This is before we get to other online personas such as "Tanya Cohen" who have also been in the spotlight for months. This long-term interest and coverage of Goldberg's activities (likely to continue) makes WP:NOTNEWS moot.

Goldberg was identified, both by the FBI and independently by Australian journalists. He also admitted to the FBI that he tried to incite the attack in KC, so the idea that this could be a case of mistaken identity is extremely remote. Indeed I would argue that even if it was a case of mistaken identity and all charges were dropped, that the scale of the scandal of his hypothetical false accusation, and the level of misconduct required would make him even MORE noteworthy. There have been plenty of accused terrorists who have been charged, and had articles about them created on Wikipedia. Indeed if we were to follow this logic to its conclusion, then all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay ought to have their articles deleted from Wikipedia since none have been charged (or charges have been dropped), most are living and none have been convicted of a crime? I am struggling to see why an exception needs to be made for Goldberg.

Those who seek to delete the article are using a rather scattershot approach. The original proposer seems to have a rather vague idea that people who are not convicted are not notable or have some inherent right to absolute privacy (or something like that). Another author claims that notability hinges on the length of the coverage: I have pointed out that Goldberg and his sock puppets have been covered for months. Another has introduced a mental health argument which is again, does not diminish notability. The judicial process to determine his mental state is irrelevant to Goldberg's notability. The article on James Eagan Holmes was created 3 days after the 2012 Aurora shooting [[1]] with no consideration to the fact that he wasn't convicted at that point, and despite widespread speculation about about Holmes' mental state, even at that early stage. Even if Goldberg were found unfit to stand trial, that would in no way change his notability and the fact that he was closely linked to multiple violent acts or planned acts. Regardless, mental illness cannot be used to block the creation of an article: see John Hinckley, Jr. WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list'. Should this afd succeed, the arguments being deployed to delete this article could then also be used to delete the article on Abu Zubaydah who is a living person, widely reported to be mentally ill, and who is being held without charge (and has been deemed "too innocent to charge"), yet it would be presumably be universally agreed that it is absurd to do so because of WP:GNG. Osama bin Laden would also not have had an article until after he was killed, if such extreme interpretations of WP:BLP were valid, since again, he was not convicted of any crime.

Redfip (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But all those people were convicted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress (talk • contribs)

Looking at the edit histories of all those articles, most were created when the people were charged, not after they were convicted. What makes Goldberg different? Redfip (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that rule wasn't around or was different when the others were created? IDK. I'm sure there are many examples of articles that break rules. Punstress (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage of the enormous network of strawmen and sockpuppets created by this individual to establish WP:GNG even before we get to WP:CRIME considerations, doesn't feel like it's going to be a WP:NOTNEWS that is going away any time soon. Artw (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WPNOTNEWS does not apply here. It established by WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:NOTNEWS is policy, and it trumps WP:GNG, which is a guideline. Keegan (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question- So far my guess is concerned, the subject is a criminal. I want to ask keep voters, how does he meet WP:CRIME?. Reputable agencies are supposed to cover criminal activities, it doesn't make every criminal an encyclopedic subject. Hitro talk 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person was an alleged criminal with a very high profile alias that actively sought publicity and was widely covered in the media long before his arrest. His alias wrote a Tweet that was retweeted by a shooter who intended to commit mass murder in Texas, and there was a strong case made that the alias could have, in fact incited the attempted mass murder (indeed it claimed responsibility). He gave interviews (under an alias) to journalists and was presented as an archetypal online Islamic extremist in the media in multiple publications in multiple countries. Also he claimed to be planning an attack in Melbourne, and was caught by the FBI planning a violent bombing in Kansas City. The combination of these factors would make him more notable than the average (alleged) criminal, and therefore worthy of being an encyclopedic subject. Redfip (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your views, but it all look like an original research. No sources, no citations. How am I gonna believe your words? Do you really think the subject meets WP:CRIME. WP:CRIME is a notability test and notability is a test to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. My sole question is unanswered, How does the subject pass on WP:CRIME ? Hitro talk 20:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research, all the citations are in the article. Furthermore, he clears WP:GNG so WP:CRIME is irrelevant. Redfip (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a confusion. WP:CRIME is irrelevant to this discussion or the subject doesn't pass on this criteria? Please explain. Hitro talk 20:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ → Keep (see below) - Here's a hypothetical: let's say the FBI announces tomorrow "ah we made a mistake. we meant to arrest this kid's neighbor" and all coverage of Goldberg rightly ceases. If the article were then nominated for deletion, would you !vote to keep or delete it? If you say we should delete it in that case, you should say we should delete it in this case. This is the sort of reason WP:NOTNEWS exists and why WP:GNG requires coverage over a period of time. We don't know whether coverage of this person will continue. All we have are news reports from over a span of a few days based on an arrest and various alleged connections. If it weren't a BLP, there might be room to say "well it's obvious the subject is going to continue receiving coverage", but because of WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLPCRIME, which tells us we should exercise extreme care when talking about people notable only in connection to a crime, we should be deleting now and recreating later if coverage continues and/or if he is found guilty. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that should delete this because of a hypothetical reasoning for deletion based on what could happen that would make this article non-notable. It doesnt add up.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. If there's something that would cause this subject to be considered non-notable later, that means it's not notable today because notability is not temporary. It's an example of why WP:NOTNEWS exists and why WP:GNG requires persistent coverage over a period of time.
Sometimes we have articles about developing subjects based on an extraordinary amount of coverage over a short period of time, but that would make for an IAR sort of exception to these guidelines based on the presumption that coverage will continue. This is not one of those scenarios, not the least because of our WP:BLP policies. In other words, there are times when we ignore the "over a period of time" part of the GNG if it's very obvious coverage will continue, but here (a) the coverage is not of the sort that it makes sense to make an exception for, and (b) we should never make that sort of exception with a BLP of a private individual whose notability is entirely based on an arrest and allegations in news reports about the arrest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that he has only received attention after his arrest is strange in the light of the extensive coverage Australi Witness received after the Garland Shootings. I would argue that the coverage has indeed been ongoing for months. Further,from the fact that Goldberg has been linked independently by two separate reliable sources (the FBI and the Australian journalists) to Australi witness, it is clear that Goldberg was himself courting the limelight by giving an "interview" to the Sydney Morning Herald as Australi Witness. To try to shield him as a "private individual" now does not make sense when he himself was actively seeking publicity. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual makes the obvious point that Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.,. Goldberg, through his Australi Witness persona was clearly seeking media attention by giving interviews to journalists. The concern for his privacy seems misplaced, Redfip (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are reasonable points. I don't have time right now, but I'll go through the sources more carefully soon and reassess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having gone back through the current sources to see what past sources could be reasonably connected to the subject (beyond those that rely on speculation), I've switched my !vote to keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That there is a statement from the FBI in those news articles or that he has otherwise been "identified" doesn't actually add anything, though (regardless of whether or not it's presently in the article). The important things are (a) the subject is a living person who is not a public figure, (b) his notability is based on having allegedly committed crimes (WP:CRIME), (c) he has not been found guilty of those crimes (WP:BLPCRIME), (d) coverage of him is limited to just a few days (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG). Regarding "there have been plenty of accused terrorists who have been charged, and had articles about them created on Wikipedia", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and nominate them for deletion if you so choose; they're not relevant here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your repeated claim that he has only been in the news for a few days is inaccurate, His Australi Witness persona was heavily covered in the aftermath of the Garland shootings: [2] [3]. The fact that his pseudonym has only been linked to his real identity recently does not change the fact that his activities were the subject of extensive and ongoing reporting over a much longer period than a few days. Redfip (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ response to another of his sockpuppets - something they later covered here post exposure. I'd also argue that this is evidence of notability outside of anything he is likely to face criminal charges over. Artw (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) has made some valid points here. I was never sure that the subject meets WP:CRIME and i believe this article should be deleted per WP:BLPCRIME. Most of the keep reasonings are truly invalid, like the one where we need to read WP:OSE. Hitro talk 20:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME is a content criteria, and concerns related to it should be addressed on the page itself. Not entirely sure why it keeps being brought out here as if it is a deletion criteria. Artw (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we were only talking about notability, something like BLPCRIME would be irrelevant, but we're not just talking about notability we're talking about our WP:BLP policy, which is certainly relevant to AfD. I.e. if the whole of an article's content is problematic in the context of Wikipedia's content policies, that's cause for deletion (the various WP:NOTs, for example(s) are commonly raised at AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would ask why no attempt has been made to address those concerns in the article and its talk page. Artw (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw (talk · contribs)... WP:BLPCRIME is part of WP:ALIVE and WP:ALIVE is a policy. This policy states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. plus it says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. So why do you think WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't be focussed here. At the moment this article is at better place of discussion, talk page discussions rarely gets to the conclusion unless it's an edit war. Hitro talk 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", ie in the page. Instead not much is happening in the page and we have BLPCRIME being waved around as a sort of flag where, frankly, WP:CRIME contains most of the language from that policy that would be applicable to a deletion discussion. It seems more like an attempt to put a scare into people by yelling "BLP!" than a proper use of policy. Artw (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~probable delete~~ I'm uncomfortable with this one for two reasons, he hasn't been charged and the judge has sent him to be examined by mental health professionals to see if he is mentally fit to stand trial Here: [4]. It does seem edgy under BPL to have an article if he is either mentally infirm or if no charges are brought.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is the age when first schizophrenic breaks typically occur. If he gets a clean bill of mental health, the picture changes. He has been committed for a 30-day evaluation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote, which was made on general BLP principals of not having articles on minor figures who behave in bizarre fashion, may be mentally disturbed, and are not notable for any substantive achievement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redfip, See WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2015

I hesitate on BLP grounds to have articles on severely mentally ill individuals who plan or plot cries, but do not actually commit them. Recent, reliable coverage makes him sound like a very disturbed young man, on medication, living at home with his parents. Here: [5] E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, at the risk of being accused of bludgeoning, I invite you look at the articles that I have linked to In this discussion about numerous young men in similar circumstances who have articles in Wikipedia who planned, but did not commit terrorist acts but who meet the notability criteria the same way Goldberg does (or less so). Also your link mentions depression, this does not qualify as being very disturbed, and still fails to diminish eligibility under WP:GNG Redfip (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, of course. Responsible editors do that before commenting on a complex AFD like this. The parallels you bring are poor parallels, so unlike this case, and your arguments so detached from policy, that I was led to look at your editing record. It takes a while for new editors to learn their way around Wikipedia, after all. New editors are welcome, but it can take a while to figure out what constitutes good evidence, and what does not. Many of your arguments show an unusual familiarity with Wikipedia jargon, for someone who has just begun editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redflip, I now see that you are new to Wikipedia, and that this is the almost the only article that you have edited. I suggest that you have a little patience and give other editors a chance to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP. It's policy. WP:GNG, what is being countered, is a guideline. Don't bother arguing with me like every other delete !vote on this page. Keegan (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Redfip: It looks like you've responded to E.M.Gregory's point about WP:BLUDGEON by condensing many of your comments. Unfortunately, this robs of context all of our responses to those comments. Radically changing your own comments once people have responded is typically frowned upon (WP:REDACT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. NOTNEWS is a crude instrument for article (topic) deletion, it's better for content disputes within an article, not for the article topic. The reason is everything is news initially. It's rare to write an article about a new thing that isn't news or sourced from news. That's why we have BLP1E and GNG to ensure there is enough coverage. -- GreenC 20:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is not just about the most-recent incident about the terrorism charges, but includes many other significant activities perpetrated by this individual making him a very notable individual far beyond the terrorism case. werldwayd (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Australi Witness was notable for reasons entirely independent of the prosecution, and the news stories say that he is already admitted to be Australi Witness. They could be wrong ... but so could any statement in any article about history, however old. "NOTNEWS" is being deliberately abused for deletion, as is always the case, and never says what people seem to imply it does. To counterbalance the illegitimate reasons for deletion, I'll add my illegitimate reason for keeping - it is simply a case of great interest to the nature of censorship in the U.S., and of what constitutes a "conspiracy". Is providing information made illegal solely because of the online representation of someone who is in fact not a terrorist that he is a terrorist, regardless whether the intent of the person providing the information is to help him or get him arrested? Wnt (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we go by the reliable sources and he meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable by WP:GNG and well sourced. The Australi Witness persona itself is notable. The news coverage of Goldberg's arrest is only part of the coverage of his many personas, interesting for the history of online hoaxes.Lizzard (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Subject has placed himself in the public eye. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, clearly isn't a low profile individual -- Y not? 15:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His reported actions to spark the Curtis Culwell Center attack are surely notable enough. Versus001 (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A a person, not himself known to be an Islamic extremest, allegedly inciting commission of terrorist attacks and possibly inspiring an actual attack is significant in so many ways. Certainly enough to overcome the cautionary as opposed to restrictive nature of CRIME and NOTNEWS. He easily passes GNG for the multiple notable events of harassment and incitement he allegedly committed. Jbh ^Talk 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if he should turn out to be crazy enough to be committed to a mental institution for the rest of his life, he has already attracted enough substantive coverage to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2015 (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.