Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro

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 - default to delete. The discussion came to no particular consensus on this subject, with appeals by participants to both our various policies on the biographies of living persons and our guidelines on inclusion. Many of the participants saying that the individual was notable did not assert why, or indirectly supported the notion that the event and not the person should be covered, to the point of proposing a rename of the article. Other participants supported deletion on the grounds that notability, while existent, was marginal and believed the need to protect the subject of the article was more significant.
As such, this is a classic no consensus close, meaning no consensus to keep or to delete. There is sufficient precedent at AfD to suggest that a discussion on a biography of a living person may default to delete in the case of no consensus, and based on the discussion below this is the course that I have opted for. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Shapiro

Very weak delete. WP:BLP1E, combined with the fact that the subject of the article does not appear to want the article in Wikipedia. He's occasionally quoted in the media as an expert on white-collar experience in prison. Eight Google News hits for "Fred Shapiro" and "fraud" (don't confuse with Fred R. Shapiro, the Yale Law librarian when searching). THF (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, and I don't believe the subjects COI opinion of his bio matters. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This guy has generated some comment in the press, which is true of most criminals that get convicted of serious crimes. But should every repentant criminal from Kinshasha to Kobe be included in Wikipedia? There are millions of them. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criminal activity is sufficiently notable in the first place, and the subsequent activity significant, and the sources adequate. BLP 1E does not refer to important crimes, and the fraud, though minor by 2009 standards, was still a notable one of public significance. DGG (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because I like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at WP:ILIKEIT. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be notable to me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP has a provision against prolonged victimization. I believe it is reasonable to extend this line of thought to prolonged criminalization of a person who is not well-known outside limited geographical area. This person is not in any way a celebrity so covering him with a focus on his crimes is a violation of his privacy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that in general, if crimes are not exceptional (these ones do not seem to be), the criminal should be allowed to get on with their life after serving their sentence. A Wikipedia article is a sort of perpetual punishment. ~~In this case though, given his choice of career, the subject may welcome the publicity. Don't know if that is an argument for or against keeping~~. From the history, this subject clearly wants to shake off the past. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources about the individual to establish the clear claim of notability. The article's subject appears to be editing the article, and while I can sympathize with not wanting an article about oneself that includes negative information, the content here is factual, relevant and notable. Any details regarding his rehabilitation should also be included, as long as it is also supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very clearly seems notable to me based on sources given alone...and I find this a very interesting/relevant subject to include in wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that Shapiro took the wrong approach to deleting his article. If he had simply turned it into an autobiography with a glowing set of encomiums with a lengthy resume and lots of wikipuffery, there would be many many calls to delete this. What happened to WP:NOTNEWS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 February 2009
Keep Notable crook, repeated coverage over several decades. Ray (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS and the fact that although there is some notability, and maybe just about enough to meet the relevant guideline, most of it is based on coverage in one city and within a period of one or two years. Both the author and the subject of the article want it to be deleted, and I don't think it is essential for Wikipedia to have the article. —Snigbrook 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E, primarily and per User:MacGyverMagic's rationale above - Alison ^❤ 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~cannot find any rationale from User:MacGyverMagic in this debate~~ found it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviated as "MgM." THF (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May a pit open in the ground and swallow all those who use BLP1E as a deletion rationale. Read the thing chaps; if a person is notable for one event, then the event is bloody well notable and the article ought to be moved there. Cover the event, not the person != cover nothing. Skomorokh 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the event is notable, either. Wikipedia doesn't catalog every local scandal, no matter how many Philadelphia newspapers talked about it. THF (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on the specifics, but rather the general principle. If you feel that the event was not notable, then how do you reconcile that with citing a guideline regarding people notable for one event? Skomorokh 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited it for the proposition Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry., which seems perfectly applicable here. THF (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of lasting notability. Make it an article about the event, as a second choice. Wkdewey (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Keep (and revise) per Enric Naval Wkdewey (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - this is a borderline case, as the sources provided do give reasonable grounds for notability. However, on closer inspection, it seems that lasting notability wasn't achieved here - all the sources are from a relatively brief period in 1990-1991, and all from the same city. Therefore, given that he's only marginally notable, and apparently wants his article deleted, I think we should acquiesce to Mr. Shapiro's request on this one. Robofish (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to event It doesn't look that he doesn't want the publicity, or that the event is not notable, or that the event only had local relevance. He appeared on the CNBC to explain his experience[1], and also at NYC law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom [2], at a conference on the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants [3], USC's Marshall School of Business [4], Widener University School of Law [5] etc. It's obvious that the fraud is considered a notable event by many people in the financial world of the US, so let's apply BLP1E and rename to something like Biggest white-collar crime in Philadelphia and tweak the article adequately so it's not centered on the persona of Fred Shapiro. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there will clearly be no consensus to delete, the above suggestion by Enric Naval seems reasonable and in line with policy. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability appears to be asserted. Captain panda 23:14, 16 February 2009 (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.