Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison Courtney

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only claim to notability seems to be recent fraud charges (to which he pled guilty). There is lots of high-quality coverage of that fraud, but it is still a single event. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Be nice to rich felons" is not policy. As the prior AFD made unmistakeably clear, there was a solid case for notability just on his government work. Major coverage in the NYTimes as recently as Sept 9. Speedy close, waste of time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really call seven delete votes in the last AfD unmistakable clarity. For that, you have to have something closer to unanimity.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving as the "Chief of Public Affairs" of a federal agency is not a notable position, and coverage about his arrest/conviction falls into WP:BLP1E. KidAd talk 04:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who can't be bothered to read BLP1E shouldn't embarrass themselves by indiscriminately citing it. BLP1E requires that each of three conditions be met, and here none of them are. Reliable sources cover Courtney both in the context of his government work and his notorious fraud; with coverage by the NYTimes, Daily Beast, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, and WaPo, among many others, Courtney is not low-profile; and as the central figure in a fraud scheme, his role is both important and well-documented. The BLP1E-based argument for deletion is thoroughly frivolous. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a case of BLP1E. He was notable enough for a BLP by virtue of his job prior to gaining notoriety and tremendous coverage in reliable sources for his amazingly sophisticated crime. Sundayclose (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both for his previous work, and for the rather spectacular fraud, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question In the context of WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, which is relevant: the single judicial action from arrest through conviction and sentencing, or the long string of activities spread over years that amount to numerous events, each one meriting its own coverage, and that might have received it if Courtney had been more inept and red flags had gone up over the course of those years instead of not till this year? Largoplazo (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any alleged mastermind of a fraud involving the highest levels of US Defense and Intelligence is 'de facto' relevant.Gaussgauss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 13 September 2020 (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.