Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armand Rousso


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Armand Rousso

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is on a barely-notable person with minimal press coverage, all the content is negative, and seems to meet the definition of an article that should be deleted per our BLP policy. As a matter of disclosure, this nomination is in relation to WP:OTRS #2009021810056021. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I heard about this off-wiki. Delete it dead, it is just a scandal article without any significance in the overall scheme of an encyclopedia.   Keegan talk 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep since a Google News search does turn up a number of significant articles over the course of a few years, about the subject as a conman, a chess impresario, etc. Bill Clinton helped introduce the guy's search engine, there was an $80 million offering...in all, I think there's enough here for a brief article--but the nominator is quite correct in saying that the article as it stands cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP.  Keegan talk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If someone comes back with an exceptionally sourced, perfectly neutral biography before this AfD closes, then I'll happily withdraw. If they don't, the article must be deleted, because "keep and cleanup" is a reckless position to take (not that you took it, Drmies (you didn't given the last line of your comment), just more suggesting that some might). Even if it's deleted, if someone writes a perfectly sourced article and plomps it on my/the closer's talk page or at DRV, it will naturally be evaluated on its merits and if it meets BLP the article can be recreated. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The material is sourced, and it is not out fault that the NYT coverage appears negative. Some (numerous) attempts to give him a fully WP:PUFF biography have been made in the past, and the current article is far more neutral that those attempts have been.   Mr. Rousso has been very well known in stamp dealing circles,  and in chess circles, thus he is notable for two separate endeavors.  He has been in the NYT, has been photographed with and paid Bill Clinton (the stock deal was definitely reported) so is notable for political dealings as well.  Deleting everything which has been in the NYT would seem a remarkably odd way of handling a biography, no?   WP is in the business of giving the pertinent information, and the wording as is is about as NPOV as possible.  Collect (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's as neutral as possible, it will likely be deleted as an attack biography. That's not a very creative keep reason in an AfD centering around WP:BLP issues... Daniel (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT.  BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative."  Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it?  Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See also  "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation).   So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There is more stuff out there, but it sems hardly worth the effort at this point. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but try for a more complete article. His earlier career is merely alluded to,  but there seem to be sources for it. DGG (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.