Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Louis J. Posner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Same deletion rationale as Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner, this is a WP:BLP violating, WP:COATRACK mess that fails WP:BIO, and VoterMarch (a possible merge subject on that AFD) was recently redirected here. The first AFD was closed as no consensus primarly because it was such a mess. Delete Secret account 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons given by the nominator. Subject does not have significant coverage and does not meet the GNG. His activity with VoterMarch never rose to significance, and the strip club episode certainly does not confer notability. There was prior consideration of redirection to VoterMarch, but it has been deleted per Articles for deletion/VoterMarch. The article has now been recast to focus on his criminal activity. Though the effort has been valiant, the subject is still not notable.  There are many things that wikipedia is not, and Rogue's Gallery is one of them. Does not qualify for an article under WP:CRIME.  (Please see the recent Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner, which closed as no consensus due to the effect of edits by sockpuppets of User:Lawline. It was felt that no consensus could be reached due to the well being poisoned, and that it could be sent back to AfD once the water had had a chance to clear.) Dloh  cierekim  06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * staying at delete despite Mendaliv's exhaustative arguement. Dloh cierekim  14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually had written a very nice keep rationale at Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination) (which was created in bad faith by a sockpuppet, and G5'd), which I would ask an administrator to retrieve for me (I didn't keep a copy unfortunately). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep; this subject passes the basic notability criteria of WP:BIO, once you take into account the mainstream coverage of the arrest and disbarment, the lawsuit against Central Synagogue and New York Law Journal, and the Voter March activity. Each of these is an episode of significant coverage, and that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG when considered on the whole. As an individual known for more than a criminal act or a criminal trial, it is inappropriate to evaluate this article in terms of WP:PERP. The WP:BLP/WP:COATRACK issues are red herrings: they can be easily fixed by editing. AfD is not cleanup.
 * '' . . . But since we talked about renominating at the last AfD a few days ago, let's look at the merits:


 * ''Posner is notable per WP:BIO/WP:BASIC, which require the subject to have been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." "Multiple" has, in my experience, usually meant simply "greater than one", the more the better, but Posner meets this requirement. Dealing with his suit against Central Synagogue (not in the article at this time) Posner was subject to a 539 word article in the New York Law Journal, an industry periodical (Posner later brought suit over this article for libel, which was dismissed); as well as a short piece in United States Law Week (64 USLW 3446) summarizing Posner's petition for certiorari in that case. There is also coverage of Posner's role in Voter March, especially in 2001, though admittedly it's sparse and mostly refers to Voter March. Relating to Posner's arrest, conviction and disbarment, the New York Times ran an 827 word article on the arrest and accusations; Legal Intelligencier ran a 213 word article on the arrest and indictment, which was syndicated by New York Law Journal and National Law Journal; relating to the later seized funds issue, New York Law Journal ran an 1169 word article; and there are many, many more sources on this case.
 * WP:PERP should not apply here. WP:PERP is explicitly limited to persons only'' known in connection with a criminal event or criminal trial. As discussed above, and in the previous AfD, Posner is known also for his involvement in the suit against Central Synagogue (which the industry press found significant enough to report on), and for his involvement in Voter March. Furthermore, the issue subsequent to the criminal trial, which involved payment of attorney's fees out of seized funds, did lead to some press, and I would argue is sufficiently outside the scope of the criminal event or trial (separate proceedings held much later, brought by the NYPD) to place that coverage outside of WP:PERP.
 * AfD is not cleanup. We have here sources of the highest quality, though we also have some tabloid sources, and editors have reasonably been concerned about this. Such concerns belong at Talk:Louis J. Posner, and not here. The conviction and WP:BLP issues are red herrings, and all such concerns can be addressed by judicious editing. Mendaliv's keep rationale arried over from Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination). Dloh  cierekim  14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to disagree with Mendaliv that the overall coverage is enough to get him over the notability bar. While he's been involved in other events besides the convictions that attracted coverage, there is a lack of coverage that addresses Posner himself in the kind of depth required to write a proper biography, which has led to it becoming unbalanced. For example, an "Early life and education" section was recently removed as unsourced, that's the kind of material we'd expect to be able to source if he was genuinely notable. I don't see how it can be fixed through editing without sources that address him in the kind of detail required by WP:SIGCOV. January  ( talk ) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to this, I'd like to draw a distinction between WP:N, which is at issue here, and WP:NPOV, which is the concern you're raising. We have sources to get us past WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E simply based on the NYLJ coverage of the Central Synagogue case, the NY Times coverage of the arrest, and the legal industry coverage of the disbarment and the ancillary legal issues that arose from the legal cases. You're correct that we don't have sources of a WP:N quality, but that doesn't mean we can't source relatively uncontroversial things like early life and education to lower quality sources. Now, you may ask about due weight balancing concerns; the answer is we balance our coverage based on what's in the high-quality sources, but we needn't chain ourselves to those sources. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider the notability and NPOV problems related because they have the same underlying cause, lack of sources addressing the subject in detail. As far as I'm aware (I can't see the offline sources), the only independent sources we have cover events he was involved in, not specifically him. To my mind, that's not WP:SIGCOV. January  ( talk ) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we're getting into more philosophical questions. The NY Times article discusses him and the things he's done, same with the NYLJ article, and others. While these are articles were written because of and do discuss events Posner was involved in, I would argue that such coverage is appropriate for establishing a person's notability, but it seems you disagree, and that's fine. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that the subject recently requested deletion, as confirmed here. January  ( talk ) 14:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OTRS ticket noted There is nothing about this BLP nightmare of an article that could compel us to keep it if the subject has requested deletion via OTRS. Dloh cierekim  15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to address this point: We do requested deletions for subjects, absolutely. But in this case, we have an article created by a person who has ultimately admitted at least some relationship (if not privity) with the subject (see the comments of the Lawline socks; I don't have a diff handy) for promotional purposes suddenly making use of every single procedural mechanism we have for removing content once information he doesn't like comes to light. This happened in 2011 (in part; Lawline had demanded removal of the article), and it's happening again now. I'm not saying this alone justifies keeping, rather it should be kept in mind when considering how to weigh the OTRS request to delete and the intent of the requesting individual. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Adding up the coverage of VoterMarch, Posner's role in it, and the strip club events, I think we have enough here to meet GNG.  I agree that BLP is a red herring - it just happens to be the thing for which this fellow has got the most attention, and coverage did bleed out of the tabloids into the more reputable press.  All that being said, I acknowledge the arguments in favor of deletion.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Posner seems to derive most of his notability from local tabloids.  Trying to create a neutral article from the New York Daily News and New York Post is an exercise in futility.  In cases where the subject of a biography has requested deletion, I usually err on the side of privacy.  Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we do not exist to catalog the sins of non-public figures. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. VoterMarch is, by our own standards, a non-notable entity; even when the article existed, it was poorly sourced. The crimes for which the article subject was ultimately convicted are essentially non-notable, as well; that he was disbarred as a result of conviction is a side point. We certainly do not want or need articles on every lawyer disbarred because of a criminal conviction. The majority of sources are, as noted by NinjaRobotPirate, hardly reliable. The ABA and LegalNews.com sources are not sufficient to meet notability requirements; these publications are biased to report convictions of lawyers. There are multiple primary sources used as references. No better sources were found. Notability not established, deletion requested by article subject. Risker (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OTRS 2013123110007076  data (with permission to reproduce here) - a Delete request submitted on behalf of the article subject.

I would add that the poster sent that text in with the wikilinks already formed, they have obviously had a careful read of the policies.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - my vote! this time. I've deleted better articles than this. If we had an article for everyone who ran a dodgy strip club, we could probably make a serious increase in the number of articles.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note, without commenting on the merits of the request itself, that Mr. Gould's statement here is tantamount to an admission that his client is Lawline/What88 et al., insofar as it confirms Posner is the source of earlier requests for deletion. Perhaps it doesn't have bearing on this article's deletion, but it's something that I think we should note. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While no one has ever exasperated me with their antics as Lawline has, and while his attendant melodrama has been irksome, and while it would have been simpler to just go through OTRS in the first place, this in no way lessens the lack of notability. This whole charade leaves me pondering the many connections that could exist off-wiki. All irrelevant to the discussion here. Dloh cierekim  21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lawline would have also made it simpler by not creating and puffing up articles that extolled VoterMarch and Louis Posner, strenuously defending their notability and inclusion, then completely reversing course and demanding their deletion when it became clear that he could not control his whitewash and PR efforts. He's lucky that Posner and VM are of such questionable notability.  Otherwise the articles would be here to stay forever.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Further to that - if one views from creation at 16:11, 23 March 2013‎ through to page blanking at 08:20, 9 April 2013 - the edits were all by What88 (except for a minor few deletions). A G7 at this point could have been proposed.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * … had we realized in April, rather than December, that that was a puppet. By that later time there was a lot more water under the bridge and a G7 harder to assert.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Last time I suggested a redirect - I'm changing my position based on the subject's request, per WP:BLPDELETE. If we remove the VoterMarch bit, we have a wholly negative bio. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Vapid nudge-nudge-wink-wink true crime nonsense. BLP whining is neither here nor there. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 07:00, 19 January 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.