Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing


 * 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. Little point in redirecting to Gerald Walpin; the question of whether he is notable is not for this AfD. This article is a fairly unremarkable news article (WP:NOTNEWS), and more problematically is clearly a WP:COATRACK; it was only created and only exists as a criticism of Obama. User:SarekOfVulcan put it best - "Once there's actually some investigation that shows he acted improperly, or this blows up into something on the scale of the White House Travel Office firings, then it's notable enough for an article". Very few of the Keep arguments hold any water - once the obvious SPAs are dismissed, most of them boil down to "well, there are a lot of sources" - yes, news stories tend to have news sources writing about them, but that doesn't mean they're encyclopedic - and bare WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments. At the moment, we have an article on Gerald Walpin - this article doesn't need to exist alongside that, and indeed, in its present form, clearly shouldn't. Black Kite 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin firing

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

The article is essentially serving as a coatrack for a "criticism of barack Obama" style of article, which has been rejected in the past. Yes there are reliable sources that make note of the firing itself, but little in the way of there being an outright "controversy". There is nothing controversial about other politicians questioning a firing; it is a routine of Washington politics. There are many unreliable sources stoking the "controversy" fires, but they cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. So, absent a notable controversy, the firing in and of itself fails notability guidelines. And article on Gerald Walpin alone would likely fail WP:BLP1E, so there is really nothing salvageable here. This is a criticism article that couldn't be shoehorned anywhere else, hence the coatrack observation Tarc (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as nominator. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- there would seem to be more than enough material here for an article. McGuiness (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge The subject is notable. Obama said his administration would be the most transparent ever. I had originally wanted to cite this material in the Transperency section of Presidency of Barack Obama, but on that article's talk page, it was suggested that the info be made into its own article instead. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was looking for a template to use, but Template:Spa doesn't fit the situation very well. is a 2-day old account, and  made one vandalism edit 2 years ago, then inactive til what amounts to an unsigned "keep" vote was left on this page's talk page just now.  Apologies to Messr's WP:AGF & WP:BITE, but I can count the number of AfD's I've ever initiated on one hand, so I find it a bit peculiar that this is being hit by newcomers. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This item is an unfolding current event. Its relevance within the current historical context cannot be viewed in real time, and is void of definition due to its concomitance with more pressing issues and the piecemeal argumentative focus of the principal stakeholders. Wiki Palehorse  (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - This will eventually become similar to Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy Should probably be incorporated into Obama's presidency article.  Arzel (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It will? If the position being taken is that it is a stub with the hope that the "controversy" will grow, that is even more of a reason to delete. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Gerald Walpin (currently a redirect). IG is a sufficiently high-level position that occupants of the office are sufficiently notable to have an article; it's just that usually no one has sufficient interest to write one.  I've added enough biographical material to make this appropriate as a biographical article. TJRC (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; now that the biographical information has been removed to its own article, I no longer believe that this article merits keeping. It's a POV-magnet and little more. TJRC (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was created first. Then afterward, the biographical article was created as a redirect to this article. The event is more notable then the person. The article should be about the event, not the person. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Inspector General is really not much more than a mid-level postion that reports to higher level people, especially in a moderately important agency. There is nothing inherently notable about IG's. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —TJRC (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Not sure how well-known or important this controversy will become, but there are almost 900 Google News hits on it, including some from mainstream sources. Article is no worse than a lot of what makes up Category:Clinton administration controversies and Category:George W. Bush administration controversies.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly this is an important figure in these times. Needs more info on his life though.  It shouldn't just be centered on his firing. I see this as an icon for what is going to be happening to our elders in this age; being tossed aside.  I think this will become a very important reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.224.106 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't just be centered on his firing. &mdash; A biographical article certainly should not. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the event, not the person. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Gerald Walpin. No need for this talk about stoking fires. People are curious. When they see Mr. Walpin's name mentioned in media reports, they type it into Wikipedia, hoping for some answers. At least, that's what I did. -Mcasey666 (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, our policy here at Wikipedia, irrespective of what may be the popular fad of the moment, is not to host biographies of living people unless they can be neutral, verifiable, free from original research, and actually biographies, describing a person's life and works rather than making it seem that the sum total of their life was one event that they were involved in. Please familiarize yourself with Biographies of living people.  The news service is over there.  This is an encyclopaedia.  It isn't a platform for political soapboxing disguised as poor biographical articles.  If the subject is an event, or a dispute, then we must present it neutrally, as an event/dispute, not as an non-neutral article, giving only a partial account of the subject as a whole, masquerading as a biography of one participant in the event/side in the dispute.  A good one third of this article isn't even about the person you would have it be a biography of. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We have three different questions. One is whether Gerald Walpin himself is notable enough to warrant an article; the second whether his dismissal warrants an article, and the third whether a single article is sufficient to cover both of them. I believe he's every bit as notable as Fanne Foxe, Donna Rice, or Walt Monegan.  Note that Monegan not only has his own article, but it in turn references Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal.  To my eye, Walpin and Monegan are rather similarly situated.  The Monegan page was created after the page about his termination, and for 17 days it was a simple redirect to the article about his dismissal.  So if we are to have any consistency, we should keep this article, and produce a separate biography of Mr. Walpin, which would link to one another, if there is sufficient material to warrant it.  In the meantime, keep the redirect from Gerald Walpin to this page so that readers will reach it by either path.The Monster (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "keep" Wikipedia should keep this article.  Especially since it is beginning to have the reputation for being biases in respects to Barak Obama (failure to link articles about Rev. Wright (until recently), Bill Ayers, and Saul Alinksy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.244.224 (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - if we have an honest press and statesmen rather than politicians, this will be Obama's Watergate. It is impossible to resolve this issue in a way which makes Obama look better than a slimy mob boss. I for one am sick of the biases in Wikipedia. Deletion of this article would just confirm the bias is real. The "coatrack" excuse is just one more example of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwbaumann (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep An article should not be deleted because it "essentially serv[es] as coatrack..." It should only be deleted if it is a coatrack. Unless it can be shown that this article is like one of the examples of what is a coatrack provided by Wikipedia, then I cannot support deletion for the "coatrack" reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfu1984 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your second edit ever and you're already an expert on coatracks and deletion procedures? Uh huh.   Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I ever claim to be an expert? I simply looked up Wikipedia's rules on "coatracks"; it really wasn't that hard to do. Additionally, why does it matter that this is only the second edit I've ever done? If you are unable to rebut my argument, and instead try to attack my credibility, it shouldn't matter if I've done 2 or 2,000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfu1984 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the article (but refocusing away from a bio), so that's not the point. But hot-button AfDs like this one typically attract many "new" users who are really vote-stacking socks or products of canvassing on external web sites.  If you're the 1 out of 10 new user in an AfD who's legit, then I got it wrong.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is an article from the Chicago Tribune that specifically calls the Walpin firing a "controversy": http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-inspectors-0617-0618jun18,0,5718990.story.
 * Thank you for that link. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a nice example of Recentism. OK on Wikinews, but in a real encyclopedia, its only use is as a coatrack for pushing anti-Obama POV. I know that "Other crap exists" is no argument, but in this case it is more like "a lot more crap like this WILL exist". We do not really need hundreds of articles more to be patrolled against Obama bashing vandals.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, BUT keep as an article about Gerald Walpin. Whether or not the firing becomes article-worthy remains to be seen.  Walpin, however, seems to be of sufficiently important position to warrant an article regardless.  So redirect it and rewrite it, I suppose. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In cases of uncertain notability, WP:BLP advises us to 'cover the event, not the person'. I can see the case for redirecting Gerald Walpin to this article, but I can't see the case for the other way around. Robofish (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakest of weak keeps at the moment, the nominator is right about this being a coatrack. However, the person may be notable not only for his firing, but for his position too. If kept, the article must with all due expediency focus on his life, not the firing. Sceptre (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the better course is to rename the article something like 2009 inspector general dismissal controversy and focus on the firing controversy, not this person's life. Then it's clearly not a coatrack, but instead a description of a political controversy.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I abhor "controversy" articles, especially on something like this which is bound to reach "no-one really cares" levels within the next few news cycles. Sceptre (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Controversy articles are merited once the matter reaches the level of official investigation, such as White House travel office controversy or Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy for example. It remains to be seen whether this IG dismissal matter gets that far, hence my 'weak' on the 'keep'.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If this does reach an official investigation, I think that it would be time for a controversy article. But really, "controversy" and "criticism" articles are an endemic problem on the encyclopedia because they're magnets for crap content that wouldn't pass in a normal article. Sceptre (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Politican John Smith controversies" articles, I'm in 100% agreement; I'm the guy who helped lead the flushing of all of them out of the 2008 presidential candidate BLPs. But articles about government ethics controversies, scandals or investigations, that's a whole different matter.  Usually the only way that these can be handled in enough depth to be clear and fair is to have a separate article for them.  As a pragmatic matter, in a case like this I think a separate article is the best way to collect information as it happens and keep the pressure off articles where inclusion of the matter would lead to undue weighting.  If the controversy fizzles out then the article can be boiled down and merged into somewhere else.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, it's a grey area. Obviously, we need to cover Watergate; and obviously, we don't need to cover Mustardgate or Flygate; but there's a line in the middle. And personally, I think most editors set the line too near Mustardgate for my liking. Sceptre (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a grey line. When it comes to bogus controversies about personal and cultural behavior that the professional bloviators carry on about, I say skip it.  When it comes to government ethics, accusations of firing watchdogs etc, if there's even reasonable chance of substance to it I tend to be old school and want to cover it, regardless of who's in power or the motives of those making the charges.  But I grew up during Nixon and tend to be instinctively in favor of investigations....  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, strong delete in its current, non-biographical form. Sceptre (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge with Gerald Walpin. It remains unclear if this will still be considered a major controversy after it has passed. I suggest making a biographical article on the former IG (see for example Janet Rehnquist).--– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no justification for a whole article on the firing: if it is considered notable it should be a mention in another article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete An article on Walpin himself may be needed (but perhaps not, given the length of the article of the office itself), but if the subject himself wasn't notable for an article before the "controversy," then a weak article on just the controversy is superfluous. Grunge6910 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge This is more of a coatrack issue and should either be renamed into an article on the man, if he is notable, or deleted. Brothejr (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article needs some work. But there is lots of very substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Improving the article should be the focus, rather than the calls for censorship from the usual crowd. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who has called for censorship? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one. CoM has this delusion that Wikipedia is trying to censor anything anti-Obama. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - An intentionally inaccurate, misleading and extremely unbalanced article started by Grundle2600—about the firing of a non-notable inspector general (one of sixty-four federal inspector generals)—that blatantly violates WP:NPOV policy and is designed as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang an anti-Obama conservative editorial (The Wall Street Journal) and opinion column (David Limbaugh in the Jewish World Review). Newross (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quote the parts of the article that you claim are "inaccurate." The article is balanced, because I quoted both sides. The fact that Obama is not willing to give specific answers to questions about why he fired Walpin is Obama's fault, not mine. If Obama had given specific reasons, I would have put them in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete However, this definitely should be mentioned in the Presidency of Barack Obama. II  | (t - c) 21:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Whether or not the Wall Street Journal's editorial is at all justified isn't relevant in so much as that this has gotten coverage past that. If keeping is not an option then I'd favor merging to Gerald Walpin. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the references provided demonstrate that this event is sufficiently notable to be worthy of a Wikipedia article. I would, however, suggest deleting or merging Gerald Walpin - he isn't notable in his own right, we don't need both articles, and WP:BLP advises us to 'cover the event, not the person'. Robofish (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that Walpin was Chief of Prosecutions for the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and was all president of the FBC, I'm pretty sure he meets WP:N even aside from this event. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chief of Prosecutions for the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ? Prez of an organization for 2nd circuit lawyers?  I'm hard-pressed to seethe notability of either.  The FBC itself is a stub. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gerald Walpin. Making a separate article of this, more extensive than the original, is totally unwarranted. Personally, I think all Federal officials at his level are notable, but regardless of whether he was earlier, he certainly is now. This is indeed a partisan coatrack, but removing it altogether is whatever the word is for the partisan opposite--I'd call it " sweeping it under the rug", & it might be worth an essay, for it isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing here. . DGG (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article on the controversy is the "original" article. Walpin never had his own article - I created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be the right title forthe single necessary article nonetheless. It should have been written that way from the start. DGG (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've rewritten the lede, don't know if the rest is needed now. -- Banj e  b oi   11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This will be the latest she said/he said battle between conservatives and the Obama administration as all players jockey for positions in the ever-increasing politics games with the 2010 US election cycle heating up. Conservatives, who seem to just need to find something to smear Obama with are talking this up big time - scandal! tax payer funds! etc. - to little effect besides volume. For that reason alone we likely should keep this here so there is a repository not on either Johnson or Walpin's BLPs. I'm sure this is the umpteenth "Obama scandal" whereever we're housing all those. The lead as of this writing is fine and can serve as a reasonable stub and eventually this could certainly be a good article as it's notable enough and many reliable sources besides opinion pieces exist. Certainly should be policed for coatracking and POV-pushing issues but the basic nugget is fine here. -- Banj e  b oi   11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Maybe I should say  "weak merge," but there doesn't seem to be very much useful NPOV information in the article as it is now.  The article currently is a clear coatrack of editorial opinion, but that could be fixed through editing if there were a reason to do so.  But there is no reason that this should be a separate subject from the biography (especially given that the biography is merely two paragraphs).  --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was created first. The biography article was only created later, as a redirect to this article. The fact that there was no biography article before this article was creatred is because this person is notable for one event. The article should be about the event, not the person. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're basically making the case that neither article should exist. See WP:ONEEVENT.   It seems this subject could be covered quite adequately as a single paragraph in the AmeriCorps article, which is currently the case.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral comment If this AfD closes with a consensus that the topic is notable, a merge is only an editorial step which needs no admin action. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or in the alternative, assuming a suitable parent article can be found, merge. I just read WP:COATRACK, and this is that. Right now, the content as it stands would violate WP:UNDUE even if it were merged into Gerald Walpin. Unitanode  04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete For the moment, it's an attempt to make Obama look bad. Once there's actually some investigation that shows he acted improperly, or this blows up into something on the scale of the White House Travel Office firings, then it's notable enough for an article -- for now, see WP:NOTNEWS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It has already been verified in the sources that Obama acted improperly. The law says he must give a notification and explanation 30 days before the firing. As Senator, Obama even voted for the law. He did not give 30 days notice before the firing. And he still hasn't cited any specific action by Walpin that justifies the firing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a coatrack - merge anything useful to the main article, but mindful of WP:UNDUE. ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What "main" article? This article was created first. The "main" article was created later, as a redirect to this article. This person was not notable before this event. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "What "main" article?". Maybe the AmeriCorps article where it is already covered with proper weight for now?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure coatrack. If someone wants to add something small to Gerald Walpin, go crazy, but no redirect, please. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as per my comment above .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 24 June 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.