Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Shulman (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Shulman (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)

NOMINATED FOR DELETION: Shulman is not notable enough, and his crime not significant enough, to merit a wikipedia article. He is not, as per WP:BIO, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".

Shulman did not commit any act of violence, but only predicted same.

As the Mother Jones article[1] points out, Shulman did not threaten to harm anyone HIMSELF, but merely stated that SOMEONE would likely do so. His posts and phone calls were therefore not threats but warnings and predictions, although he pled guilty to one count of "threatening to injure another person" in order to get a lower sentence.

If we gave everyone who makes a threat or even everyone who pleads guilty to making a threat over the abortion issue their own wikipedia page, wikipedia would run out of storage space.

This article was nominated for deletion before and the decision was DELETE. Instead of using the WP: DELETE REVIEW process, which is the legitimate way to un-delete a deleted article, an editor has simply re-created another article with the same name, which is, according to my understanding, a no-no. Goblinshark17 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A version of this article was deleted in 2011, but that was before sentencing. Several of the delete votes in that discussion mentioned that there might be enough coverage if the subject were to be convicted. The subject was convicted and there has subsequently been much more coverage. Since the previous deletion discussion, and used as references for the BLP, the subject has been covered in Mother Jones, the Viliage Voice, CNS News, NY Daily News, and he has been the subject of press releases from the Justice Department and the FBI. Though not used as sources for the BLP, the subject has also been covered by Staten Island Live, the Times Union, the Christian Post, North Iowa Today, CNA, First Things, and my very own KMSP. The subject passes the notability test with flying colors. Juno (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also got a shout out on CNN when they were discussing the possible use of Ricin by terrorists. Juno (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The crime was not violent but it was federal and sufficiently interesting to generate a handful of articles published in the media. Thus the biography meets WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The son of a notable feminist was convicted of making a threat of violence against notable pro-life activists, his self-professed motivation for his violent threats was his pro-choice views, and the crime received considerable media coverage. Ted Shulman easily meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Cloonmore (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it didn't get over the NOTNEWS barrier right after it happened, why would we think it would get over it a few years later when there's still been no significant coverage in reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE news? Honestly, WP:EVENT/BLP1E, people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If the WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E guidelines were appropriate here then the biography should be redirected to the article about the event. In Shulman's case there is no such event article. No event happened here except that a guy was put behind bars after telling some pro-life people they were going to die soon, which is not an event. That's partly why I thought the biography should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Binksternet. Meets WP:GNG. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Frank Pavone and Robert P. George. Thulman notability seems to be primarily associated with his death threats of these two individuals. The information in these articles cover him just fine. See WP:BIO1E.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A concern with merging is some interesting and notable facts about Shulman wouldn't fit in the Pavone or George articles, including that Shulman is self proclaimed "pro-choice terrorist" and that he was arrested for possession of cyanide and other poisons. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, BoboMeowCat, but the sources say Shulman was arrested for making threats, not for possession of anything, although the cyanide and other poisons were found in his possession when he was arrested. In fact, possession of cyanide, castor beans, and rosary peas is not in itself a crime. You can't get arrested for possessing these substances. Goblinshark17 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per sources Shulman was charged with possession of cyanide etc, but as part of his plea deal those weapons charges were dropped and he was only convicted of threats. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the sources more carefully, BoboMeowCat. They do not say that Shulman was ever CHARGED with possession of these substances (which is not a crime anyway) only that as part of his plea deal he did not face weapons charges for having them. In other words, the sources do not say that weapons charges were brought against him, only that he might have faced such charges had he not pled. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a minor differentiation cause plea deal shows he could have faced charges for possession of those substances, had he not accepted the plea deal. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between on the one hand having the prosecutors actually bring additional charges against a defendant, and on the other hand learning after the fact that such charges were under consideration and might hypothetically have been brought may seem minor to you, BoboMeowCat, but (having done a little consulting work with lawyers and defendants) I can assure you that the difference between these two things is very important, not at all minor, to defendants! Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point here was simply that the cyanide possession, along with Shulman's assertion that he's the "first pro-choice terrorist", seems interesting, unusual & notable, and it wouldn't merge well into the George or Pavone article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your right it wouldn't merge well. That's why you don't merge that part. The notability here is the death threat of two notable individuals. It's not notable that he's called himself the first Pro-choice terrorist. He's not notable because when they arrested him he had three legal substances.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pretty much a clear case of meeting WP:GNG. Also the fact that it has been through a AfD before with the result of deletion really is not a reason for deletion in yet another AfD, if the article has been improved. How it was recreated should also really have no baring on the AfD result. Notability is notability...--BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2014 (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.