Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per WP:BLP1E. JPG-GR (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

A clear case of WP:BLP1E - this person would not have an entry had they not been fired. The bio was created by a user now banned (User:Grundle2600), who has serially attempted to edit it in violation of his ban (eg ). As noted by that banned user at Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin, it was created because the original article on the news event was deleted at AFD (Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing). Therefore this bio not only breaches BLP1E, but is an attempt to do an endrun around an AFD deletion conclusion. Rd232 talk 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the person who first nominated this article for the exact same reason that Rd232 has above, I find that the article, in the state it is in today, does not give WP:UNDUE coverage to the firing, and it appears that notability has been established via other references. I appreciate not wanting to reward banned editors, (both of the editors involved in creating and expanding this article have been banned, those being Grundle and ChildofMidnight), however, in this case, I do not find that fact to be a compelling reason to delete this article in light of the state it is in today, which is pretty unobjectionable if you knew nothing of the history of the article.  You would not count me among the friends of either of these banned editors, and they have well earned their ban, but I don't think that cutting off our own nose to spite our face is productive, and that's all this deletion would do.  -- Jayron  32  01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage of his 3-year tenure as Inspector General is 317 words; the rest of his life (the previous two sections) 172. This is not WP:UNDUE? Anyway, regardless, the article only exists because of One Event, and further more that One Event has been deemed not notable enough for its own article. Finally, I'm all for not cutting off our nose to spite our face, but nor should we refuse to excise a mole from our nose on the grounds that someone might think we were cutting off our nose to spite our face. There's been enough water under the bridge here to be able to step back and re-examine this and see it for what it is: a clear case of BLP1E. Rd232 talk 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think things are pretty legit. The chief did hold a significant federal post and the event (which has no article of its own) was rather note-worthy. - Schrandit (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted in the nomination, the event has no article of its own because it was deleted at AFD (Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing). So in fact it was not "rather note-worthy". And I don't see many (any?) other people having articles solely for holding a post of this significance - for example this guy only has an article because of the firing. Rd232 talk 02:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a notable individual covered in numerous reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please identify the non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources outside the scope of the One Event. Address the nomination rationale, please, which is WP:BLP1E. Rd232 talk 11:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't often (if ever) hear me say this, but I'm going to go with Delete per BLP1E. The subject's notability is derived from one single event, his firing. I don't feel that this gentleman has achieved anything remotely like the seperate notability from that event that would warrant an article. The fact that the article on the firing itself was deleted doesn't help this article's cause either. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing and BLP1E. The post in question is not a notable post meriting an automatic WP:BIO qualification.  It's a minor federal agency; the current CEO of the agency doesn't even have a bio article, and neither do several of his predecessors.  Walpin's successor and predecessor do not have articles.  If the article is kept, the current version is a violent violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by failing to fairly detail the lawsuit; Walpin's side of the story; or Senator Grassley's investigation.  Amazingly, the words "Kevin Johnson" never appear in the article.  The Kevin Johnson article is similarly lacking.  I note that bringing this article up to par on the subject of his firing would then cause the article to violate UNDUE, further demonstrating how this article is a BLP1E.  In fairness, I note that if someone were willing to spend the money dredging up old New York newspaper articles from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, it would be possible to construct an article that meets the weak standards of WP:BIO.  (For example, Walpin's 1999 op-ed criticizing the American Bar Association received national publicity.)  I would change my !vote if someone promised to do that, but I see no indication that anyone ever will.  THF (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It probably really is time for this article to go. An IG of a rather unremarkable gov't agency who only made the news because of a blip of alleged controversy last year.  While not a specific reason to delete, the article is a coatrack magnet for Obama opponents who have tried to fan the "controversy" within the article for political reasons.  So that along with what is really a "one event" (the alleged controversy), and we'd really be better off without this article. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor official; minor kerfluffle; WP:BLP1E applies.  The marginally out-of-process is an issue too, but there are sufficient reasons for deletion without it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Politics aside, this is a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. The organization he headed is barely notable as it is, and doesn't chart its other leaders, the way that say, the CIA does. Sven Manguard  Talk  02:53, 22 November 2010 (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.