Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Poindexter

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Poindexter

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

Delete: WP:BLP1E. An ordinary banker/businessman with no encyclopedic notability whatsoever other than for discovering the body of a notable subject. Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the recent Scalia coverage and tangential coverage via Cibolo Ranch and his business activities, there's also his Vietnam Service and subsequent veteran advocacy (which resulted in his troop receiving the Presidential Unit Citation), and his attempt to purchase a chunk of national park. Stories include 2009 Forbes, 2006 Texas Monthly, 2010 Houston Biz Journal, 2005 Houston Chronicle, etc.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to all of the press he received following Antonin Scalia's death, Poindexter has had press in San Antonio Express-News as well as all those mentioned above as he has been mostly successful acquiring a large amount of land in his luxury resort in West Texas. Optim.usprime (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"acquiring a large amount of land [for] his luxury resort in West Texas" is hardly encyclopedic. Real-estate developers acquire land every day. Additionally, tens of thousands of men and women served in Vietnam. That in itself is not encyclopedically noteworthy. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)--Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If his only event had been the discovery of Scalia -- even as a highly-quoted spokesman for the ranch -- then sure, BLP1E, and he could be redirected to the Ranch with a mention there of his company as the world's largest producer of commercial truck bodies since it doesn't otherwise appear particularly notable in terms of coverage. The coverage of his post-Vietnam activism which resulted in coverage of his Vietnam service is, however, in no way run-of-the mill. Interestingly, his doctoral thesis regarding Venture Capital looks like it's been reasonably well-cited per GScholar and GBooks. There's no BLP2E+ delete. It's a WP:NPOINTS keep. (My back-of-the-head rubric here is Is he likely to receive obituaries in major news sources, particularly non-Texan ones?) ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 08:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about "world's largest producer of commercial truck bodies" appears to unsupportable. See Talk:John B. Poindexter#WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has (at least) 2 sources (Forbes and Houston Business Journal). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 03:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which read like a press release, and neither of which provides any context. Remember, most small trucks have OEM bodies, most vocational trucks have, essentially, no bodies, and most big trucks use trailers. This is a niche market. Being big in it may be a reflection of the size of the pond, not the size of the frog.

(It's also a niche market in which Poindexter companies can and do sell to each other; if a buyer asks Reading to build a $10k body on a $5k Morgan trailer, Poindexter's sales overall would show $20k, not 15.)

Finally, looking through an Inc Magazine site of firms in this revenue range, I don't see that many owners or CEOs who have their wiki own page. Personally, I'm not sure this is a good idea, or a persistent wikifailing, but it does seem to be there. Anmccaff (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anmccaff: Thanks for that. I'll follow up (sometime...) on the article's talk page re wording for that claim and will ping you when I do. Re CEOs, if his business career were all that was documented, I don't think he'd qualify for an article (possibly redirect to the company, but it's not clear that that warrants an article either given how little coverage there is separate to him). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing WP:BLP1E, which says that "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination *attempt*, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." John B. Poindexter was the last man to see Antonin Scalia alive, which is significant. The fact that Poindexter owned 100s of Millions of dollars worth of land, and he is a highly decorated Vietnam vet only indicates he already surpassed notability requirements. Optim.usprime (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the policy. If Poindexter had murdered Scalia, then fine. We don't do an article for every first responder who uncovers a celebrity's body.

Owning "100s of Millions of dollars worth of land" is not noteworthy in and of itself — if that could even be documented. And tens of thousands of men and women are decorated Vietnam veterans. Also not noteworthy in and of itself.

Let's also note that some of the primary editors involved in that article all appear to be the same individual. User:209.140.44.16 has just been blocked for trolling. Others involved include User:209.140.37.167 and User:209.140.36.15. I suspect this is the same as a registered user, since their nearly identical edits all reveal a single-purpose account evidently designed to leverage Scalia's death in order to promote this businessman. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't misunderstand the policy. John B. Poindexter was the man who, unquestionably, Discovered Antonin Scalia's body (2 , 3 , 4). Notably, Scalia's body underwent some very unorthodox procedures.. Cinderela Guevara was called, by Poindexter, and was willing to follow his direction after 2 other justices who were called by Poindexter refused to do so. And yes, Poindexter's land, as with any developed property exceeding 30,000 acres is easily worth over "100s of Millions of dollars worth of land". User:Tenebrae, please take the advice of User:Lzz, User:Chzz & User:La Pianista, take a deep breath, relax and think about the edits you've been making.. Your edit war with User:24.27.96.84 (talk) notwithstanding, your impulse to delete here and your logic to do so is impossible to follow. It does not make sense why you are so insistent on removing this man from wikipedia other than that you are singularly focused on that purpose. Optim.usprime (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you do misunderstand the policy since we clearly don't do an article for every single first responder who uncovers a celebrity's body.

Second, I don't see those other editors here, so you're apparently combing through my history and wikistalking me. Stop. Thirdly, you and the suspiciously similar single-purpose-account anon IPs — at least some of which if not all are the same person — appear to exist solely to promote a non-notable businessman. Finally, how is my logic impossible to follow when it's: "There are tens of thousands of Vietnam vets. Being a decorated Vietnam vet doesn't automatically make you encyclopedically notable." Or "Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're encyclopedically notable." Really? That logic's hard to follow?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Poindexter is not "tens of thousands of Vietnam vets". He was given the Presidential Unit Citation for a Vietnam unit he led. And his Cibolo Creek Ranch is not unlike a Caribbean island that has gotten Jeffrey Epstein into trouble.. 209.140.35.244 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article for the award that this multiple-account-abusing anon IP names, there have been 271 such citations given. Unless this makes every other person notable for leading a unit that won the citation, this in itself does not reach the bar, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's about 3.6 PUCs a year since creation. Comparatively there's been about 22.4 Medals of Honor a year since creation. There's ample coverage to meet WP:GNG requirements for this, and for Poindexter's role in proceedings. Given that SOCKs, IPs and/or FRINGEists appear to be an issue (spilling over from Scalia's death), however, then semi-protection might be a good idea ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 03:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Cibolo Creek Ranch if needed, as simply none of this suggests better solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article also has a whiff of promotion about it. Maybe this needs a twofer. Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with Anmccaff that the way Scalia's death is mentioned in the Cibolo Creek Ranch is very self-promotional, which, given the questions surrounding Scalia's lack of an autopsy, is quite odd.. 209.140.41.165 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete, ~~despite for the arguments above, not because of them. He's a businessman on a big enough scale that inclusion is warranted. As a stub, until some real coverage comes in,~~ as opposed to the promotional rah-rah fluff above. If a chambermaid had found Scalia, would we have an article for her? Anmccaff (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued interaction with what is almost certainly the block-evading head fanboi here is making me reconsider; as long as the article is around, he'll be here to "improve" it. Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is the single event Poindexter's receiving the Presidential Unit Citation for a unit he led in Vietnam as a captain? or his finding of Antonin Scalia's body? Because either way, Poindexter's company, which he owns 100% of, generates over a half billion dollars per year and is the biggest supplier of commercial truck bodies in the world.. 209.140.41.165 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC) @Wehwalt:[reply]

First, your link about to that claim about biggest supplier of commercial truck bodies doesn't seem to be in the link you posted to this same WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim above ... and the source is nothing more that the company's own press releases! In the interest of honor, would you please state whether you are, as I suspect, one of Poindexter's corporate employees or perhaps a friend or family-member. Those of us who have been on Wikipedia for years are very, very familiar with this type of boosterish, self-promotional, conflict-of-interest editing. Your abuse of multiple IP addresses is an entire separate issue in itself. --Tenebrae (talk)

Note: It has gone viral already that this involves secret societies, so calls to keep a lid on it or suppress info on Wikipedia might easily be predicted. 172.56.3.167 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Washington post only says "secretive society". Given it has a website and business licenses ... not much of a secret.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly, as per the rationale of the nom, WP:BLP1E - as Anmccaff said above: if a maid had found the body would that make them notable enough for an article? Does Eunice Murray have her own article? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pointdexter is clearly noteworthy, already interviewed for Texas Monthly (The Man in the White Hat) in December 2015, in addition to articles listed above in Forbes etc.Ekem (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since yet another multiple-account-abusing anon IP — this one going under User:2607:fb90:1905:54bc:18f4:2fa4:60c0:3093 and User:2607:fb90:1705:aa21:e47e:b496:e634:e1f5 — has been vandalizing my talk page to the point other editors are voluntarily coming by to remove nasty, over-the-top comments, this suggests to me there's a concerted campaign of these anon IPs to serve as promotional trolls for this businessman. I'd be extremely surprised if they're not from his company's marketing / PR departments. Any of us who been around Wikipedia even half as long as I can recognize this pattern. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Tenebrae, if it gets worse I could semi-protect your talk page. There's no point in blocking those IPs. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. This could also be someone who was impressed with Poindexter politicing the PUC for his old unit, perhaps.

Keep In order to evaluate the BLP1E claim, I read only the sources published before Scalia's death and did not read those published in recent weeks. I found truly significant coverage already cited in the article from Texas Monthly, Forbes, and the Houston Business Journal. He is 100% owner without other investors of an industrial company with $700 million to $800 million in annual revenue, which is not at all common in the business world. His Cibola Ranch development controversies attracted significant coverage well before Scalia's death. His work to gain recognition for the Vietnam War combat unit he led was acknowledged over 40 years later in a White House ceremony by Barack Obama, which was widely reported. These sources provide significant biographical details about his life story. That makes him notable. Therefore, this cannot be a BLP1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328: There's plenty of source material published even before the recent event which could have supported an article. No impending need to delete this. --Jayron 32 02:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete. I am concerned by the allegations that the article's creator, who is now indefinitely blocked for abusive use of multiple accounts, engaged in COI editing with this article. This editor claimed on the talk page to have created the article after he/she "struggled to find information" about Mr. Poindexter on Google, but a quick Google search readily turns up major coverage of him. The combination of (1) this incongruity, (2) the numerous single-purpose IPs that suddenly emerged to argue stridently in defense of this article, and (3) the article's laudatory tone leads me to suspect that this biography might have been written as a promotional piece. Given that this is a short, new article, I think that the best course of action is to simply WP:BLOWITUP and start from a clean slate in order to remove any lingering concerns about this biography's neutrality. On the bright side, since there does seem to be significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, I'm satisfied that WP:GNG is fulfilled. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of changed vote. @Jayron32: and @Mendaliv: you have convinced me that my concerns about COI editing are insufficient grounds for deleting this page. The non-trivial coverage of his career (prior to Scalia's death) in independent, reliable secondary sources shows that he fulfills WP:GNG. This biography should be rebuilt from the ground up, but deletion is not necessary. Astro4686 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a landowner and military veteran are not in themselves notable. Finding a dead celebrity is BLP1E territory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is read by "the little people". It's not that he's unimportant - more like he's too important for the little people to put any scrutiny on, at least that's the gist I'm getting from this page. 172.56.2.164 (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cullen nails it. There's significant coverage related to incidents or events prior to Justice Scalia's death. If there's neutrality problems, they can be fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that Cullen's analysis is spot-on regarding the issue of Mr. Poindexter's notability. However, my concern is that if the allegations of extensive COI editing and sockpuppetry are true, it might be challenging to detect and remove all COI edits. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is two fold 1) Deletion is not really about article content, it's about the suitability of the subject as a topic for an article. If an article about the subject should exist at Wikipedia, there's no compelling reason why deletion is a reasonable course of action, excepting copyvio issues or things like that 2) COI editing is only a problem insofar as it produces the sort of writing that a non-COI editor would not have produced. If a statement in the article is written such that someone who has no COI would have added it substantively the same way, there's no compelling need to remove it. Problems with tone can be fixed by normal editing. Given that, I see no reason to blow it up and start over. There's plenty of redeemable content here, that just needs work and rewriting. --Jayron32 13:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. Content issues are rarely grounds for deletion when there's notability. Someone might even want to rewrite the article from the ground up and just replace everything here, but that still wouldn't call for deleting the page history. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astro4686, it is being progressively (re)built, albeit... somewhat... glacially (Things that have become clear since this AFD started: I really don't want to know nearly so much about the subject), and its last ANONIP/SPA edit was over a week back. FWIW, I suspect the opposite to Tenebrae: that Poindexter's possibly been used as an attempted WP:COATRACK to increase coverage of the conspiracy theories regarding Scalia's death. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly possible. And I will say the additional details that have been added to the article make a stronger case for notability — although I'm still not convinced it's there yet: "businessman who was an activist on behalf of himself and his own squad" doesn't seem as notable as, say, someone who was activist on behalf of all veterans. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hydronium Hydroxide: Thanks for your work on the article. This discussion thread persuaded me to change my earlier vote to keep. @Tenebrae: regardless of the outcome of this AfD, you've done great work by detecting and opposing the suspicious edits by single-purpose accounts. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficiently passes WP:GNG for me. GauchoDude (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2016 (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.