This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Michigan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Schools Low‑importance This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

John Lauber was removed from the list with an explanation about WP:BLP and notability requirements. This is clearly NOT about BLP - there's nothing remotely offensive to Lauber by including him in the list. Also notability refers to articles, not to evey entry in a list. Lauber is clearly now very well known since the story in the Washington Post and there almost certainly will be more stories. There's also a possible issue of WP:OWN here. The editor should at least put an explanation here before he reverts an obvious entry on the list. Smallbones (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the hurry? John Lauber was the unfortunate victim of a cruel act by Presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 1965 when Romney was in high school. Other than that single virtually random event Lauber appears to be no more or less notable or distinguished than any of Romney's hundred or so classmates, or than any of the thousands of other students who have attended Cranbrook. Lauber's name may be repeated in articles in coming weeks as the media work their way through this story. Or not. Perhaps as things unfold, Lauber himself will become the subject of further reporting. Then then there will at least be an argument for his inclusion here. ("It doesn't hurt" is not good enough in my opinion.) Until such time, there's no reason to suppose that in 6 months or a year even one person in a hundred will be able to summon Lauber's name from memory. I agree that this list doesn't require Wikipedia notability for inclusion, but everyone else on it has accomplished something more enduring than a flurry of media mentions - which is, at this stage, all we have for Mr. Lauber. Indeed if in several weeks or months the only function of the little biographical blurb next to his name is to remind a mystified reader why he's on the list, then he shouldn't have been on it in the first place. Again, what's the hurry? JohnInDC (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we sort this out I have amended the entry to indicate the actual, and only, reason for Lauber's inclusion on the list. Describing him as an "embalmer and cook" is mystifying at best and misleading at worst. Those are incidental attributes and beside the point. I'm not quite sure how to phrase it without crossing the NPOV line. "Prank" I think understates it but "assault" seems a bit too charged, even if the phrase is probably accurate. If you think you can phrase it better, please have at it. (This just underscores, for me, how Lauber's "fame", such as it is, is about Mitt Romney and not about Lauber at all.) JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a cue from the Mitt Romney article and changed the verb to "attack", which is not really disputable and hasn't got the legal baggage of "assault". JohnInDC (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it about right. If there are no more stories on Lauber within 2-3 weeks, then he might be removed. Or not. Probably the closest parallel would be to Joe the Plumber who has an article based on asking Candidate Obama a question on the campaign trail. Then there were a few more things afterwards. Without the few more things, I'd say he wasn't notable enough for an article. But this is only for inclusion on a list. And of course, "other stuff" isn't always a good guide. Smallbones (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since writing the foregoing I came across a bit of guidance about criteria for inclusion in lists like this. See WP:NLIST and WP:LSC. The gist seems to be, editors should establish clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion on a list. One suggestion is, Wikipedia notability more or less, with redlinks okay too if an article to the redlinked subject may one day plausibly emerge. That's looser than "already has a freestanding article" but tighter than "has seen some measure of media mention lately". Seeing it spelled out like that makes it clear that, while it hasn't been expressly stated here, that's pretty much been the rule of decision for this list. Indeed a quick review of it shows mostly linked articles, with the few redlinks to people who plausibly might get their own articles one day. Lauber is the only one who plainly fails that test and, given what we know about him, I think he's likely to fail it forever. It strikes me as backwards to put him on the list until we don't learn more about him; we should add him when it becomes clear that he may plausibly satisfy WP's notability standards - but it's no big deal to wait a couple of weeks to see if he becomes more than the one-off that he is now. JohnInDC (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauber was deleted without comment by an anon. I've added it back per discussion above. Note that there is a big deletion discussion on the "Cranbrook incident". Let's at least wait until that is decided. Smallbones (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave it for now but I think the Cranbrook incident deletion discussion has only the most tangential bearing on Lauber's inclusion on the list here. If you put Lauber on the list just because he played a part in the thing then you may as well add all the other witnesses and classmates who've been mentioned in the article, without whose recollections there wouldn't be any notable "incident" at all. And that line is drawn far too loosely. JohnInDC (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something changes in the next couple of days, I intend to remove Lauber from the list of alumni. There are still echoes of the original Washington Post article knocking about the media, and perhaps that will suffice to result in a Keep determination for the Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident; but the continuing coverage is (as might be expected) about Romney, and not Lauber, who often as not is not even identified by name. Right now there is no indication that Lauber, as a person, is headed for standalone Wikipedia notability – particularly given the resistance of his family to any further discussion. See WP:PSEUDO for more on that.

The inclusion criteria for this list is existing notability (as evidenced by an existing article) or plausible notability that might one day result in an article. By that measure I think every person on the list can be defended save for Lauber. I think that is the correct standard for this list, otherwise any alum who happened to experience a spate of media mentions (or a continuing series of low-grade reports) would be fair game for inclusion. Cranbrook turns out a lot of highly successful people who nevertheless fall short of “notability” and after a while the list could – would – expand to the point of meaningless triviality.

That alone is sufficient reason to remove Lauber. But I think it is worth noting too that his family is not nuts about this attention or the portrayal of their brother in the press. It’s a little hard to say what their concern is, but the tenor of their comments comes through clearly enough in this article. I would hazard to say that they probably would be unhappy with a Wikipedia entry, even just a one-liner, summarizing their brother’s entire life as the victim of an attack by a (now-famous) high school bully. WP:BLP, which arguably applies to Lauber who only died in 2004 (see WP:BDP), cautions against portrayals of subjects as only victims; it also suggests that editors avoid creating articles about people known for participation in a single event. We are of course not talking about an article, but instead just a squib in a list – and maybe Lauber's dead long enough that BLP doesn’t apply at all. But against that let’s remember: Lauber is not notable. He is – so far – just some poor schmoe who, by virtue of maybe his sexual orientation, maybe because of his non-conformist tendencies (we don’t know) suffered a humiliating experience at the hands of a fellow student who went on to become very famous. The incident may (or may not) be worth separately reporting in Wikipedia – but Lauber’s misfortune to be the victim is not. If Lauber is not notable, and his family doesn’t want him remembered for this event – then including him in this list is simply gratuitous and he should be removed from it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]