Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Bloom


 * 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 SNOW keep.  Not even the nominator believes this article to be worthy of deletion. BLP policy is about unsourced negative information; it is not a lever to be used by notable convicted criminals to keep their names a wee bit more obscure. No prejudice against a future nomination from someone who can provide an argument for deletion, nor against renaming to an event-focused article. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip Bloom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As per the discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and a subsequent PROD, there are potentially controversial requests to remove this article on the basis of notability. This AFD is raised to discuss compliance with WP:N/CA more fully than PROD allows. If the consensus is that Bloom is not notable for his fraud activities in Iraq (as convicted) then the article should be deleted. Ash (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, although BLP isn't mentioned in the deletion reasons, I feel that's likely the gambit here. And I realise that I am less militant on BLP than other people typically - but my standard is typically "If this had happened during the revolutionary wars, would we allow an article on it now?" and the answer is typically "Yes". Somebody convicted of trying to defraud Washington's government likely would merit an article - which means 200 years from now when some kid wants to write about little-known details on the Iraq War, he'll be grateful we chronicled it. Now we could merge these articles into a large Convictions on fraud and smuggling charges against American businessmen during the Invasion of Iraq but that seems cumbersome, and since I would want to see it contain the exact same information...wouldn't really solve any issues other than do the ole BLP "fix the problem by renaming the article" dance. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know Sherurcij isn't advocating a merge into a big omnibus article. But let me add another reason why that would be a bad idea.  One of the biggest strengths of the wikipedia over plain ordinary world-wide-web pages is that our wikilinks are robust, and they are bi-directional.  We have the powerful "what links here" feature, which works best is we are disciplined, and write small, focussed articles, that are richly linked.  The bloated, meandering articles that are the end-result of ill-advised merging, have bloated "what links here" lists -- and the reader who consults them is guaranteed that following most of those links will not take them to pages about their particular interest.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand small articles tend to promote lots of widely distributed rubbish that the average reader may never find. Polargeo (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible keep - The first revision is perhaps a tad POV, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it an attack page. It was reasonably well-referenced. As for the coverage, the article has been covered by the New York Times and this (not entirely sure what to call it). The Bucharest Daily News also appears to have covered it, but it's a dead link. I also found this NBC article. But, the question is, is this enough to satisfy WP:N/CA or does it fall victim to WP:BLP1E. I would say "yes", but I could be completely wrong... Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep -- Bloom was the first American contractor to be charged with fraud. He had to pay back $4 million USD.  His case received world-wide coverage.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject has admitted crimes, which are well-publicized, serious, and have significant public policy implications. No issues of sourcing or unfairness to subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this passes WP:EVENT no trouble Polargeo (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The individual who placed the initial prod on this article offered a three word justification for that prod -- "just not notable". Paul Bremer, the USA's Civilian administrator of occupied Iraq, and the man ultimately responsible for preventing frauds like this one, went on a speaking tour of the USA after his gig ended.  He was asked about the $8 billion USD that couldn't be accounted for that went missing from the Development Fund for Iraq.  He told his audiences -- "Don't worry about the missing $8 billion.  It wasn't American money, it was only Iraqi money."  Perhaps this is what the prod placer meant when he or she claimed Bloom was "just not notable" -- that he only stole Iraqi money that was being administered by the USA on behalf of the Iraqi people.  Well, that is nonsense.  The wikipedia is not a hagiography.  It seems to me that the theft of Iraqi money, administered by the USA, in trust, is more significant that the theft of US tax dollars would have been.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hope User:Hipocrite chooses to add his perspective on the PROD raised here, at the moment WP:SNOW appears to apply.—Ash (talk) 19:39, 6 January 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.