Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Traub


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Traub

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

Subject's notability is debatable, and the page appears to have been created as a spinoff from Marc Stuart Dreier - see Talk:Marc Stuart Dreier. Despite some attempts to rescue the page by uninvolved contributors, BLP concerns remain, and I think notability needs to be established. Disembrangler (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. Notability is not inherited; although he appears to be associated with high-profile bankruptcy cases, he does not appear to have generated any notability for himself. Frank  |  talk  18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Return him to where he rightfully belongs: a subsection of Marc Dreier.  When an edit war erupted on June 5, 2009, a few dissenters felt the resolution was to create his own page.  i disagreed, but that was the consensus.  please synthesize a small part of this page with a section within the Dreier page. (See Revision history of Marc Stuart Dreier  before overnight deletions on june 5, 2009 for section placement. Furtive admirer (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no extensive coverage about the man anywhere. I also urge other editors to keep on eye on Furtive, whose grasp on BLP policy is shaky.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep central attorney in a few high profile bankruptcy cases makes for notability. The sources are sufficient for that. DGG (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. The sources are generally not about Traub, they mention him in passing. It's fairly clear from the content that this was a content fork from the Dreier scandal, and I'm not sure enough sources exist to balance that for a full bio. Disembrangler (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - GET INVOLVED in Fact specifics - a page on Traub, eToys, Dreier and Petters are all national issues. These items are akin to Madoff and Markopolous  the facts are overwhelming and profuse that manifest injustice is transpiring on a National scale. If you Care to make a difference simply have several editors block the page(s) and put up only sourced items the achieves a majority vote - The TRUTH shall Set this discussion FREE Laserhaas (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * — Laserhaas (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * At least I sign my name to all comments as an author of this veiled inuendo — Laserhaas (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. you miss the point - One is either a reporter/Pedia of Facts or one has an agenda
 * Clearly you have an agenda. I don't much care what it is. No veiled innuendo; you are demonstrably a single purpose account.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete DGG makes a good point but the sourcing isn't extensive at all and this seems almost like an attempt to smear Traub. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Collapse what you may - the statement by me is that Editors research the FACTS and report what is public - the WSJ reported on the Story - the OPINION by the Court and Corresponding Order of Oct 4 2005 stipulated that the parties Confessed to supplication of false affidavits and deceiving the Court -- Deliberately - It is a FACT that Martha went to jail for a lot less.

Why does his own resume on the new law firm website not mention anything about eToys, Stage Stores, Jumbo Sports etc
 * Why are you and those here trying SO HARD to bury the information? As you can see - I am not the one that originated the Traub or Dreier pages and the overwhelming and abundant proofs are Public Court Documents and the Wall Street Journal article of July 25, 2005 (front page mention)
 * Attacking me personally - inferring that I have a veiled agenda - when all I request is that Editors gather together, research and report the facts - is Most Certainly an AGENDA!

Laserhaas (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Single purpose - To halt Fraud and Ponzi schemes from harming others - that appears to be against your grain. Traub, eToys, KB, Dreier, Petters and DOJ Breach of Fiduciary duties, fraud, cronyism, corruption, organized crime a/k/a Bankruptcy Ring and counsels who have CONFESSED to supplication of False Affidavits to Deliberately Deceive a Federal Court as Officers of the Court. So strong a premise that the US Supreme Court stipulates in the case of In re Hazel Atlass Glass - that there is NO statute of limitation thereof.
 * While you fail to follow your own rules to sign your name and on the other hand I have placed affidavits out on the web accusing DOJ personal of engaging in corruption!
 * The problem with those who swore an oath to protect; is that they are assisting in Covering up these crimes against innocent stock holders, creditors by Assaulting the Constitution of the United States as they and those who engage in haughtier (such as you) - is that when it comes to a conscience;

No one seems to have One!
 * Report the facts or Do NOT - the choice - simply - is Yours!

69.232.152.53 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As for eToys, Dreier, Petters, Traub one would be hard pressed to find a more fact intensive person than this one

Regardless - I have accepted the integrity of this system as pure and yield any agenda to the quest for truth However - such a quest should NOT be tilted toward an effort to Cover Up the information - specifically because one is a novice

It is our case ````But is the American system of Justice at risk here Stand up for what is right in America or Let it Go! Laserhaas (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep DGG is correct: Plenty of sourced material see: *Zoom Info]  There is something to be said when a paid PR agency has to protect what is written on Wikipedia....something is amiss here... when only his new office address is retained on Marc Dreier.  He deserves more resourceful research into other bankruptcy conflicts and his business issues with Tom Petters.  Both Dreier and Petters are of like mind...not coincidential.  let's dig deeper, ok?

Furtive admirer (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While their are many sources about the cases, there appears to be a lack of sources about the actual subject. I doubt a proper article could be written and it seems that he'd be more appropriately mentioned in the articles of the companies when discussing their bankruptcy cases.  There seems to be an awful lot of questing for truth going on here and its been a challenge to keep the article from becoming a coatrack for some supposed wrongs; I believe a lot of this is due to the lack of coverage for the subject outside of the courtroom. Shell   babelfish 08:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on some of his pages associations. notability The WSJ refers to him as "one of the biggest names in bankruptcy law" see: WSJ and Full WSJ article for free  Basically of note it says, the Trustee said his deception was intentional; given his experience, he should have known better than withold paid personnel relationships.  Ergo, he is quite notable, whether infamous in his field or not.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you realize, but this is a discussion not a vote; you can add further thoughts to your original comments instead of adding several "keep" notes. You've also been asked quite a bit not to violate the BLP policy in regards to this subject and your continued need to state your opinion is becoming seriously problematic. Shell  babelfish 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Items of NOTE

As a "discussion" it would seem to all newcomers, etc., that a realm - seeking to expand its horizon - would be cordial and diplomatic - with sound ethical protocols.
 * I would rather not be here - being snide upon - by those that do not have compassion - this place is click minded - however, because other parties are putting in a good faith effort - for the greater good - I am obligated to spend time; we would all waste last of it - in banter - if the resulting consensus was to just report/pedia the issues at hand.
 * Fact 1 eToys went public in 1999 for nearly $8 billion and bankrupt a year later
 * 2 - one of the 1st Orders was the approval of DESTRUCTION of Books n Records
 * 3 The US Trustee testified in a Motion to Disgorge TBF that the acts of false affidavits and planting of a paid associate of TBF (creditors attorney) within the Debtor as CEO was deliberate, with affidavits being Deliberately left knowing they were false.
 * 4 The US Trustee also testified that he did forewarn the parties not to do the very violation of replacing key personnel with people connected to the retained professionals

http://petters-fraud.com/DisgorgeMotion_TBF_1_6_Million.pdf
 * 5 After confessing to supplication of more than 17 false affidavits the DOJ Trial Attorney (who also noted Traub as counsel for Kmart shareholders) then gave Traub implied, blanket, immunity and the promise of willful blindness by the DOJ US Trustee's office in the future

http://petters-fraud.com/US_Trustee_Motion_Feb24_2005_2giveTBF_immunity.pdf
 * 6 After receiving that promise of impunity, Traub became partners with Dreier and Petters
 * 7 The NY Supreme Court docket of case 601805/2002 - nearly half thereof - is Under SEAL

(because Traub knows that he was originally "caught" red-handed by a mistake in the docket record of the case of In re Bonus Sales (a vanity letter-head stated that he and Gold were co-principals; thereby making all the Affidavits stipulating NO conflict of interest were FALSE)
 * 8 A TBF associate threatened me to back off or else and my own attorney emailed such
 * 9 The OR else has come true
 * This day June 14 2009 - the TV show 60 minutes will have Markopolous of Madoff - on how all were notified and yet harm kept getting bigger
 * It is indisputable that Fraud and Perjury transpired in eToys - they confessed to the acts and would like everyone to just rename it minor bad faith - However, it was a public company with 290,000,000 shares of stock that went from $78 to ZERO in a year and a half's time and the Chief Justice, having testimony by the US Trustee (the POLICE of the Bankruptcy Court) stating that he forewarned them not to do- the very felony violations they Conspired to accomplish by Deliberately deceiving the Court - as the Judge says No Wrong has been done and she cannot see that any perjury transpired (yet if you go to the 11th Circuit decision of Walker v Walden - Judge Kravitch stipulated lying under oath is Lying Under Oath (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=walker+v+walden+lying+under+oath&aq=f&oq=&aqi= )

BECAUSE the Courts are chosing to hide the public documents under a paid system - editors here would argue that such therefore makes all reports Moot. That would be the same as saying that Woodward and Bernstein were not Noteworthy because Nixon said on public TV "I am not a crook"

Please be aware - if you help bury this information - you are assisting the desired effort to Cover Up the Facts - it does not matter that you can twist the protocol, editorial banter to justify your position - others will be harmed if the Truth is made dark.
 * ANY good faith party would simply restrict what is placed on the articles to being fact specific and let the readers draw their own conclusions!

Laserhaas (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laserhaas (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 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.