Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Dave Oren Ward

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. Poor sourcing, which does not appear to meet the definition of WP:N/CA. Particularly in that respect, the majority of sources can be considered "routine" coverage rather than anything significant. —Dark 22:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Dave Oren Ward[edit]

Killing of Dave Oren Ward (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)

Sad as this case may be, there is nothing notable about this crime, one of about 16,000 criminal deaths in the US in 1999.[1] The community has already found that neither the victim nor the convicted are notable individuals. The death itself does not meet the WP:CRIME or criminal events notability expectations. Risker (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Risker (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the "perpetrator", one "actor Nate Moore", is the same person as this actor Nate Moore, then merger is a possible resolution.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the same person. Merger is not a resolution. Risker (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article subject matter is notable and well referenced. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the article subject matter is notable? It is not well referenced, it has two references; one from Variety, which reports almost anything involving anyone involved in the LA-based entertainment industry, mentions Ward's death but does not ever get around to identifying his assailant (despite the fact that the information was certainly available contemporaneously). The second appears to be a classic British "look at the Americans killing each other off" article written exclusively from the point of view of those who were close to the victim; essentially a human interest story, not well sourced, and certainly not impartial. That's not well referenced. Risker (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire piece is well referenced. Your nomination of this article for deletion sounds like just another case of Wikipedia deletionist WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Neptune's Trident (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neptune's Trident, I've quoted two separate notability guidelines, neither of which I believe this article meets, and which you've not refuted; in fact, you've made an argument that should be avoided. You've not explained in any way how this specific case of manslaughter, one of thousands and thousands of criminal killings in the U.S. in one year, is notable. You've not come up with any better sources, contemporary or more recent. The last apparent mention of this matter was at the time of sentencing; this is not a matter of ongoing interest or discussion. I understand that you work hard to create articles, and do your best to fill in the red links on those you work on; indeed, that's pretty much how this entire project was created. But this topic just isn't notable, it's just another case of manslaughter, and there's nothing at all special about it. At least try to come up with a policy-based reason to keep it; if not even you can do that, then there's really no case to be made to keep it. Risker (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-referenced article on a notable subject per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an article based on poorly-sourced negative content about a living, non-notable person, and as such, that content must be deleted if higher-quality sourcing is not available. WP:BLP calls quite forcefully for negative BLP content to be handled with extreme care; the expectation is that sourcing for such articles, especially as regards the negative aspects, must be impeccable. Instead, this article presents as its sources: an obituary for Ward (which confirms that Ward was stabbed and died, nothing else wrt the crime being notable or the BLP subject being involved), a New York Times CV of Ward (the entire content of which is four film names), a New York Times film review (which mentions Ward's name once, passingly noting he was "crew" on the film), and an article from The Guardian which appears to be a dramatization of the killing.

    Of these, the Guardian article is the only one which approaches a substantive mention of the Ward's death, and it relies heavily on apparent personal opinion and gossipy dramatization. Written largely in the present tense, as though the author is at the scene, the tone is deliberately breathless and one-sided, rendering it, as Risker phrases it, more of a human-interest piece than a reliable source. For example:

    • Article opening: "'This is bad, this is bad!' Justin Bowman screams from the back of the white Jeep Cherokee as it barrels through West Hollywood toward Cedars-Sinai Medical Center." Heavy dramatization of the event, considering there appear to be no sources providing this information. All of the article's coverage of the killing uses the same gossipy, screenplay-script tone.
    • Article closing: "'He's a pretty bad actor,' Ward's mother, Barbara, says, appalled by what she feels was Moore's lack of remorse. 'Even in a part you don't want to play, you have to be convincing.'" A pretty big dose of point-of-view on which to end something we're using to write a "neutral" article about Moore.
But let's try a thought experiment: let's say that we stipulate that the Guardian article is 100% neutral and reliable source for this event. Where does that leave us in relation to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines for event coverage? Well, let's see:
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. No enduring coverage or significance of the event is presented here: the latest - the only - source for the event is essentially contemporaneous with Moore's court plea. No significant lasting effect is apparent: no law has been passed in response, no history books are covering this event as instructive, there's not even a "where are they now" from People magazine.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. Nothing indicates this event has had a significant effect on any region, domain, or group: actors still go out drinking, martial artists still use weapons, Californians still engage in as much road rage as anyone else.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Again, coverage here appears to have ended about the time Moore's appearance in court did. If any reliable source has covered the event since the end of that natural endpoint to the cycle, I'm unable to find it.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. This is the article's biggest hope; the Guardian article is surely a feature-length article in a reliable, international newspaper. However, the Guardian article is a single instance of coverage, whether international or not. In addition, it simply repeats the events as someone claims they happened, and is in fact structured to give the impression of being "eyewitness news" where the reader is observing the event happening. It does not attempt to contextualize the event or present it in a way that shows how knowledge of the event is of historical value; in fact, it does not venture outside the small circle of people who knew Moore and/or Ward intimately at all, and makes no apparent attempt to establish the event as being significant to anyone other than those people.
So, where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us hosting an article about a non-notable event involving negative information about a living person - an article which is based entirely on a single source of questionable neutrality and which fails to contextualize or comment upon the event in any informative manner. In short, it leaves us with an article that runs afoul of our BLP policy and that, even if cleaned of poorly-sourced negative BLP content, would still not demonstrate any particular notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - totally as per User:Risker's rationale - there is nothing notable about this crime, one of about 16,000 criminal deaths in the US in 1999.[1] The community has already found that neither the victim nor the convicted are notable individuals. The death itself does not meet the WP:CRIME or criminal events notability expectations. - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETEKEEP - Good lord, even Neptune's Trident was blocked for SOCKing! I still stand by my statement below (which it seems few have read entirely), but being an Inclusionist only goes so far.The article is sourced and covered by several Wikipedia projects. It started as a pair of BLP articles that were the target of outright WP:CENSORSHIP that involved multiple instances of WP:SOCKPUPPETry and a ridiculous amount of posturing over what should or should not be Notable on Wikipedia. I find the fact that so much effort has gone into deleting this information, is reason to be suspect.
  • I'd also like to add that the collective viewing statistics for the Nate Moore and Dave Ward article indicate that the subject matter is of interest to our Readers. This new article simply collects the content and better complies with WP policy, but none of these actions can change the fact that people have been visiting the pages since their creation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have my doubts about that, Scalhotrod, given that the current article's title misspells the name of the victim. I'd fix it with appropriate moves (including moving this page) except someone would no doubt say that I had a conflict. The page views for this article are entirely consistent with the fact that it was being created during the earlier AFDs. Most of the views of David Oren Ward were in relation to editing over the past year. Risker (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a request at the administrator's noticeboard for someone uninvolved to make the necessary page moves and corrections to log entries. Risker (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Scalhotrod's arguments. There has been a concerted effort to get all these articles removed. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double vote - Administrator note - Neptunes Trident has double voted in this discussion - and, yes there has been a concerted effort to delete this not notable killing as per the within WP:policies and guidelines rational to this deletion discussion. Please note that User:Neptune's Trident is the primary creator of the two biographies now deleted at AFD and as they were going to be deleted and has now created this in an attempt to have wikipedia continue to host detail about this not notable death. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed second vote, just left the comment. And Administrator note - Govindaharihari has been one of the primary antagonists in wanting these articles deleted. Please note that Govindaharihari has been wrongly insisting this subject matter is not notable when it is. Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated both your wp:blp creations for article deletion discussion because I didn't think under wikipedia guidelines that they should have a wikipedia article - both of them were deleted after the WP:AFD discussions - I would have nominated your attempt to rehost the story under this title if User:Risker had not beat me to it with a very clear policy rational for deletion - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. The articles were removed because the one article about the incident was seen as a better idea for the subject matter. Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • those deletion discussions do not support your claim - see the closing statements and the comments about the low notability of the incident and the people in both AFD chats
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nate_Moore_%28actor%29
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dave_Oren_Ward
    • Govindaharihari (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of those so-called comments were made by multiple sockpuppet accounts all saying the same thing. Neptune's Trident (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd suggest they were closed the way they were because the arguments to delete were based on policy. I've yet to see anything policy-based on the keep side of the table. Saying the names of policies isn't the same thing as demonstrating how those policies apply to these discussions. Risker (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unlike most crime articles, this one actually has secondary sourcing, the Guardian article from three years later. However, we really ought to have some other secondary sourcing; source 1 is a routine news report, a primary source, while the other two sources aren't substantial coverage at all. Bring in another secondary source, independent of the Guardian, and I'll happily switch to "keep". Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, jackpot then. I've found a reliable secondary source, an article in July 6, 1999 of The Advocate magazine called Coming Out the Hard Way. And in it the article states that Nate Moore was raised in Beverly Hills and is the son of a judge and an assistant district attorney. So it's obvious now who was the person or persons claiming to be a district attorney who were strongly advocating and sockpuppeting in Nate Moore's behalf. His parents. Here is the link to the article:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qWQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=dave+oren+ward+los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=kGnC1adEik&sig=ZQT6ZBnneNQq9prqZzmIiaPfe9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3ZunVIbfDYLYoATX7YKYBw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=dave%20oren%20ward%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

I've already added The Advocate piece to the Wikipedia article as a reference and a VERY reliable source.

Hopefully now Nyttend (talk) and other Wikipedia editors will switch their votes to Keep now. And hopefully this now settles the debate that this article and subject IS notable and worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. Neptune's Trident (talk)

It shows the individual exists, and a bit of their personal life, and some limited commentary regarding the death. But the timing is still extremely close in proximity to the death, it's a fairly small portion of the article, and while it is a good source to add I don't see how it clearly addresses the concerns of the nominee. NativeForeigner Talk 10:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a news magazine basically from the context of the event; I said a secondary source. What's more, as NativeForeigner notes, it's not a substantial enough mention; I meant something focusing solely or extensively on the event. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Risker and Fluffernutter. Routine murder like thousands of others, of no long-term significance. To those who say it's notable because it has been in the papers, I point out that the WP:GNG itself says, in the fifth bullet point, that coverage creates "an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not." and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: echoing the reasoning of Fluttermutter. And as JohnCD states just above; this person would have no enduring notability outside this sad event. A stand alone article on this person's career outside his death would not be kept: see Mia Zapata. She was decidedly notable prior to her death. Fylbecatulous talk 15:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per Fluffernutter. Minor event with no encyclopaedic significance. Fails WP:EVENT. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've thought long and hard about the unusual circumstances surrounding and leading up to this article, this is not your typical AfD. The ridiculous number of WP:SOCKPUPPETs involved combined with the rhetoric from all sides including purported officials and the perpetual attempts at what I consider censorship notwithstanding, I have also considered things like Right to be forgotten, a concept that has been discussed and debated on Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales' own Talk page fairly often. Granted, I personally believe that Nate Moore has the right to move on with his life given that he spent 12 years in prison, but at the same time I feel that Dave Ward does not deserve to be forgotten. Yes, I realize that Wikipedia is not a memorial, but the mention of Ward in this article can hardly be considered a memorial.

That said, this crime/killing/event (however anyone prefers to refer to it) is seemingly one of the least sensationalized "Hollywood murders" I have heard of as a Southern California resident and an Entertainment industry employee. Factor in that Moore's parents are a Los Angeles County judge and assistant district attorney [2] and I have to wonder if that had anything to do with the suppression of the story in 1999 and since then. Having a User with the name "CA Prosecutor DDA" involved just seems suspiciously convenient. (No, that's NOT an accusation, its an observation given the sources we have) But a parent's devotion to their child would certainly explain a lot of things that just seem odd (even for Wikipedia) regarding this and the related articles.

I came into this situation via request made at the BLP Noticeboard to improve an article which then had an anti-Censorship aspect added to it when I observed the actions taken to eliminate the information being presented (i.e. the Sock Puppets, influx of new Users, and single purpose accounts). And its in that tact and intention that I leave it. I've said my peace and leave it up to the reviewing Admin to sort through. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, Scalhotrod. It has nothing to do with censorship. It has nothing to do with memorialization. The creation of the original two articles had nothing to do with the death of Ward or the conviction of Moore, either; this article is a spin-off of what is essentially a tidbit from each of those articles about a random act of violence that involved a bunch of non-notable people. I hate to say it, but the event immortalized in this article is so run-of-the-mill that I'm hard pressed to understand why anyone would think it notable enough for an article; there were literally thousands of similar deaths in the US in the same year that this occurred. Notability does not derive from the fact that people *don't* think the event is notable, or think that the people involved are not notable, and it's not censorship to suggest that people aren't notable. Risker (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Scalhotrod, you do not have a good case that deletion at this AfD, if that is the result, has been achieved by "Sock Puppets, influx of new Users, and single purpose accounts". Including the nominator, those in favour of deletion (Risker, Fluffernutter, Govindaharihari, Nyttend, myself, Fylbecatulous and RGloucester) have been here since, respectively, 2005, 2008, 2014, 2006, 2006, 2011 and 2011. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable (though tragic) event that hasn't received substantial or enduring or significant coverage in reliable sources. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought I posted on all the articles but apparently I did not. So, I will repost my opinion here. Before I do that however, I would like to say that I am unsure why I am being accused of so many things. First I was using my "position" for influence and now I am a "parent" of the defendant and as such that's why I have my opinion. Just to clarify, I am not a parent of the defendant, in fact, I was born AFTER 1975, which is the year listed as the defendant's birth year. I am not related to the defendant or the victim of this case. Also, let me address some inconsistencies in your newest "source." I will also include some "clues" since I've read the reports in this case. First, it says that the defendant was raised in Beverly Hills and his parent was an "assistant district attorney." That being said, you list his high school as being in Pittsburgh. If he were raised in Beverly Hills, what was he doing going to high school in Pittsburgh? Second, you say his parent was an "assistant district attorney." I remind you that I am a DEPUTY district attorney. Here in California we are referred to as Deputy district attorney's, with the exception whoever the actual District Attorney chooses as their "second(s)" in command, and that is/are the Assistant District Attorney(s). However, in other states, instead of deputy DAs they are called "assistant district attorney's." So... If the defendant's parent was in fact an assistant district attorney, it was not in CA. Now, let me go back to the fact that the magazine says the defendant was raised in Beverly Hills. The biggest problem with that is the following: if his parent were in fact a district attorney in Los Angeles, the LA DA would have had a conflict of interest in prosecuting the case. Especially if the parent were an "assistant district attorney", meaning they were in command in the office. Yet, this case was in fact prosecuted in Los Angeles. Congratulations, you once again have cited a magazine article with inaccurate information.

Now, let me continue. I agree with Risker. All of the back and forth on the talk page of the deleted articles was between Neptune's Trident and the "sock puppet" person whom Neptune's Trident accused multiple times of being the person whom the article was about. I said it on the other page and I'll say it here... It doesn't seem like that should be allowed. Which supports my point that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to serve as a battleground for victims vs. defendants or proponents of either side. It further doesn't surprise me that the same person created all of these pages.

@Neptune's Trident: at no time have you, in any of your many comments, ever addressed any of the points made by ANYONE as to how this crime is noteworthy or how the people involved are noteworthy. In fact, the only thing you have ever said is simply that the pages should be kept and are noteworthy. You can make any statements you want but without any justification and reliable information to support what you are saying, your statements are simply that. Statements; and they are meaningless.

From the beginning I have given the opinion that 1. This sets bad precedent, 2. Neither the persons involved or the crime itself are noteworthy, and 3. The information as it is reported is inaccurate, and by placing inaccurate information on this site, you are tarnishing the integrity of wikipedia.

1. This sets bad precedent:

I stand by the notion that this sets bad precedent. If people are going to start Wikipedia pages for every case involving a death it would be never-ending.

2. Neither the persons involved or the crime itself are noteworthy

Neither of the persons involved in this crime are noteworthy. This has already been made clear based on the fact that both their pages were already deleted.

The crime itself is not noteworthy. This case holds no significance to the public in any way. If you are going to find significance in any cases they should be those worth the attention of the public, and quite frankly as I stated before, this is not. I doubt a single person cares about this case besides the parties involved. People should focus on those cases that actually mean something to the public or the legal field. This case set no legal precedent. It is not the basis for any new law or legislation, there was no appeal, and it's not even a "citable" case. I understand that the lives of the Victim's family were affected by this incident and the life of the defendant was affected, but the truth of the matter is, it had no effect on the community or any impact on the legal field.

3. The information as it is reported is inaccurate, and by placing inaccurate information on this site, you are tarnishing the integrity of wikipedia.

In my very first post as it relates to this page I stated that you have cited a "tabloidy" magazine article. First, these types of magazine articles are not reliable sources of information. Second, and more importantly, the information you've cited is inaccurate. Unfortunately, there was no trial in his case. As such, there is no true court record as a basis for the facts. Unlike most other case cited to on Wikipedia, where there actually is a trial which provides a basis for true and accurate information (again, going back to the fact that this case is not noteworthy) that is not the case here. Also, the plea in this case was "no contest" meaning that the defendant did not admit guilt and as such, there is no factual basis for a guilty plea, which would also be a public record. So really, your only recourse is to turn to police reports. To respond in the most educated manner, I have taken the time to read all the reports in this case and the series of events as listed by @Neptune's Trident: are not found in those reports. Thus, you have now not only reported an incident that was not "noteworthy" but you have reported facts that are inaccurate and untrue.

Finally, in addressing the misinformation posted by Scalhotrod, on one of the deleted pages, police reports, witness statements, followup incident investigations, and medical staff statements taken by police are NOT public record. I don't know where that user got that idea. All of those things are located in the DA file and (I'm assuming) the defense attorney's file. Neither of which is of public record. Also, the Defendant would get a copy of reports. I guess you could always attempt to ask him for a copy. As I stated above, it appears that in some of the other comments I was reading, @Neptune's Trident: accused him of being on here a couple times. So maybe that's worth a shot? Anyways, point is you cannot just go to the law enforcement agency and ask for copies of reports re: people. Hence the reason, in my prior posts, I was kind enough to inform you that the facts as listed by @Neptune's Trident: are inaccurate. I was accused before by @SCalHotRod of possibly violating my ethical obligations, however, it is because the information is not public record that I did not correct the misinformation. I have simply let you know it is inaccurate. As stated by another user, @Fluffernutter: there was no trial and thus no trial testimony, which WOULD be public record.

I will end with this. I played no role in this case, and no role in the prosecution of this case. I am not for the victim or against the victim, nor am I for the defendant or against the defendant. I will reiterate the statement I made on the other page. I simply have an opinion. I did not intend to wage any war with @Neptune's Trident: or @Scalhotrod. I don't know why they have chosen to attack me personally and attack my opinion simply because it disagrees with theirs. It is simply my opinion based on my arguments and observations made above. This page should be DELETED. CA Prosecutor DDA (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, I agree with Risker (talk · contribs). Some of the article is covered by citations from reliable sources, but even if verifiability could be met, I agree with previous arguments that it is not relevant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sources contribute to establish, but do not guarantee notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:21, 9 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Dave_Oren_Ward&oldid=1068863942"