Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renzo Gadola


 * 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. WP:BLP1E clearly applies here, which is more important than meeting the letter of WP:GNG (which is the only valid "keep" argument that was put forward). If one or more editors feel that UBS isn't sufficiently detailed, I suggest expanding that material into a separate article, where Gadola can be mentioned. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Renzo Gadola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article appears not to merit an article under the guidelines at WP:CRIMINAL. By the article and by the stated intent of the article's creator, this is being used as a WP:COATRACK to build the entire scandal and other BLPs around this individual, who does not appear to have been the key player. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of my intentions The idea that I am building the "entire" UBS tax evasion scandal around Renzo Gadola is incorrect. There's nothing in the article that says he is the mastermind of the UBS tax scandal. Why Gadola is significant is that he is the first person who revealed the usage of regional Swiss banks by American tax evaders once UBS, a major international bank, in accordance with its agreement with the United States, cracked down on American citizens' use of its numbered accounts to hide assets and evade taxes. (The final Swiss-American tax treaty was signed a few days ago, so this scandal is ongoing, and it is ongoing because of bankers like Gadola and the bankers he fingered.) He helped the U.S. DOJ and IRS with its crackdown on tax cheats and their enablers using this new venue. Is he a criminal? Gadola and his confederates urged Americans to defy the US tax authorities. even after the crackdown on Americans and the IRS amnesty. He certainly is a player and he is one of the only Swiss bankers to be brought to justice. Furthermore, he revealed (and participated) in a conspiracy that defrauded the United States government of northwards of US$500 million. Is someone who engaged in a crime that racked up more "loot" than Whitey Bulger, John Dillinger, or any other garden-variety hood with an article in Wiki ver dreamed of qualify as a criminal? I think so. Just because it is a white collar crime doesn't mean that Gadola and his confederates aren't criminals. Their arrest and conviction was covered by the business press. If Gadola is not included in this encyclopedia, where will researchers find out about him. By a random search of periodical articles that may disappear in time? If he is just a footnote in another article, the significance of his crime and his cooperation with the United States is lost.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If in the future, information on him cannot be found in other sources, that suggests that he was not truly of historical significance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, Shemp (and I'm neutral here), you should consider that Wikipedia isn't meant to be about everything.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 07:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of True Crime stories. Just read the lead of this, that's all it's about is an alleged crime and an arrest. BLP-1E for those of you needing an assessment with a little more substance. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Carrite, it's not about an alleged" crime. The person and his confederate were convicted, while one remains a fugitive from justice. These people were prosecuted by the DOL Tax Div.'s top prosecutor as part of the UBS tax evasion scandal. I rewrote the intro to front-load the info on his conviction and his importance.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to fall under WP:BIO1E and/or WP:BLP1E. He might be worth mentioning in a relevant article, but doesn't appear to warrant a separate article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So the consensus emerging seems to be that under the bio guidelines, despite his key role in opening up the UBS tax evasion investigation (and helping it widen to other banks), it would be more relevant for him (and his confederates) to be added to an article on say the UBS tax evasion scandal? (There currently isn't a stand-alone one, but maybe there should be.)Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd like to make my case for keeping the article. It's an argument based on five points, other than the fact that I do think that Renzo Gadola does merit an article (which already have been mentioned).
 * Argument number one is the "Hall of Fame" argument, which is basically, since So 'n' So is in the Hall of Fame, Such 'n' Such should be too. (Classic example was Orlando Cepeda and Jim Rice; Rice eventually did get in.) Renzo Gadola's "Orlando Cepeda" would be Rudolf Elmer. There are also many articles in Wikipedia with import far less than Gadola's crime.
 * Argument number two is the criteria for notability as a criminal, specifically, a white collar criminal. I don't think white collar criminals should be "shortchanged" by Wiki as society privileges "blue-collar criminals" who engage in violence. This plays into the "historical" value of someone like Gadola; as his crime was unspectacular in the tabloid sense (though quite spectacular to the financial and regulatory world), this means he has less value as a subject. Notoriety and significance are two separate things. Miley Cyrus comes to mind. White collar criminals might not attract the attention that other criminals do, but that does not mean they are less significant.
 * Argument three: Reading the histories of articles about the Swiss financial industry, there seems to be active censorship going on. Their role in laundering Nazi gold and assets is lacking (as that would be biased, one Wikipedian claims). The UBS article finally did get an injection of scandals after some edit wars, it appears, and while there is a subsection on the UBS tax evasion scandals, it is relatively small. There is no separate article (as there is for the 2011 Rogue trader scandal), and if there was, there is no guarantee this information would be redacted by another editor. If Gadola is mentioned, an internal link cold bring the reader to this page where they could get the details of his crime, rather than said crime being detailed on the page (that doesn't exist right now, but I'm thinking it should -- what a project that will be!).
 * Argument four:I'm in favor of a Big Wikipedia. I came to the Swiss banking scandals via an interest in whistleblowing via an interest in Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. I was once an archivist (not quite a librarian, or am I just being coy?). I believe that BROWSING is one of the best means for stimulating young people, or people of any age. When I go through Wiki, I click on internal links and find new people, new events, new worlds I did not know about. It is a rich experience, akin to browsing in a library, though even more direct and fruitful. (Not to put down physical libraries, which I love. But that browsing is different.) A Big Wiki is my idea of an effective online medium, one which Wiki and only Wiki can do.
 * Because of my commitment to the Big Wiki, I created the article on Perry Fellwock, the whistleblower who first revealed what the NSA was up to back in the early 1970s. There was no Wiki article on him before that. He *is* an historically significant person, but he was not in Wiki. I've spent countless hours helping resurrect old, nearly forgotten African American boxers, who fought before the color bar was lifted and who were largely forgotten. I am proud in what I and others have done, as a person can now discover this incredible history, in which there were "alternate" titles and all these great warriors (and champions), virtually forgotten, and now, not forgotten, due to Wiki. Wiki has a great function, and that is not being an analogue to a print encyclopedia but in being a great cornucopia of information.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Running down the arguments as numbered:
 * is a basic "Other Stuff Exists" argument. Wikipedia is imperfect; we need not see imperfection elsewhere in it and seek to emulate it here.
 * is arguing against nothing that I can see going on in the article. The standards being leaned on here, WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL, I've seen used to successfully shut down articles on non-white-collar crime as well. It gives no reason to ignore those guidelines.
 * is somewhat strange; even if we accept its supposition of folks going around inappropriately deleting material on the topic, it assumes that setting things up this way will both hide the material from the editing cabal and yet be quite findable with other folks interested in the topic. And it is anti-Wikipedian at heart, looking to avoid having material subject to editing.
 * is basically a case against WP:CRIMINAL, WP:BLP1E, and just about any other policy or guideline that limits content on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that there isn't a case to be made for changing those policies, but this is not the place to do it. To simply do it for this article is to say let's ignore the standards, because you don't like them.
 * So no, nothing that would sway me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage by Reuters, the CSM, and the NYT is sufficient for notability of anything at all, and nothing more needs to be shown. The whole idea of our coverage of crime and other events of the sort that are covered in newspapers  is that what proves to be of international notice for reasons other than TABLOID is notable. I'm not one of the people who apply the GNG to everything, but for this sort of article, it's a good first guide, better than any we can devise on our own. This is the sort of area where the media are the experts for what is significant.  If we do want to deal with significance on our own, the argument that this is a major break in the events surrounding UBS is a good one.  DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I see this lacking significant recurring coverage. Technical 13 (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per good coverage of media (sources). --BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2013 (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.