Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Minkow


 * 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 05:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Barry Minkow

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

A biography containing unsourced negative information about a living person since it's creation - there are no versions that don't have serious and substantial BLP violations. Delete with extreme prejudice - a viable article should be started from scratch Exxolon (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the negative information may be unsourced now, numerous sources exist about this person (see the New York Times and the Guardian). I would actually think that 90% of our BLPs are greater risks for defamation cases than this article due to the fact that there are some significant negative facts about this person which were widely reported in national media long before Wikipedia ever existed. However, we should make sure that the article treats the subject neutrally by also discussing the more recent and more positive aspects of his life. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-known figure in Southern California via his incessant advertising, then his subsequent fraud trial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Metropolitan90.  Minkow was the perpetrator of an extremely well known case of corporate fraud, that was covered extensively in the media and business literature; he continues to draw attention and coverage even now.  The current article is extremely detailed, perhaps excessively so from a readibility point of view, but it certainly does not appear to be defamatory in light of the widely reported facts about Minkow's history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment His history was absolutely NOT widely reported outside California and was not reported **at all** in the wide vast world outside your country. References are required because not everyone reading the article lives where you do and a lot of them will not bother to look for references - they'll just send this to AFD or even CSD over and over again - because his fame is not obvious. That doesn't of course speak to whether the article should be deleted: I'm just suggesting that if you know of references to please put them in, to prevent this. I have never heard of him in my life before reading this AFD. --NellieBly (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already started adding references to the article, most of which are not from media published in California. See also the references cited in my recommendation above -- neither of which is from a California newspaper. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bangkok Post, Koelner Stadl Anzeiger, lots of sites outside of California. And besides, what are you claiming, that we can't have articles unless the person is known outside of the United States?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Before his downfall, Minkow was personally celebrated by President Reagan as an example of the entrepreneurial spirit that makes America great. His fraud trial, the sordid details (like borrowing from the Mob) and conviction were reported nationally, as a result. And there has been some reporting on his anti-fraud efforts ever since. As for "His history was absolutely NOT widely reported outside California and was not reported **at all** in the wide vast world outside your country.", see WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum Even if they do it on the German Wikipedia, we don't do this "tear down and rebuild" thing here. If the nominator thinks the article should be rewritten entirely, he should do so himself or tag it with cleanup-rewrite to encourage someone else to do so. Starting an AfD to force that issue is, well, lazy and a waste of time and resources here. Daniel Case (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, there is no contention by the nominator the person shouldn't have an entry, there are plenty of sources, the article just needed a major rewrite, for balance and maybe more sources. It's now been stubbed so BLP issues at the minute are moot. Rd232 talk 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. See, e.g.,  and the sources cited by Metropolitan90 above. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 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.