Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Alan Wolk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think this person meets WP:BASIC since I cannot find any sources which directly discuss the subject, as is required to meet the general notability guideline. Sources are either unreliable, or make only passing comments about the subject and his legal cases, rather than directly addressing them.

Note that the article appears to have been created and edited as part of an off-wiki dispute, in contravention of Wikipedia is not a battleground. Whilst not a reason in itself to delete, this, combined with the lack of notability, makes me think we are better off not having this BLP to deal with.

(There have been posts at COIN and at BLP/N regarding this article and Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson which is also at AfD.) SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is sufficient sourcing on the article currently to establish notability and there are more sources available that aren't yet being used. The solution to WP:BATTLE is to remove those doing the battle and get on with editing the article -- and in fact this has already been accomplished. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which sources directly discuss the subject and which remain to be used? SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the ones Racepacket indicates below, see this (not currently used) and the Reason article by Jacob Sullum used as a reference on the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An aviation tort lawyer who crashes his own plane and then sues the National Transportation Safety Board over the report of his crash is unique and very notable. Racepacket (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Article is of little to nil informative or educational value and will be nothing but trouble. A clear net wiki - loss.Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This non-notable or marginally notable subject does not want to be covered. The article has become a magnet for WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violations. We will be better off without this article. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the subject does not want to be covered -- instead I understand that he paid the creator of the article to create it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP posted something to that effect, though I can't find the diff at the moment, and it was an unverified IP, so I will concede the point. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nomoskedasticity. There are many times more reliable sources used discussin him that is needed to prove notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had serious problems with the article as it was created by User:Lawrencewarwick, who is being paid by the article's subject. However, I spent some time doing independent research and have now balanced out the article by including his own plane crash and at least two different lawsuits in 2002 and 2009 against his on-line critics. (By the way, I have no role in the off-Wiki battles.) The subject of the article has gained coverage in a front page article in USA Today and is something of a poster child for tort reform. Sources:

Morrison, Blake (January 5, 2000). "Tragedy's bottom line". USA Today. p. 1A. Retrieved 2010-11-05.
Passarella, Gina (April 7, 2010). "Pa. Jury Awards Nearly $89 Million in Plane Crash Case". The Legal Intelligencer. Retrieved 2010-11-05. - Racepacket (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Racepacket by putting a link to me before yours makes it appear that I have voted to keep this article and of course I would like to keep it but I have not voted please correct by removing the link or placing yours before mine in the vote. Thank you LEW (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously. Almost all the refs are about the lawsuits (not about him), about his libel suit ~~(which is suspiciously absent from the article)~~, or not wp:rs. Some of the cases are probably notable, and he deserves mention in those articles. Possibly a redirect if he is known for one case more than others. The Eskimo (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem of WP:BLP1E, as more than one of the lawsuits appears notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article is of minimal notability, and there is already a history of legal threats and COI issues connected with the article. We don't need the headache. Ray^Talk 00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those (except "minimal notability") is even a potential reason for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, those are definitely reasons to take into consideration for deletion, if the cost to Wikipedia's editors of maintaining the article (dealing with constant legal harassment, etc) is not worth the benefit (maintaining a neutral biography of a colorful local figure of minimal import). Ray^Talk 21:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the editors who were causing difficulties are no longer a problem: one is blocked, the other has undertaken not to edit the page anymore (see here). We have the means of dealing with WP:BATTLE, it has been dealt with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? THF is commenting below. The battle is still ongoing. Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then he can be dealt with as well. Really, it's not difficult. I won't lose sleep if this article is deleted, but I'd rather it be done (or not done) for the right reasons. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; I will not lose sleep if the article is kept. :-) What we need to do is remove the partisans, and prune all the dubious content. My feeling is that once all the layers of bad content are peeled off, there won't be enough left to have an article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wolk meets Wikipedia notability standards under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If Wolk wants the article deleted, as Jehochman states, I support its deletion. If Wolk wants the article kept, as Lawrencewarwick states, I support keeping it. I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors if his Wikipedia presence is not to his liking. (Wolk might sue poor Lawrence Warwick and his marketing firm if Warwick didn't warn him about WP:LUC when he made that phone call.) American Wikipedia editors considering editing the article should review this recent lawsuit by Wolk (page 9 forward) that (1) alleges that anyone who links to a website is a "co-partner" of everything that website and all of its commenters say and (2) shows what sort of statement about Wolk Wolk considers legally actionable. (Disclosure of conflict of interest: Wolk has sued me. Twice. For the same 2007 blog post.) Because Wolk has accused me of "inciting" negative comments about him, I hereby request that no one on Wikipedia write anything about Wolk that Wolk does not want them to write. Editors should only write true things about Wolk. Contrary to Lawrence Warwick's complaint, I have not edited and will not edit the Wolk article. My only edit was to nominate the forked lawsuit article for deletion, which Wolk's marketing representatives requested. Long-time Wikipedia editors will know that I have consistently (if unsuccessfully) argued that district-court cases do not merit their own articles except in rare cases like the Scopes trial. THF (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that we should have a two-staged analysis. First, here, the community should apply normal community standards to determine if the article is worth inclusion. Second, if the AfD decides to keep the article, Wikimedia Foundation management can make a cost-benefit analysis as to whether it is worth its resources to implement the community's desires. If the AfD decides to keep the article, and someone then makes a legal demand on Wikimedia, they can make a unilateral decision to bow to the demand or to fight it in court. However, the community should not assume that just because other lawsuits have been filed in the past, that a lawsuit will be forthcoming here. Our task here is to reach a conclusion applying all of the normal Wikipedia criteria in the normal course. Speculation about possible future legal threats should not enter into our deliberations here. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redflag THF should not be commenting here. By his own admission, he's involved in a lawsuit with the subject.[1] The article seems to be some sort of coatrack, where PR agents[2] and antagonists of the subject are competing to hang their coats![3] Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you acting like you've discovered something sinister? I disclosed the conflict of interest in my comment, which you plainly didn't even read. With this edit I add emphasis to help guide your eye.
Please run the check-user so I can be exonerated. Again. It's ironic, because I've been regularly harassed by sock puppets since I started editing Wikipedia, but for some reason, I get accused of sock-puppeting every time another editor agrees with me. I'm Collect, I'm Cool Hand Luke, and so on. And here, where another editor and I disagree and he or she insults me and after that editor is blocked a SPA appears and vandalizes the article about me. (All this wonderful concern about BLP, but no one's touched the libelous edit about me that's been sitting in mainspace for several days.) If I had a nickel every time someone made a false sock-puppet allegation against me on Wikipedia, I'd have at least 25 cents. And I'm especially offended by the accusation in this case, because it could get me sued by someone who has previously sued me because I linked to a website.
You also plainly didn't read the guideline you cited and falsely accused me of violating, since it nowhere says I should not be commenting on a discussion page.
I'd like an apology for all these WP:AGF violations, but I've sadly come to accept that the civility policies are never enforced when it comes to baseless personal insults against me, and I don't really have time or interest for Wikidrama. THF (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why don't we stop commenting off topic and just stick to keep or delete until closing? The Eskimo (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to be meet WP:BIO multiple times over. So it should be kept. People will however need to keep a careful eye on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and meets WP:BIO. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you address the quality of the references please? Simply asserting a conclusion is unlikely to carry any weight when an administrator closes the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the USA Today article is of sufficient quality to establish notability. It even described the decoration of his house. Racepacket (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources for notability . If the subject thinks he has a case that there is libelous or unfair content, he should go to OTRS. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regardless whether this is kept or not, the lawsuit should be mentioned at Overlawyered and/or Walter Olson. There are enough sources for that. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable for multiple lawsuits covered in the press. He is also notable as an expert interviewed on such matters. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Wolk's (presumable) legal representative did not request deletion of this page, they only requested deletion of Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson, which has already been accomplished. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply We have already established that Wolk's "representatives" were web designers, not lawyers. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.