Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Halderman


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Halderman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:BLP1E JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my nom. This is a textbook case of BLP1E. Joe Halderman is the man accused of blackmailing David Letterman. Prior to his arrest he was a producer at CBS News. A search of Google News finds that though he was mentioned in connection with some programs and (according to Internet Movie Database) was up for an Emmy, which he did not win, he did not by any means meet the criteria in WP:CREATIVE. There is no independent sourcing pertaining to this person, apart from the Letterman controversy, and the only non-Letterman source cited in the article is IMDB, which is not a reliable source. And even IMDB does not substantiate claim made in article that he is a multiple award winner of the Emmy and the DuPont award, as it only shows the one Emmy nomination. The article was created after the Letterman incident, and this person's notability relates only to that incident.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Six days into the AfD process and the only person in favour of deletion is the nom. Just saying, is all. cat yronwode, not logged in, sorry, just passing by; and, yes, i concensed below. :-) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Contrary to popular belief, WP:BLP1E is not a guideline, but an essay. (Mandsford proven wrong) In any event, Halderman would be notable for more than being an extortionist, having been a producer of 48 Hours.  We don't have a separate article about the extortion of David Letterman (or at least I hope that we don't), although it is well described in the Letterman article from Letterman's perspective; it would be inappropriate to provide a lot of information about Halderman in an article about his victim.  The primary function of an encyclopedia is to serve as a place where people can learn more about a subject that interests them, and there are people who would want to know more about Joe Halderman, a very accomplished journalist who is charged with attempting to use the information-gathering skills of a journalist in commission of a felony. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI think it's necessary for me to correct an erroneous statement in the preceding comment. WP:BLP1E is policy. It is not an "essay" or a guideline. It is a section of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Thanks.  Mandsford (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Halderman is no longer a low-profile individual, and his profile isn't going down; therefore, to whatever extent the terms of BLP1E are policy, they don't apply to him. Just as important, he seems to have sufficient professional recognition for independent notability -- the Emmy nomination for the Beslan documentary which he wrote, produced, and directed should clearly establish notability, even the other awards/noms need better referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. His film got a fairly big arthouse release as I recall . --Cedderstk 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It seems that even without his arrest on charges of extortion, Halderman would be notable enough based on his career. I'm surprised there wasn't already an article on him or his documentary after it was nominated for an Emmy! In any case, the extortion case only adds to his notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. He actually was notable enough to have had an entry prior to this. Add more refs; don't delete the article. Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I also agree. This is a famous person in his own right. And now that this major scandal has broken out it would be a glaring omission for Wikipedia not to have an entry. --Marcperkel (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If all the stuff re: his career pre-scandal can be properly sourced, then keep. Otherwise delete. DS (talk) 11:58, 16 October 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.