Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Greaves

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 as follows: The nomination calls on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, which further references Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. For the uninitiated, "Biographies of living persons" (BLPs) are something of a fetish item, and merely saying the words invokes the shadow of arbitration.

  • The first point of call here is to look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deletion. Sadly (or, if you're more of the "hard cases make bad law type," happily) there is little proscriptive guidance there. This section appears to exist only to emphasise (and legitimise) that deletion is the end result of unsourced material on living people.
  • Having reviewed the policy goundwork, and turning to the dabate itself, very few of those commenting appeared to adress the issue raised in the nomination. Naming names here:
    • Shaliya waya/Tokyogirl79/Stonemason89 - Do not discuss Greaves at all, instead conflate him (the person) with the "case" (this event.)
    • Hinata/BabbaQ - Does not contribute meaningfuly to the debate. Does not explain at all why the nomination reasons do not apply.
    • Bigtimepeace - These comments appear well-informed and congruent with both the letter and spirit of policy.
    • 98.254.220.120/Wnt - While these somewhat-prolix comments are clearly in good faith, they still fail to adress the nomination.

Given that the article's content (when the material related to the "one event" is removed) consists of "Greaves is a former nurse's aide," the only reasonable outcome to this debate is delete.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Greaves

[edit]
Phillip Greaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would think that this fails WP:BLP1E. At most, the article belongs as a standalone article at The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure, but more properly should be at Amazon.com controversies#Pedophile guide. NW (Talk) 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Been there; done that. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure. The arrest of the author has not made the book any more notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very important event in US History. Greaves arrest constitutes the very first time since the Bill of Right was ratified that any American citizen has ever been arrested for written words alone, merely for expressing an unpopular political view or for describing way for people to commit crimes. The author of "Hitman--A Guide to being a successful hitman and assasian" was never charged with a crime even though someone used his book to commit murder. Niether was the author of the Turner Diaries ever arrested. In it, he tells its readers how to build bombs and attack the US. This book inspired Timothy McVeigh. Still the author of this book was never charged with a crime. The author of the Anarchist's Cookbook was never charged with a crime. It describes how to make high explosives, and how to be a successful terrorist. The person who published a book on how to build an atom bomb was never arresed. Nor were any of those people arrested who wrote books on how to build illegal silencers. So, it looks like we are going to carve out an exception to the first Amendment for people who claim pedophillia ought not be a crime. If the book had promoted Hitler, the return of the Third Reich and the extermination of all blacks and Jews, no one would be saying the author of such a book should be charged with a crime. Nor would the author of a book that advocated rape, murder, Satanism, cannablism, and sexual torture of adult females be charged with a crime. So, yes, this guy's arrest is a historic event. So is the amazing fact that his actions took place in Colorado, but he is being charged in a county in Florida where he never stepped foot. All around this is case filled with all kinds of legal precident. I doubt this case will make to the US Supreme Court. Very few cases do. Most likely there will be a plea-bargain with a time-served sentence allowing the guy to go free. And the question will remain an open question for a long time to come whether or not this guy really violated any law. Anyone who assumes this guy must be guilty of child abuse obviously can't separate fantasy from reality. Many people have all kinds of taboo fantasies, but do not act on them. This case is an example of hysterical witch-hunting in our time. CHILD ABUSE IS A HORRIBLE CRIME, but those guilty of horrific crimes like child abuse do not generally seek national attention. If we start locking up people for what they think and for things that turn them on which they don't act upon, where will it end?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.220.120 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All essays. And very generic reply. Still, this is a good article so I vote Keep --Hinata talk 21:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep It's notable for the same reasons that Shaliya mentioned- it's going far beyond the initial incident and I have a feeling that this is going to turn into a bigger issue than it already is. If the Yale student abortion art controversy can have an article, then this should as well. It falls in the same spectrum. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
    • How does that address my concern about c? NW (Talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This goes beyond a single event already. A while ago was the Amazon issue that had nothing to do with law enforcement (event #1), and more recently the arrest by the Polk Co Sheriff that had nothing to do with Amazon that brings up consitutional problems (event #2). Shaliya waya (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pretty much what Shaliya said- the book being on amazon was one event. Him being arrested is a second event. Eventually it will go to court and regardless of the outcome, the case will be passed along. If Greaves is found guilty, he will appeal. If he's found innocent, the police will appeal. It's already bringing up talk about freedom of speech and personal rights. The current stuff that's going on with Greaves has nothing to do with amazon, so it's not really appropriate to keep a log of all of this on the amazon controversies page. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
        • And I can guarantee that when someone brings up FOS in the future, this is going to be one of the things they refer to. It's far bigger than just an amazon controversy. This might have started on amazon but it's gone far beyond that scope. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep per Hinata.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Since the case is still ongoing, we shouldn't delete it until we know for sure that it's really just 1E. As Shaliya has pointed out, this may well go on for quite a long time and even make it to the Supreme Court. Then again, it might not. The point is, we don't know yet. Best to keep the article for now and then possibly revisit it within a few months to a year. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one of two places. First, the keep arguments above are incredibly weak—none of them are really rooted in our guidelines and that's pretty significant (there's also a significant WP:CRYSTAL problem, and that most certainly is relevant to AFD discussions). The nominator is absolutely right that this is a BLP1E issue, and I think some of the folks commenting above are interpreting BLP1E incorrectly (at least as I see it). By "event" we don't literally mean one occurrence on one particular day, such that Greaves publishing the book is an event, Amazon selling it is another, the media controversy is a third, his arrest a fourth, trial a fifth, etc. The "event" in question is Greaves writing a book that became controversial and the repercussions that followed. Note that the policy says "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." It's that "in the context of" that's important—Greaves is only discussed at all because of the book. Again from the policy, "in such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." That's what we should do here. Either we should recreate the previously merged The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure—there's a decent argument for that since clearly Greaves' arrest has led to more press—or both Phillip Greaves and The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure should redirect here. Either would be fine with me, but I think it's pretty clear that this is an example of a BLP1E where we have an article about the event rather than the person. Anyone searching on "Phillip Greaves" would get the relevant info, but we would not have a standalone bio to watchover which would be ripe for BLP violations. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right - and Barack Obama is a BLP1E because everything notable that he did resulted from a decision to go into politics! I feel that, in general, articles seem more likely to be AfD'd because someone doesn't like what they are about, than for being bad articles. Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of unsourced articles that will never end up here, even unsourced BLPs, but instead this tribunal seems dead-set on removing objects of multiple major widespread news coverage. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, I like what you said about Barack Obama. Most people who are famous are famous (or infamous) for just one reason, though fame can be spread out over a period of time. Actors who have acted in one film are notable. One-hit wonders are notable. So why shouldn't an author who has published one book (in this case controversial) not be notable? I can see the BLP1E guideline of not being notable getting applied to a case where a man molests a child, and there is widespread coverage for 1-2 days that afterwards ceases for good. There is even a guideline (WP:ROUTINE) regarding that. But this is anything but routine. This is a person whose controversy has charted new territory. This is someone who has written a book that received a lot of nationwide coverage on two separate occasions when separate events surrounding the book occurred. While there are many articles on people famous for more routine stuff, like simply acting in a film or singing a song, and they are eligible, nothing like this has ever happened before.
I also like what you said about what pages end up here and what pages don't. Come to think of it, Wikipedia has millions of articles now. With just 86,400 seconds in a day, no single person knows or can possibly know what most of them are. Most of them are on obscure topics most people do not know about. They may or may not meet inclusion guidelines. That is a different matter. But the existence of this particular article is known to many more people because Mr. Greaves has been in the national media lately. All it takes for an article to end up here is one person, probably one looking for a witchhunt. In an ironic twist, it is the more popular articles like these that tend to be challenged. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The arrest is still not tied to Amazon in any way. It occurred after the Polk Co. Sheriff ordered a paper copy of the book directly from Greaves, and after the fact arranged for his arrest and extradition. Amazon had no involvement whatsoever. Therefore, this will not belong in any Amazon article.
I believe that most agree this article's content does belong in Wikipedia somewhere. One of three things has to occur.
  1. The title is kept the same
  2. This article gets renamed
  3. This article's content gets merged somewhere else. Once again, the arrest was not an Amazon controversy.

Shaliya waya (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your point, but it isn't really an argument for retaining this article with the current title since it doesn't go against the basic BLP1E argument raised by the nominator. If anything it's an argument for redirecting Greaves to a re-created article at The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a situation in which you have an author and a book, and there can be an article on one but not the other, does it make more sense to have an article on the author with the book title redirecting, or the book with the author's name redirecting? Shaliya waya (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per BLP1E, the answer will usually be the latter, at least in my interpretation. I would argue that the "event" (because we should usually keep articles about the event, not the person, when we are talking about relatively minor events like this) is the publication of the book and all of the ensuing controversy. In a way, at this point, Greaves himself is not really important per say. The book he wrote is what matters, at least for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge and redirect per the AfD for the book. If the consensus regarding the book was that it was not notable enough for an article, then the same goes for the author (seeing as the author is only known because of the controversy surrounding the book)! When and if it does become notable (e.g. if it ends up in the Supreme Court) it can have an article, but until then there's no compelling reason to overturn the previously established consensus. --67.85.190.217 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say that it should be kept as a seperate article from the amazon controversies page. If we were going to go by the BLP1E argument then a good chunk of articles would be deleted and again, I bring up the Yale abortion art controversey. That was only one event and one person, yet it still merited an article. There are others that are similar. I do think that perhaps it would be better for this to be renamed, but this does merit an article. Anything happening now is not really related to amazon and Greaves' potential for arrest brings up a lot of controversey as far as freedom of speech goes. I say that at the very least, we should leave the article for now. This is all still in the early stages. Once Greaves goes to court- and he WILL go to court, there's no crystal balling about that- this is going to get an obscene (no pun intended) amount of publicity. Greaves' book brings up a lot of questions as to what should and shouldn't be considered FoS. It's more than just a maybe-pedophile writing a creepy book that amazon was pressured to yank. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep This is a very important event in US History. Greaves arrest constitutes the very first time since the Bill of Right was ratified that any American citizen has ever been arrested for written words alone, merely for expressing an unpopular political view or for describing way for people to commit crimes. The author of "Hitman--A Guide to being a successful hitman and assasian" was never charged with a crime even though someone used his book to commit murder. Niether was the author of the Turner Diaries ever arrested. In it, he tells its readers how to build bombs and attack the US. This book inspired Timothy McVeigh. Still the author of this book was never charged with a crime. The author of the Anarchist's Cookbook was never charged with a crime. It describes how to make high explosives, and how to be a successful terrorist. The person who published a book on how to build an atom bomb was never arresed. Nor were any of those people arrested who wrote books on how to build illegal silencers. So, it looks like we are going to carve out an exception to the first Amendment for people who claim pedophillia ought not be a crime. If the book had promoted Hitler, the return of the Third Reich and the extermination of all blacks and Jews, no one would be saying the author of such a book should be charged with a crime. Nor would the author of a book that advocated rape, murder, Satanism, cannablism, and sexual torture of adult females be charged with a crime. So, yes, this guy's arrest is a historic event. So is the amazing fact that his actions took place in Colorado, but he is being charged in a county in Florida where he never stepped foot. All around this is case filled with all kinds of legal precident. I doubt this case will make to the US Supreme Court. Very few cases do. Most likely there will be a plea-bargain with a time-served sentence allowing the guy to go free. And the question will remain an open question for a long time to come whether or not this guy really violated any law. Anyone who assumes this guy must be guilty of child abuse obviously can't separate fantasy from reality. Many people have all kinds of taboo fantasies, but do not act on them. This case is an example of hysterical witch-hunting in our time. CHILD ABUSE IS A HORRIBLE CRIME, but those guilty of horrific crimes like child abuse do not generally seek national attention. If we start locking up people for what they think and for things that turn them on which they don't act upon, where will it end?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.220.120 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please stay on-topic. This is a discussion as to whether or not this article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is not a forum to discuss the content of the book, personal opinions about Greaves' legal or moral guilt, the status of free speech in the United States, speculation as to the outcome of the case, or anything else other than this AfD nomination. --76.124.5.4 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find the comment from the above IP to be one of the most useful in this discussion, despite the fact that it contains some opinion that does not belong here. It shows how a situation like that in the nature of this article is notable and contains some really good points. Per WP:BITE, we should not strike down hard against someone who has probably not participated in an AfD before and does not understand how it works. Whoever it is appears to have written in really good faith. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Bear in mind that during the Amazon.com controversy the American Booksellers Association was quoted saying that a book could not be illegal because of its text. Was this organization wrong? Our rather long-winded colleague above is clearly incorrect in saying that text hadn't been prosecuted since the "Bill of Right", but such prosecutions have been at least greatly reduced since the time of Lady Chatterly's Lover, and this case is of great importance to preserving freedom of the press. While there have been other infringements on plain text like in the lawsuit against Paladin Press or the political imprisonment of Sherman Austin, this differs in the actual criminalization of text without any surrounding pretext, not on the basis of how it "might be used" but simply because it is repulsive in itself. Wikipedia cannot fairly cover developments regarding First Amendment issues in the U.S. without thoroughly documenting this case as it unfolds. I should further say that the book's page should be un-redirected notwithstanding the previous AfD, since it has become the topic of renewed media coverage and clearly has enduring notability. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (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/Phillip_Greaves&oldid=1138228322"