Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Gauthier


 * 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   delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Gary Gauthier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CRIMINAL; the accused was not a national figure, it is too soon to see if there is lasting interest in this. Also seems to be WP:BLP1E, and that one event is not something that he is yet convicted of. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I really would like to see an article on this guy. I think it could be interesting, however, the news articles listed on the article are practically all I found on the crime. I think we should wait until there is conviction or at least more written about the crime. Bali88 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Not so sure this guy fails WP:CRIME because the rule reads The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual which is the case here: using a religious show to defraud investors via a Ponzi scheme is not a run-of-the-mill white collar crime, but definitely unusual, although there was a case of Jim Bakker a while back, somewhat similar, although probably not a Ponzi scheme, but a sex scandal and misappropriation of funds. While the Gauthier arrest happened in Florida, the case got media attention from newspapers in New York City and even in the United Kingdom, giving it international reach. There are sufficient references to meet the GNG in my view: I count five references which talk about the crime in-depth. Last, does it fail the one event criterion? One could see it as one event, although it took place over many years (from 2005; charge in 2010? then arrest in 2014), involved numerous victims, so perhaps a case could be made that it was more than a single event? There are two other dimensions here that, in my view, give weight to this article's notability -- the religious aspect (the show was carried on a Christian network, involving the network and possibly others -- why didn't the network executives know what was going on?) and the media aspect (that it was broadcast regularly, possibly to a fairly wide Florida audience). That this person has not been convicted yet is not, in my view, a valid reason for not having the article; when the Florida authorities arrest someone, and major papers cover it, it is notable, and in Wikipedia, we state quite clearly that Gauthier was charged not convicted. The article should cover both sides of the case, that is, Gauthier claiming that what happened was the real estate market went south. Overall, weak keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Were you able to find anything in those sources that might help to flesh out the article? Bali88 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's more in the sources. The article can be expanded but I don't like to invest too much time into fixing up an article that is on the chopping block, so I will wait for the decision before expanding it. What's troubling is that the two radio stations involved, WGUL and WTBN, won't answer questions, although they're probably trying to protect themselves from likely lawsuits. Sure seems like they failed to do any due-diligence background checking on Gauthier before airing his programming -- isn't this something that all broadcasters are required to do beforehand? So, there are legal aspects too, here, so I am leaning to a somewhat stronger keep at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't need articles on everyone ever accused of running a Ponzi scheme. This person is a low level criminal, there pop up all the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (state)  @ 09:22, 5 August 2014 (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.