Talk:Gerald Walpin: Difference between revisions

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

We shouldn't have an article about both of them; one fails BLP1E, the other fails NOT#NEWS. However, with the two combined, there is a possibility that this may meet our standards for political controversy articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the firing article has no context in the article, because it's all over here... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The policies seem clear that the articles should stay separate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, what policies? Sceptre ^(talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd wait for this AFD to be over before beginning the merge, but I agree that we don't need two articles here. If the AFD ends in 'keep', they should still be merged into a single article on the controversy. Robofish (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as soon as possible ... some of us are trying to link from other projects. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they should stay separate per undue weight. Both are notable. Here are book sources on Walpin [1]. He's been a high profile lawyer and been involved in many notable events. And the firing issue is also notable. It's possible it can be merged into a larger article on other firings not that those are in the news also. THere's always a rush to censor these kinds of things instead of just working them up with patience. There is no rush to delete. Articles take time to develop, and if they don't turn out to be notable they can always be deleted. But clearly some editors don't want anything on Wikipedia that isn't glowingly positve about Obama to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The termination of his career amid controversies of Obama's administration fired him for doubtful reasons."

Outright deleting it will undoubtedly bunch up too many boxers, so I'll ask here; what is this trying to say, and can some copy-editing be done to make it a bit clearer? Tarc (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]