Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Plotkin


 * 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   speedy keep. Socking is through out this. The only thing left (including looking at the comments) is keeps. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notable for only one event and does not pass test for crime perpetrators. This article is malicious, sensationalist, and creates serious reputational difficulties for a living person. Jonathansterling (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Jonathansterling (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. As the nominator said, WP:BLP1E is a major factor here. Subject does not warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC) (comment withdrawn 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Strong delete. The subject fails both the general notability guideline and the specific one-event only notability guideline. The subject also fails the notability guideline for crime perpetrators, as the victim of the crime was not a renowned figure and the crime was not a well-documented historic event. Finally, the primary writer of the article does not follow a neutral point of view and provides multiple unsourced and dubious details. Jackadvisor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC). — Jackadvisor (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. The subject may well pass WP:CRIME: the crime was a high-profile one, extensively covered in reliable news sources, and mentions continue to show up from time to time.  In any event, I can't see any significant NPOV problem with the current version of the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is NOT a single incident, rather it was a large conspiracy involved in stealing $6.7 million, over a fairly long time, for which Plotkin was convicted on 9 Federal counts. I hadn't run into the the TV program before (American Greed), but it makes sense that a series of crimes so brazen (and in the end so ridiculous) would get it's own TV immortality.  As far as widespread news coverage: just following the link above there are stories in The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, the Harvard Crimson, Bloomburg, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald (Aus), The Australian, CBS, ABC, CNBC, Fox.  I was in Europe when the story broke so I must have gotten it in the Financial Times, or Wall Street Journal Europe (likely both) - but I guess those stories aren't linked in Google after so long.
 * I also have to say that the method of trying to delete this article was completely bogus. First 75% of the article is deleted, leaving nothing about the crimes or anything else notable, then the deletion tag is put on it.  When challenged on this method, 90% of the article was then deleted and the tag put back on.
 * BTW User:Jonathansterling and User:Jackadvisor were "both" the deleters and seem to be both new accounts and SPAs. May I ask if there is a conflict of interest here? Smallbones (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. User Smallbones is the primary writer of the article in question and offers a biased viewpoint. Certain details of the article, such as the subject's collegiate experiences, are not corroborated by any outside source, which suggests that user Smallbones either personally knows the subject or made up those details. In either case, user Smallbones' motives are questionable. With respect to the so-called widespread news coverage, almost all of that coverage represents reprints of the same story in different outlets rather than independent reporting establishing this as a historically significant event.
 * Strong Keep Completely disingenuous nomination with deletion of content used to try to pull the wool over our eyes and nominate it in a completely dulled form. Block both accounts listed by Smallbones for gaming; the article stands on its own merits in its original form. I have informed C.Fred to have a second look at the article as it is now, and I have added a further source.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BLP1E is only for individuals who remain low-profile; arguably, Plotkin is not a low-profile white-collar criminal. Additionally, the argument can be made that he isn't notable for only one event, given his professional ballroom dancing and his film career. Even if the content were to be merged to an article about the crime, it should be retained. See also the talk page of this AfD for comments not related to the merits of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Smallbones is the primary and only main author of the article, so his argument for a strong keep appears to be self-interested and spurious. At the time the article was nominated for deletion, it had been restored to its original form, so no attempt to "pull wool over the eyes" was made. Plotkin does not have a notable ballroom dancing career, as he is not even listed among leading ballroom dancers (see ballroomdancersinfo.net), nor does he have a notable film career (see imdb.com). The only possible argument for notability relates to the insider trading. However, the insider trading is not even among the top 50 such crimes in terms of monetary gain. While it received news coverage, that news coverage was solely contemporaneous and much of it resulted in reprints of the same story in different sources. As such, it does not pass the litmus test under the well documented historic event guideline. Further, note that the majority of the insider trading section relates to actions not taken by Plotkin specifically, but by his alleged co-conspirator, Pajcin, and other individuals, none of whom have a Wikipedia entry. The focus on users Jackadvisor and Jonathansterling is a transparent attempt by Smallbones to change the subject from the valid concerns which they raise relating to the article. Why does user Smallbones wish to keep this article at all costs? Does he know the subject personally? Another key concern is that the subject of this biography is a living individual who may suffer very real fallout from the information presented in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtrinity (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)  — Tomtrinity (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment It's pretty blatant sources were removed in order to influence the nomination in a certain direction. Jackadvisor's "updates for accuracy" removed half the article's content, half the sources, and makes it seem the subject got off scot-free, when that certainly wasn't the case. The nomination was clearly made in bad faith in order to sugar coat the facts and no issues with the article existed before they came in and began to remove article content.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable crime. Sourcing satisfies WP:N. (And who doesn't love a story wherein a retired seamstress in Croatia making $270 a month, makes millions in insider trading, via her young relative in the US?) Edison (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The idea of a seamstress making $270 a month making millions in insider trading may indeed be a "story", but Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for sensationalist stories. It is an encyclopedia, not a yellow rag. Moreover, the seamstress' relative is Pajcin, not Plotkin. Yet, he does not have a separate article. In fact, none of the other individuals in this case have their own article entries, which strongly suggests that this crime was not particularly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemakestwo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete If the crime is notable, it should be listed under a crime rather than a person. Where does the information come from regarding where the subject lived during college and who wrote his recommendation? This is just one example of the lack of a neutral point-of-view. There are clear problems with this article. Limitmore (talk) — Limitmore (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete What makes this notable again? The money was frozen and recovered and the article makes it sound like everything that was done involved somebody named Pajcin, so Plotkin's actual role is not all that clear. In addition, there is not much said about any positive aspects of the subject's life, with most of the focus on this scheme and its various participants. This does not belong as a standalone bio. — Janusjane (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete The strongest arguments in favor of keeping are made by user Smallbones, who is the primary writer of the article in question. Smallbones seeks to shift the discussion from whether the article passes the guidelines for BLP to the way in which the article was nominated, which is irrelevant. The question of this discussion is whether the article itself should be retained or deleted. As user Tomtrinity explains above, the article does not meet the guidelines for a well-documented historic event, which is prerequisite for crime perpetrators. It also does not follow a neutral point of view. It states that the subject attended the California Institute of Technology where he lived in Fleming House and then transferred to Harvard thanks to a letter of recommendation for Professor Scott Page. What is the source of this information? It is not in any referenced sources. This strongly suggests that the writer of the article either knew the subject intimately or is making up this information for an unknown reason. Since user Smallbones is the primary writer of the article and the main defender in favor of keeping it, the arguments made by this user are not relevant to this discussion. — Onemakestwo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment. As a matter of information, the questioned "background" material was added by an anonymous IP editor on 23 March 2008. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The government froze all the money, so this crime is kind of like a guy who robs a bank, but before he can leave with the loot, gets arrested at the front entrance. Hard to believe that a failed attempt at insider trading can be considered notable. Not to mention that getting tips from Business Week and getting tips from an investment bank had been done many times before, in the exact same way, so there is nothing unique or unusual about this crime. This is probably why there was no sustained media coverage, but just the usual mandatory stories about the arrest and the sentencing. --Steppenmast —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC). — Steppenmast (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Delete The argument made in favor of keeping this article has to do with the notability of the crime. However, in that case, there should be an article about the crime rather than about this subject. Further, my problem is that in every main part of the crime, the article states "Plotkin and Pajcin" did this and "Plotkin and Pajcin" did that. There is no clarity regarding Plotkin's actual role. Given that Pajcin cooperated with the government, what this likely represents is Pajcin's version of events in which he would have aggrandized Plotkin's role and minimized his own, which is also the version that the government would have fed to the media outlets. Given the clear lack of independent reporting in this case, as evidence by the repetitive nature of the news stories, this article is almost certainly prejudicial toward Plotkin. A lot of the main people involved in this crime are Croatian and that suggests that Pajcin, who is also Croatian (whereas Plotkin is not), would have played a much more central role that suggested by this article. So I agree that a careful reading of this article and the underlying reporting shows a very apparent lack of a neutral viewpoint. The article should be deleted. --Robertenza —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC). — Robertenza (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consider that WP:BLP is more relevant than WP:GNG in this case. [User:Trebuchet35|Trebuchet35]
 * Delete Not a notable crime as none of the individuals got more than 5 years of prison time and none served more than 4. There has been no follow-up in the media, suggesting no interest beyond the contemporaneous. Given the size and sentence lengths of many financial crimes, from Enron to Bernie Madoff to Galleon Partners, this is a drop in the bucket. [User:Trebuchet35|Trebuchet35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebuchet35 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)  — Trebuchet35 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Came upon this quite by accident and saw the name and KNEW who this was immediately, which is a strong argument for keeping this article. File this under "can't believe it would even be nominated for deletion". This was BIG national news when it happened and received around-the-clock news coverage. Someone said the "victim" was not known -- but the "victim" is all of us. Anyone who commits insider trading is making deals with infomation that the rest of us don't have, thus the crime. It is "all of our money" that they are stealing with this information. I don't think it is relevant to consider how much time the individuals spent in prison (whether they served one day or four years); that should not be criteria for deletion. If someone commits a crime like insider trading that is this high profile, it is going to be written about and has been written about extensively. What I can't believe is that there wasn't already a Wikipedia article on this person! I agree that the article needs more work overall and better citations, however. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. To say that the victim is "all of us" is to misrepresent the reality of insider trading and to misunderstand the economics of this crime. The only individuals affected by insider trading are those on the other side of the trade with the insider. A person who does not invest in the stock market or, more specifically, in the individual stock being affected by particular inside information, is not victimized. Insider trading is a common crime dating back to the 1920s and this particular instance has actually received a lot less coverage than many others which are not represented on Wikipedia. However, as numerous others have noted above, if the crime is notable, the article should be about the crime rather than one specific perpetrator. -Trebuchet35
 * Keep. Plenty of independent sources suggest he is notable, despite the sentence for the crime being quite short. Pirsq (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Request I hate to suggest bad faith, but a few of the above proponents of deletion have similar writing styles and phrasing, and at least one may be single-purpose. Could a checkuser please investigate? As to the AfD at hand, I support a rename of the article - as some above have pointed out, the crime may be more notable than the criminal in this case, so renaming it something like Goldman Sachs insider trading ring (2006) and removing all information about Plotkin not immediately relevant to the crime (for example, it is relevant that he is a Russian immigrant and that he graduated from Harvard, but the fact that he ballroom dances is absolutely not relevant). - Jorgath (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional note: I do support keeping the information about the crime; it is definitely notable, whether or not Plotkin is. - Jorgath (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment We know there's an SPA pattern; see the AfD's talk page.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think everyone besides the sockpuppets believe that this article should be kept, also the sockpuppets arguments aren't even compelling.  Jay Jay Talk to me 16:47, 29 February 2012 (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.