Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Ball

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. Now, I know it's only been five and a half days instead of the usual seven. However, there's reason for an early close;

I believe community consensus is clear - policies such as WP:BLP1E exist for events such as this one. While Mr. Ball's death is tragic, there is no evidence that it will make him historically notable - there are very few usable sources on the matter.

That being said, my sympathies go out to the family and supporters.

This deletion does not mean that a minority viewpoint is being suppressed, as is being alleged by some. We are not censoring anybody. We're simply abiding by policy.

As others have said, the option does exist to re-create this article at a later date if it gains widespread attention and is support by policy. Unfortunately, we do not have a crystal ball, and do not have foresight of such a development, so the article will remain deleted unless some notability arises.

Thanks, m.o.p 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas James Ball

Thomas James Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:EVENT. There is no lasting or historical significance of this event. The coverage has been limited to local news, and there are few GHits. Singularity42 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This event passes WP:EVENT. Rebuttals:

(1) Historical significance: This is the ninth act of political self immolation in modern United States history. All other US political self immolations have wikipedia pages.

(2) No Censorship: This political self immolation was made in protest to perceived injustices both in written law and in the application of law. The laws and legal practices that the self immolation protests are actively promoted by a community with a large and influential wikipedia presence. To delete a minority opinion that challenges the prevailing point of view is contrary to the wikipedia no censorship policy WP:NOTCENSORED.

(3) Media coverage: Coverage of the event has been limited, consistent with histrical precedent when political activists defend unpolular/minority points of view. However, many such minority points of view (including feminism itself) eventually came to become influential and main stream.

(4) Importance to a minority: Multiple organizations which lobby for recognition of points of view which are contrary to the prevailing legal practices have voiced their support for Mr. Ball's actions.

In summary, although the event constitutes a protest against a majority point of view, there exists a significant and growing minority point of view that challenges the established dogma. In so far as the "self immolation" event is tied into the evolving national discussion about gender and equality under the law, it is both historically important and serves the purpose of recognizing the existence of alternatives to the prevailing points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Reply I do not believe the points you raise address the criteria in WP:EVENT. Specifically:

1. All other US political self immolations have wikipedia pages. That's an unproveable assertion. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability. If the political self-immolation was not notable, it would not have an article. Nor is there a list anywhere of every person's suicide for political reasons, no matter how non-notable. Most of the articles I looked at had coverage from numberous signficant secondary sources. Finally, if there exists one or two articles that don't meet the criteria, that cannot be used to justify this article not meeting the criteria. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
2. To delete a minority opinion that challenges the prevailing point of view is contrary to the wikipedia no censorship policy. That is not why this article is being deleted. I couldn't care less about family law issues in the U.S. I have no interest, no conflict of interest, and I am objective. My nomination is simply on the basis that there has been very little coverage of this incident, and a politically-motivated suicide it not inherently notable.
3. However, many such minority points of view (including feminism itself) eventually came to become influential and main stream. And if this gets significant coverage and becomes notable, then it might get an article. But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political expression. See WP:NOT.
4. Multiple organizations which lobby for recognition of points of view which are contrary to the prevailing legal practices have voiced their support for Mr. Ball's actions. Has this been verified by third-party reliable sources? Otherwise, that doesn't help this discussion. Might not change whether this is notable, but the assertion cannot even be considered without it being properly verified.
5. An open letter has been sent to the president of the United States by an organization with a membership exceeding 10,000 individuals. Lots of organizaitons send letters to the President. That's not notable. This last reply was in response to a fifth point raised above which was subsequently removed after I wrote this. Singularity42 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This event passes WP:EVENT. Reply:

A list of all political self immolations is available on wikipedia List of political self-immolations. The only political self immolation without a wikipedia page is Gregory Levey, and the event nonetheless has a wiki stub, implying that a full wiki page is desirable. A political self immolation is intrinsically very different from any other kind of suicide, because of the historcal perception that the act is so exceptionally difficult to endure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not !vote multiple times. I have striked the second !vote. Singularity42 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[[List of political self-immolations is not a list of all political self-immolations. As per the opening sentence, it is a list of notable political self-immolations. It is illogical to argue that there is a list of all political self-immolations - non-notable ones by definition are generally not noted. Singularity42 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Thomas Ball and his Self-Immolation has been reported by The International Business Times at http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/164827/20110617/thomas-ball-self-immolate-child-support.htm This means the event is both notable and non-local. It is head-lined as a protest against child-support, and the article goes into detail outlining the current legal treatment of so-called Deadbeat Dads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.73.236 (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — 210.54.73.236 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: The International Business Times article seems to be part of a project for users to create their own articles. It contains some spelling errors and an ungrammatical sentence. This suggests that it does not come from a professional journalist and has not undergone editorial oversight. There is an ad asking the reader to become one of the site's contributors, with a link to a page for doing so. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment There doesn't even appear to be a byline. Larry V (talk | email) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A classic cause of suicide is to be ignored marginalized Durkheim. It would be cruel to also ignore Ball's suicide itself. Kposowa reports a suicide rate of 14 times higher of men in child custody cases in US. So Ball is an example of a much wider phenomena. Men are about 80 percent of all suicides Gender and suicide. Ignoring the risks of suicide are generally considered a major contributing factor, even though the same prevention agencies generally de-emphasize male suicide. The US Army from which Ball retired, has recognized a high rate and reports some recent success . The lack of news coverage (in three days it is limited to three states and IB Times) may be part of the marginalization pattern. Further there is a considerable political component to Ball's experience as well as the current discussion to eliminate his mention. According to US Census, "Residential patterns of Children," very few children have much of an relationship with their divorced father. I remember the California equal parenting bill, AB 1307, received 4,000 letters in support and a dozen from domestic violence organizations saying all fathers a violent. The bill did not pass. That same interest will want to squash this article. In fact according to Ball's letter this was not a fight with his wife in court, but rather actions forced by the domestic violence advocacy in the person of CPS and police. Euphobot (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — Euphobot (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

User has been blocked from editing, therefore, !vote is stricken. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —Qrsdogg (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Tom was very active in Father's Right's Movements and as much as I regret his action I feel that it is historically significant and a classic example of non-violent protest in support of a lost cause. What is the standard for inclusion? If he had killed ten, or twenty, people in addition to himself would it then warrant an entry? Let's be careful what incentives we set up here! ~ Mark H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.112.20 (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: 173.48.112.20 has made no other edits.

• KeepAs far as news coverage goes his suicide is gaining more interest. It was carried on Drudge for a short time and Instapundit and also on Lew Rockwell (cited now in article).As already mentioned the marginalization of the event by large regular news outlets is insufficient reason to delete. ----

KEEP The political self-immolation of the man in Tunisia that sparked the Jasmine Revolution (after being publicly slapped by the female official for questionning her power to deny him his livelihood and ability to support his children as a fruit seller) also did not receive press attention for several weeks following the event. Moreover, the US Supreme Court currently has before it a case (Turner v. Rogers) in which the High Court will determine whether unemployed fathers in the US may be jailed repeatedly, for up to one year on each occasion, without benefit of an attorney, just because they do not have the money to pay child support. That is precisely the situation Mr. Ball faced. This article should be cross-referenced with the Wikipedia article covering Turner v. Rogers and a Wikipedia article regarding the practice of jailing of indigent fathers in the US (see the Law Review article subtitled: The Quiet Return of Debtors' Prison), not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.32.130 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) — 38.111.32.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep: The very fact that someone put it up, someone wants it gone, and that we're now discussing if it should be deleted proves that it is notable. If it weren't notable, the entry would have already been deleted without any discussion. The motives of those who wanted gone are obvious; the very reason that Thomas James Ball burned himself to death. The marginalization of men, their pain being invisible to society, and some people being hell bent on keeping it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.56.231 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — 82.168.56.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: I don't fully understand how these edit discussions work. I apologize in advance for my luddite tendencies. However, I cannot see how this article about Tom Ball could be deleted. It strikes me as neutral and involving very important content. Please do not delete it and let Tom Ball fall into anonymity. Whether you agree with his actions or not, he made a very powerful social statement that deserves to at least be witnessed before being individually judged. As a father going through divorce and who has been unfairly kept from his adored 6-year-old daughter (thankfully, in this incidence, the courts appear to understand my situation and are trying to grant me more time with my daughter), there is a very clear societal and systemic bias against fathers, often regardless of the facts. Many of us are simply guilty until proven innocent, and meanwhile, despite the fact that some of us are loving house dads, we are missing the most precious years of our children's lives. It's heartbreaking and tortuous. Believe me.

• Before contributing to this discussion please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Wikipedia uses the term "notable" in a different way than it generally is used, and your contributions to this discussion won't be considered by the closing administrator unless you cite a reason based in Wikipedia policy. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

-- OK, Will do. Sorry if I've not done this well. The interface is a bit daunting to some of us.

Keep: Evidence of spreading social significance (Tom Ball's act discussed in respected and well-read blog of James Howard Kunstler) : http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/06/man-down.html

Update on google hits (by author, in support of keeping the page): Initial google hits were limited for "Thoamas James Ball". Currently, the number of google hits stands at 8,400,000. This is significant evidence that this event is highly relevant. By comparison, a google search for James Whitney Bulger results in 168,000 google hits. The event of the capture of Bulger is the front page news item at this moment on cnn.com, even though it has generated only a tiny fraction of the amount of interest that exists in the Thomas James Ball event. Absence of coverage by the main-stream media does not indicate absence of national significance. Note that James J. Bulger has a long wikipedia page, further evidence that the Thomas James Ball event should remain. The presence of interested/non-neutral pro-keep parties in this discussion (sometimes called sock/meat puppets) should not be used as a justification for removing the Thomas James Ball page. The only proposed argument for removal of the page (lack of significance of event) has been rebutted by (1) the exponential growth in the impact that this event continues to have in the blogosphere and in non-traditional media outlets, as well as by (2) the very large number of google hits (fixed in response to comment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaresny (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I get 95,500 hits for "Thomas James Ball" and 4,260,000 for "Alexander Hamilton". There is no such person as "James Whitney Bulger". It is James "Whitey" Bulger. Whitey is a nickname. His article has existed since 2004, so is not dependent on the news of his recent arrest. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Blogs and forums do not meet the criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep This event passes WP:EVENT. Good heavens I can't even believe this is a discussion. I'm reading about him in California and came here specifically to read more. This is a national news event. He is part of a significant if small movement. Wikipedia even has a LIST of self immolation articles. What kind of nonsense is this? Is this really less critical than the Half-Life 2 article? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjost (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The Half-Life 2 article has nothing to do with this discussion. Larry V (talk | email) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Too WP:RECENT to provide for neutral coverage of topic. A sad situation, and a strong political statement, yes...but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. If the "men's rights" movement succeed in making him a significant 'martyr' for their cause then the page can be recreated once a suitable weight of notability is reached. Paul B (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Will this have long-lasting impact? It's too early to know for certain. But I'm seeing a fair number of Gnews hits and some that appear to be a bit more than local coverage [1]. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Paul B has expressed concern about the reliability of that source. Larry V (talk | email) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks Larry, I'd not seen that. Changing to Neutral for now but if this is kept it will need to renamed to an event per WP:BLP1E. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Alan the Roving Ambassador and Paul B. Wikipedia is not the forum to establish notability. If this were to receive more coverage and have a demonstrable impact, then perhaps this could be rewritten. As it stands, this is a news item and it's not Wikipedia's job to report the news, memorialize someone or promote a political cause. It's a sad story and he was obviously a troubled person but Wikipedia is not the place for this article. WP:CRYSTAL very much applies here. freshacconci talktalk 17:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Simply too soon to assess the significance of the event and the danger that Wikipedia is being used as a site for memorialization. Its an understandable impulse, but not the role of an encyclopedia.--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies here. I will say this however I agree with Freshacconci's comments above, this could be rewritten if it were to receive more, and lasting coverage, and also have some sort of imapct. Right now as it stands it doesn't. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment as nominator, agree with all comments above about there being no prejudice to rewrite and recreate in the future if appropriate. Singularity42 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Most of the sources cited in the article are non-RS -- mostly opinionated blogs. From the few reliable sources, I conclude that this guy's life was pretty much of a mess and he committed suicide, choosing a highly visible method and leaving a long rambling note. That's all. The fact that men's rights bloggers have decided to reinvent him as a men's rights activist who died for their cause does not make it true, and it does not make the details of his biography notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, nor a memorial site, nor an online venue for promoting causes by turning deceased people into martyrs. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I fully understand that a number of the !voters here (mostly on the keep side) are newbies, but I didn't expect to see something like this from an established editor. A) It doesn't matter if most of the sources aren't reliable, the question, with respect to WP:N at least, is if there are multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. There clearly are. A wall of non-reliable sources attached to 2 or 3 good ones doesn't reduce the good ones. B) "I conclude that this guy's life was pretty much of a mess and he committed suicide, choosing a highly visible method and leaving a long rambling note. That's all. " is no more a reason to delete the article then the really poor keep arguments here. The question at hand if this event is likely to have long-lasting impact. C) "The fact that men's rights bloggers have decided to reinvent him as a men's rights activist who died for their cause does not make it true, and it does not make the details of his biography notable." If it's true or not is entirely irrelevant. Of course this falls under BLP1E and so should be renamed or deleted. But the truth or fiction of the claim doesn't matter. Sorry for the rant. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTNEWS. Every day in many cities there are newspaper stories on topics like "local man kills self", "police officer shot and killed", and "convenience store clerk killed in robbery." The fact that those stories are published in reputable and reliable newspapers does not make the story topics into topics for encyclopedia articles. And Wikipedia doesn't base articles on what bloggers think. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO1E. 90% of the references are in context of people bloging about how horrible it is. Simply too soon to see how this is going to stick in the history. Not opposed when more verifyiable and reliable sources write about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:EVENT. The vast majority of the refs provided fail WP:RS. Blogs can't be used to establish notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • But the reliable sources, and there are plenty, can. It probably does fail WP:EVENT, but the non-RSes don't reduce the value of the reliable ones. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong delete - fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this event was under-covered in the news, and deserved wider attention, but it's simply not an appropriate encyclopedia subject. Peacock (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. A pretty clear case of 1E. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of 'men's rights', or for any other political cause - and doubly so when the apparent suicide of a disturbed person is being exploited for that cause. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete This was a single event and WP:NOTNEWS. Mathsci (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of historical notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of actual notability; see WP:BIO1E, WP:COATRACK and (odd though it might seem) WP:UPANDCOMING for my reasoning - the latter to address the "it's getting more famous everyday among people who read the same websites I do" arguments from people coming here as a result of the outside canvassing effort. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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.