Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Smith (thief)

Edward Smith (thief)

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 Rename. As there is consensus that Smith doesn't merit a biography, but the theft itself is notable, the nomination is wothdrawn. (non-admin closure) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initial claim is "one of the first" bank robberies in the US. The sole source being used is a sidebar from a children's book, actually describing a burglary and calling it a robbery.

Regardless, he fails WP:PERP and probably WP:ONEEVENT. Non-notable person who committed a single crime (not even the first) and did nothing notable afterward. An extremely common name makes it difficult to do an extensive search. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~with possible~~ but rename to the crime itself (per WP:BIO1E, though there is some sourcing beyond just this crime). Be wary of nominating 1831 figures... This crime has multiple book hits - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. This one - [8] - has details beyond the robbery itself (other crimes). As does this - [9]. The census bureau in 2016 decided to reference this in a PR release - [10]. Being the "first bank robber in the US" (per some sources second, but first in NY) is apparently grounds for LASTING coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Modified !vote so that rename support is clear. As for robbery vs. burglary - I don't have a strong opinion (there are merits to both - it seems the COMMONNAME here is robbery (as well as in other cased in which large sums were stolen), but that burglary is more correct technically).Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this should be renamed to - 1831 City Bank New York Robbery, the robbery itself is what is really notable (and often cited as the first bank robbery in the US (though it is arguably the 2nd)). Some sources, e.g. - America’s (Not Quite) First Bank Robbery (which is quite in depth) specify a 2nd perpatrator (William J. Murray (wiki article of post 1946 figure - not related) of less note than Smith), and Smith's name (due to his many aliases) is also an issue - e.g. the Saturday Evening Post refers to him as James Honeyman (mentioning Smith as the alias, whereas others do the reverse).Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not amend your vote from a simple keep. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The passing references do not justify a stand alone article on this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider renaming, as the event (the bank robbery) is more notable than the perpetrators. Pburka (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~- On further examination, the sources Icewhiz provides here are passing mentions, not indepth coverage. Being "first" is hardly ever enough to establish a lasting impact unless sources state otherwise. No, we just have a common criminal, granted an older one, who fails one event. Note Editors I urge you to analyze the sources listed here instead of hastily coming to a decision based on the numbers. It makes a world of difference when it is established none of them significantly cover the subject we are discussing!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out which ones were short (though beyond passing - a paragraph is not a passing mention - and relevant given nom's initial assertion (children book sidebar) that this would seem to fail V - despite numerous short refs available) - specifically these are not passing by any means: [11],America’s (Not Quite) First Bank Robbery.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph is often a passing mention. And this keeps getting called a "robbery", but the term is being misused. This was a burglary. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it received national and international (London) coverage in 1831 (articles popped right up in a news archive search) and considerable SUSTAINED coverage in the two centuries since. Support move to 1831 City Bank New York Robbery. And WP:HEY I added some details from one of the longer 1831 articles, and an 1831 article form a London paper to show international coverage. I am not sure who began citing it - erroneously - as "the first" or "the first recorded" U.S. bank robbery, but quite a large number of books do give a sentence or a paragraph of details of this robbery, as do news articles going back decades. Plus the longer stories including those cited by Icewhiz and the 1831 article I added, which includes the fact that perp heisted 398 gold doubloons. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or who erroneously started calling it a robbery, since it was not a robbery. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources call it a robbery, it's a robbery. See WP:TRUTH. Pburka (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Especially when we wikilink the term "bank robbery" and the first sentence of that article is "Bank robbery is the crime of stealing money from a bank, while bank employees and customers are subjected to force, violence, or a threat of violence." This was a spare set of keys made and sneaked in at night. No employees, no customers, no violence. While they may not have had a better grasp on the term in the past, we've grown. And I can provide you with dozens of sources that say that sneaking into the bank at night is not a robbery. If we use your "if the sources says it" position, since I can find old sources that say the earth is flat, shouldn't we amend that article? I mean if the source says it's flat, it's flat. This source says it was "actually sa nocturnal burglary" [12] This source also correctly calls it a burglary [13] So can we stop pretending like the matter is so black and white? BTW, the essay TRUTH doesn't apply here. I'm not advancing a non-neutral POV, nor am I trying to give weight to a discredited theory etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks for finding sources which call it a burglary. Update the article based on these sources. This discussion is, of course, unrelated to notability, and belongs on the article's talk page. Pburka (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't completely unrelated. Part of the claim to notability was being a "first" bank robber. If there was not a robbery, rather a theft, it weakens the notability and strengthens the move to an article about the incident rather than a bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't determined by being first. It's determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. Please see WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding? Really? Do you honestly think I've been editing here for a decade and never read GNG? Since you're not citing a particular part of it and just lazily linking to it, you must think I never have. No my friend, I mentioned "first" because that was cited in a keep vote by another editor. Maybe you should go share some of your sarcasm with them. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nightshift, I do see your point The 1831 newspaper article is headlined City Bank Robber Taken and uses the term repeatedly. I am not married to using robbery rather than theft. but might it be that robbery was the usual term in 1831? And maybe take wording to the talk page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a simpler term to use in 1831. But, as I said above, the term is at odds with the wikipedia article about the subject. I also shared 2 reliable sources that correctly call it a burglary. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue with an open-mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON. Also, here: [[14]] you remove a valid source with the edit "source doesn't mention Smith" although the details given make it obvious that it describes this case. This is not a BATTLEGROUND, its a discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the removed source was being used in an article about the event, you'd have a point. Since it's being used in a biography about a person, it should at least mention that person. We don't get to extrapolate, do we? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory he is having this thing called a "discussion" with you. Heck, he even complimented you. He is not repeating the same rationale (over and over) to muddle a discussion like another editor tends to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it seems robbery is often used to describe bank burglaries. Might be a difference between legal English and common English. See for instance Baker Street robbery ([15]) where our own wiki article leads off with The Baker Street robbery was the burglary (as this is the term used by the sources), or [16] Bank workers had no clue about the robbery until 8:30 a.m. Monday, when they discovered the open hatch and a ladder propped against the building and called, police sources said.. Perhaps Bank robbery should be updated to reflect this (legally break ins are burglaries - in common parlance however they seem to be called robberies as well).Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern sources use the correct terminology. We shouldn't try to include burglaries, cyber thefts etc just because a source used the wrong wording. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this respect, I'll mention that the Oxford English Dictionary, current edition, gives the primary definition of "robbery" as "The action or practice of unlawfully taking property belonging to another, esp. by force or the threat of force." Notice the "esp." in there, allowing some laxity. I don't think this is relevant to this deletion discussion, though. Zero^talk 00:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't allow a colloquial use to determine encyclopedic entries. An expert source, such at the FBI says "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines robbery as the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."[17] That squares with most reliable sources. Just because some 100+ year old article misused a term doesn't mean we ignore the most reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: you are apparently not aware, but it is not permitted to edit a comment after someone has responded or the conversation has moved on. You can add material, but it has to be clearly marked as added (or ~~struck~~) later. btw, are you now on board with keep?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit my response. I inserted a comment and indented it further. Striking through it would be stupid. I'm not onboard with keeping this as a bio of Edward Smith. No. Not at all. I haven't opposed changing it to an article about the event. There's a difference and I'd hope you could see that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But as long as we're here I'll say that User:Niteshift36 is correct. And revise my comment to keep the aritcle and move to something along the lines of 1831 New York City bank heist E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just fyi n re: notability, "City Bank" became Citibank, which adds a certain degree of interest to the story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Nom is onboard with Keep but rename, inviting ~dom Kaos~, User:Johnpacklambert, and User:TheGracefulSlick, to reconsider in light of this 2016 Saturday Evening Post article: America’s (Not Quite) First Bank Robbery, plus several newly added sources, gold doubloons, and the fact that the "City Bank" bank robbed in 1831 was Citibank?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between keep but rename and thinking the event is ok for an article. If there was an article called "Gerald Ford (football player)" and asserting notability as a college football player, then you came along and said that it should be renamed "Gerald Ford (president)" because he is notable in that regard, that is "keep and rename". Writing a different article about an event isn't really "keeping" is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I have frequently participated discussions about articles that land at AfD as bios, but are kept as "keep but rename." Pretty common articles about notable crimes. But, again, I apologize for misunderstanding you. Note that Icewhiz and I have expanded and sourced the article. A bank theft of this much money (over $50 million) would be in the headlines if it happened today. Part of the notability comes from the coverage in the newspapers in 1831 - only some of which is online. The Saturday Evening Post aritcle draws heavily on the New York Post and other period newspapers that I did not find online. They are. of course, available in the library. But I think the sourcing now passed WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On newspapers.com, I find interesting post 1831 results for him under the name Honeyman. He was a part of a ring which included his brother-in-law William Parkinson, as well as men by the names James Miller and Dick Collard. Another infamous crime the group perpetrated was the Poughkeepsie Barge robbery (here is an existing clipping on that event, see also Thompson, George. Life and Exploits of the Noted Criminal, Bristol Bill. Research Publications, 1851.). I'm happy to add this material, but am going to hold off with my own HEY depending on others' thoughts. Namely, I'm happy with a rename of this article to the 1831 crime (I have no opinion on the question of robbery vs burglary vs whatever) with an option for me/someone to write another article about Smith or about Smith and Parkinson or the entire ring (I'm still thinking about what might be the least OR way to organize one or more articles about Smith and Parkinson and maybe others). Also, here is a google book which contains a longer, more detailed recounting of the 1831 crime and aftermath. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smmurphy, I'll be fascinated to see what you produce on the Noted Criminal Bill Bristol, and the rest of the gang. I do think that an article on the crime itself continues to make sense. User:Niteshift36, any thoughts on an acceptable title?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thanks @E.M.Gregory: for inviting me to reconsider. I'm going to put the kettle on and invite everyone to join me for nice cup of tea and a sit down while I read through the extensive debate that's arisen since my previous comment. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure, I'll reconsider. The information can be retained on the condition this is reconstructed for the event itself, not a biographical piece on an otherwise unnotable figure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheGracefulSlick's stipulation. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing to close this as: keep and change title to 1831 New York City Bank Heist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An admin or NAC closes this just like any other AFD. You don't need to propose (for the 2nd time) what consensus has already determined.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2017 (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.