Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin: Difference between revisions

Gerald Walpin

Gerald Walpin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing which resulted in deletion, but which the closing admin specifically excluded this article from his assessment. This article is about a marginally notable attorney who was fired by Obama. The issue here is that there is so little source material on this person that it is almost ENTIRELY related to his firing, per WP:BLP1E and especially WP:COATRACK the article seems to exist solely as a place to put politically-themed commentary related to that firing, as there is little else here besides that. Since there does not appear to be enough source material to actually write a neutral and WP:BLP-compliant article about this person, it should probably be deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient notability & documentation for it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could use a wider variety of sourcing, and a bit less of recent history, but that's not a reason to delete the article, even with the COATRACKing problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is longer than what I expected it to come to, but its awfully stretched, and I really don't think it has satisfied notability concerns. Ask yourself; if Walpin had never been fired, would there be an article for him? I don't think an honest case can be made for a "yes" to that. He was an Inspector General, one of 64, for the Corporation for National and Community Service, with a mission to "support the American culture of citizenship, service, and responsibility". This is a somewhat minor agency, and Walpin was the watchdog/auditor assigned there. I generally hate "other stuff" arguments, but where's the article for the acting IG who took Walpin's place? As for his earlier career, I don't see the inherent notability in being a JAG, a regional prosecutor, or the president of the Federal Bar Council, essentially the bar association of the New York area. This boils down to WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - If this is viewed as too political I suggest it be made into a likeness or match of the Attorney's fired by Bush Wiki thus making it as impartial as that Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.215.7 (talk)

• Keep. The main coatracker, IMHO, was recently topic-banned from US political articles here for several months. With that easement this article should be more stable. The subject is certainly notable enough and numerous sources exist. The only issue was coatracking of a recent issue violating WP:Soap. I've hacked away at it again and think it's fine now. Many, most?, BLPs are lopsided in exactly this way because until someone dies we often don't have a comprehansive biography on them thus recent events are well documented whereas early life bits, earlier scandals and nortable events have to be unearthed to balance out the more recent events. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Walpin had an appointment requiring Senate confirmation; was the subject of a controversial firing; and was Chief of Prosecutions in one of the most important jurisdictions in the country. Taken as a whole, there's sufficient notability to justify an article here. Notability should not be determined by deconstructing a biography into a list of characteristics and requiring that there be one particular characteristic that, standing alone, conveys notability. We should look at the big picture. Yes, we should be on guard against this becoming a coatrack. Nonetheless, the guy is encyclopedic. There are readers looking to know who he was and what his role was, beyond the latest item in the news. That's exactly the sort of reference that Wikipedia provides as its mission. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable enough for there to be some refs; and I remember reading about it at one point. Just because page needs work isn't reason to delete it, nor is its political nature. Fuzbaby (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 5 minutes of fame is NOT notability, regardless of how many gossip columns carry it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gossip columns"? You are mistaken. Please see my comments, suggestions, and non-gossip sources at Talk:Gerald Walpin for how to improve Gerald Walpin. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject and the controversy surrounding his firing are notable. The President has been accused of firing a government watchdog over doing his job. At Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama, I suggested adding info about Gerald Walpin to Presidency_of_Barack_Obama. It was suggested to me that the info be put into a separate article. So, I created Gerald Walpin firing. Afterward, I created Gerald Walpin and redirected it to Gerald Walpin firing, because at the time, the article was about the event, not the person. Later, someone else nominated Gerald Walpin firing for deletion. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing, multiple people suggested that Gerald Walpin firing be deleted, and that the info from it be merged into Gerald Walpin. Now Gerald Walpin has been nominated for deletion. Please see my comments at Talk:Gerald Walpin for how to improve Gerald Walpin. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep [EC] Meets WP:N, has significant position, has been in the news for years. [1]. I can't be sure these are all the same guy, but the first 10 or so news hits (before the current firing issues) are about a Gerald Walpin who is an East Coast Lawyer. Most recent coverage puts him way over the bar. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, obviously notable. References are sufficient. --Blurpeace (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Loads of coverage including on Google Books [2] where Walpin's work as Mia Farrow's attorney, assistant U.S. attorney, issues involving the Philipines and Cuba, as prosecutor etc. etc. etc. This is part of a crusade by POV pushers against Grundle2600, his articles, and any editor that dares contribute content that doesn't tow the line on political issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]