Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Strzok

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Strzok

[edit]
Peter Strzok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted because the individual is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. The individual may at some point warrant a page of his own, but his sole claim to notability at this point is having been in the Mueller team and having been removed from the investigation for referring to the President as "crazy". I'm sure the Republican Party and rightwing media will get into the weeds on this individual and make him notable, but so far he's not notable. 2017 Special Counsel investigation is sufficient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- he's been getting a ton of media coverage (see references in the article) and has strengthen Trump's claim that the Russia investigation is a "witch hunt". Also, he is notable for his involvement in two separate events: The Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton email controversy.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he wasn't just involved. He had a significant influence on Comey's findings in the Clinton investigation and he is the only person removed from Meuller's investigation for misconduct.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to suggest that he "had a significant influence on Comey's findings in the Clinton investigation". Are you referring to Strzok being one of many to review a draft of the investigation's findings? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the fact that he changed the wording from "grossly negligent" (which would suggest a crime was committed) to the much milder "extremely careless."--Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? He reviewed the draft, along with many other people. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the CNN article that is referenced[1]: "Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 22:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like most FBI agents, he has labored in near-complete anonymity for his entire career until this week. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:BLP1E. At most, this could be a redirect to a paragraph in 2017 Special Counsel investigation. And I'm sorry, but "Firing of Peter Strzok" is even less notable than he is personally, and fails WP:NOTNEWS even more completely. As for "don't mention individual staffers at the investigation article" as several people have said - there is a list, a bare-bones list, of Mueller's team members at that article now - and has been ever since the article was created. Yes, Strzok is listed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. It's true he has been relatively obscure up to now, but indications now are that he will be the subject of continuing and ongoing coverage in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a centralized BLP and manually divest relevant political content into relevant investigation articles. AzureCitizen and MelanieN makes a lot of good points. Strzok is apparently becoming mildly relevant in reference to the newer investigation. It would be best to have the email server investigation content in that article if it is useful. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not correct that "his sole claim to notability at this point is having been in the Mueller team and having been removed from the investigation..." He is also known for attending Hillary Clinton's FBI interview, he interrogated Hillary's top aids, he interviewed Gen. Michael Flynn, and he is known to have sent emails revealing strong bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump. JD Lambert(T|C) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Removing this information is revisionist. Most of the facts in this article are supported in the media. I contend that most of delete's are motivated by the writers politics. Not in an attempt to keep the information pure. Of course, this person's information can be added too. But nothing should be subtracted. Bronco46 (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that he is in the spotlight there will be much more information surfacing. In addition to "extremely careless" draft change, he conducted the interviews, along with DOJ attorney David Laufman, of Clinton, Mills, and Abedin as well as the interview with Flynn resulting in the lying charge. It is interesting to note that he gave Mills and Abedin a pass on their denial of knowledge of the existence of HRC severer when later email exchanges proved the contrary. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia needs to avoid taking sides politically. Deletion of this page will look like Wikipedia is attempting to whitewash the facts. I'm sure every member of the team that investigated Richard Nixon during Watergate has a page, so should every member of Mueller's team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treymd (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Treymd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KeepThis person played a very important role in a number of recent important FBI investigations. This entry could be deleted at the beginning of 2018 if it will turn out that he has done nothing wrong (very doubtful). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.149.10 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 120.147.149.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This isn't some rank and file FBI agent. He was the lead investigator in at least two extraordinarily high profile investigations involving the two 2016 U.S. Presidential Election candidates. Even before the controversies there was ample coverage of him. He doesn't become less notable once his role in the investigation became more controversial and the focus of an enormous amount of very substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Many are hoping the investigation into possible collusion with Russia is enough to remove the U.S. president from office and put him in jail. This is not a minor deal. Nor was the other investigation involving Clinton's server. Many have blamed it for her election loss. And the FBI investigation into it is right now being investigated by the Justice Department's Inspector General and a focus of Congressional inquiry. So the media coverage is not over by any means. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with MelanieN that "Firing of Peter Strzok" would not be notable, but at this point WP:BLP1E no longer applies, since, as been pointed out by other editors, it is not simply a single instance, but several notable events which this person has been a part of. And as also been pointed out by other editors, I fear that the breadth of coverage of this individual is only going to grow over the coming months. Onel5969 TT me 12:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to note that the deletion request has drawn attention at the conspiracy forum /r/the_donald, which may explain the participation of IP numbers, red accounts and infrequent editors in this discussion[2][3][4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be civil and assume good faith. IP users and the accounts you call "red" are are human too. Politrukki (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This article deletion proposal was also mentioned last night on the Fox News channel. JD Lambert(T|C) 19:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's amazing. Do you have a link to it or recall which show? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have serious memory problems, but it was a show last night and it was a female who mentioned it. I also don't watch much TV, don't care about celebrities, but I happened to be watching last night for a few minutes. Possibly it was the host of "The Ingraham Angle," or a female being interviewed on the show before or after that one. JD Lambert(T|C) 01:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be correct: "As a weird aside to this whole fiasco, if you go to Strzok's Wikipedia page, it reads that the website is considering his whole page for deletion. That's a bit odd, don't you think?"[5] Yes, LAURA INGRAHAM. I don't remember ever agreeing with you, INGRAHAM, but you do have a point there, INGRAHAM. Politrukki (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as others have pointed out, the subject is a subject in multiple controversies, and has been a key figure in multiple investigations. Hence the BLP1E argument is bunk. NOTNEWS argument is specious because the language drafting thing has been discussed for months, it's just that only now it was leaked that Strzok was the one who made the significant changes. NOTNEWS argument also misses the point because the news reporting surrounding Strzok is not trivial and Strzok is the central figure in the events. Politrukki (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-fucking-cisely. Voted elsewhere, but endorse the comment above in particular. Per the above argument that NOTNEWS is being cited superfluously, admins should speedy close this.73.61.20.220 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This individual has made an important impact on the geopolitical history of the United States. Future generations should be able to retrieve the facts regarding how this individual personally impacted for better or worse the destiny of these United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.219.88 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 4.121.219.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
To shoot down this article under WP:BLP1E, you apparently need all 3 of these things: [1] reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (not true here since multiple investigations are covered); [2] the person is likely to remain, a low-profile individual (not here given the vast coverage and more to come); [3] the individual's role was not substantial (uh, interrogating Mike Flynn to the point where Flynn lied is substantial all by itself). As for WP:NOTNEWS, we have coverage of Strzok going back months, cited in this BLP:

That’s a lot of coverage that preceded the massive December 2017 coverage, especially given that the FBI is tight-lipped. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)expanded14:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Note the many single-purpose accounts, new accounts, etc., who have popped up, apparently from off-wiki canvassing. These "votes" above fail to make an policy-based argument - they don't point to sources, but merely claim "WP:ITSIMPORTANT." Users' subjective opinions as to "importance" are not relevant. What is relevant are the presence (or absence) of in-depth, secondary sources meriting a standalone page. That's not the case here. Neutralitytalk 03:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth pointing this out, but it should not be overstated. By my count, only four of the contributions above were from single purpose/IP accounts. The vast majority of "votes" here (whether keep or delete) are from regular contributors.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Here is this BLP as it stood at 02:17 on December 7. I started editing immediately thereafter, and with two other editors have greatly upgraded the BLP (e.g. number of footnotes doubled, et cetera). I believe this revised version satisfies most of the objections made against the previous version at 02:17 on December 7. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment Redirecting to 2017 Special Counsel investigation would imply that is the only thing notable, ignoring he was the deputy head of FBI counter-intelligence, he conducted the interviews of Clinton, Mills, Abedin, and Flynn, he was instrumental in softening the language of the Comey July 2016 Clinton email statement. We sound elitist when we wish to discount “IP numbers, red accounts and infrequent editors”. IMHO more time is needed to allow this article to expand. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team. Not seeing any convincing policy arguments in the keep contributions. This is a WP:BLP so any inadequacies need to be fixed quickly. There are only allegations at the moment ("reports of") which is what people are saying make him notable. If those allegations are proved, we can reconsider an article. Otherwise, lots of FBI agents interview high-profile people. That does not make them notable. I'm not sure why changing wording based on the outcome of an investigation is problematic. If the original allegation is gross negligence but the investigation finds only extreme carelessness, then the wording should be changed. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— BneiBrakPhone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP because of current undermined controversy involving Strzok's rewriting of the charges being considered against Hillary Clinton to lesser charges, so that Hillary would be exonerated-in-advance by FBI Director James Comey. This disparity of justice is a primary concern of the American people, and should continue to be discussed in this form. ThomasLStanley (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— ThomasLStanley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. He was a government worker. He broke a rule, allegedly. He was reassigned. Not notable. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Media hype, supported by right-wing activism and internet smearing. The man is a pawn in the game of life, and whatever he has done in his life before this would never have attracted any attention, and rightfully so, had it not been for this--so BLP1E certainly applies. A redirect might be appropriate and if, as one other commentator suggests, that would imply that this is the only thing for which he etc., well, that would be correct then. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the deputy director of counterintelligence at the fbi, who has been the leader of several very well-publicized investigation(s), and who got canned from the last one of those investigations, is a pawn in the game of life, then what are we? Such tiny little insignificant specks, each of us less than a full granule of dust in the wind, oh the pain, my self image is hurting now, woe unto Wikipedia editors.  :-( Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what he is, at least for notability purposes. In his own life I'm sure he's huge, and in the life of the people he oversees, and I have no doubt he makes a nice six-figure salary, and none of that really means anything. You know that if he hadn't became yet another political punching bag (irrespective of whether he did something wrong or not) no one in their right mind would have ever cared, as the timestamp on your edits to the article indicate. Sorry to bust that bubble about you and me and our egos. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but he has become a politic punching bag, and this has been fairly widely reported. Frank Wills was merely a security guard, and would be completely non-notable for his station, but he happened to get involved in a matter of national interest. bd2412 T 23:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
I agree with bd2412, and thank goodness for Frank Wills, the security guard. Wikipedia has a very nice little article on punching bags, and maybe several thousand articles on individual cricket and soccer players with maybe one obscure footnote apiece on average. Strzok is a muckity muck, and I care more about him now that he’s a famous and controversial muckity muck. Since he’s in the spying business, he probably kept a low profile on purpose, but those days are gone it seems. This BLP is very fair to him. Joe Arpaio probably doesn’t want a BLP here anymore than Strzok does, but they don’t run Wikipedia presumably. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, Willis is nothing like this guy, and their actions aren't comparable. "Widely reported", yes, but it's still a side show. I don't know what Arpaio has to do with anything; his position already likely made him notable via NPOLITICIAN, and he's been passing the GNG for decades for actually having done stuff. This guy basically did nothing, and the whole "scandal" is manufactured. Anythingyouwant, I know you like the politics of all this, but those cricketers and all are likely notable via a set of guidelines suitable for an encyclopedia that claims to adhere to such guidelines as NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would submit that a person who is the subject of a widely publicized manufactured scandal is still notable. We have articles on notable hoaxes, too. bd2412 T 01:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the Clinton email investigation, he’s notable for being the one who deleted that she engaged in “gross negligence.” In the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, he’s notable for being the one who started the investigation. In the Flynn matter, he’s notable for being the person who Flynn lied to leading to a criminal penalty for Flynn. In the Mueller investigation, he’s notable for being fired after writing anti-Trump text messages that brought his and the FBI’s neutrality into question. Etc. Etc. Etc. He’s also the second ranking counterintelligence guy at the FBI, which is a very significant office. It’s true he wouldn’t be in the news if he hadn’t been canned, and Snowden wouldn’t be in the news if he hadn’t left the NSA, and Neil Armstrong might not have an article here if he hadn’t passed the NASA entry exam. Just because secret stuff is not made available to reporters until a lot of time goes by (or maybe never made available) doesn’t mean it’s not potentially notable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it hurt at all to have to twist yourself and the facts like this to get your political points in? In summary, no, signing off on a document doesn't make you the one who starts an investigation; no he's not notable for that (hardly his prerogative: just a secretary); no that doesn't make him notable (he's the cop writing down the statement); yes, BLP1E followed by 4chan and Fox making a mountain of a molehill and Wikipedia editors lending a helping hand. The FBI's neutrality is not brought in question--at least not by serious people and publications.

Your comparisons are crap. Snowden wouldn't be in the news if he hadn't left the NSA? The guy stole a kazillion secret documents and fled to Russia, or did you miss that? Armstrong stepped on the moon, which is why he has an article; he's not the only one who passed the test. Sheesh. [ec: Oh there's secret stuff? Wow!] Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You’re being quite a politician here Drmies, ignoring points that don’t work in you favor. The Clinton email thing was huge, that “gross negligence” was replaced by a synonym that lacked legal significance. And Mueller wouldn’t have sent this guy to work in the mail room or whatever if Mueller didn’t see any jeopardy in the chief investigator ranting about Trump. I dob’t think you’re being objective at all here. Earl Warren is renowned for running the Warren Commission and this guy was running similar high profile investigations, just like Mueller is running a high profile investigation described by multiple Wikipedia articles. To shoot down this article under BLP1E, you need all 3 of these things: [1] reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (not true here since multiple investigations are covered); [2] the person is likely to remain, a low-profile individual (not here given the vast coverage and more to come); [3] the individual's role was not substantial (uh, interrogating Mike Flynn to the point where Flynn lied is substantial all by itself). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False comparisons. Warren has a commission named for him, never mind that he was a chief justice. Strzok has an AfD named for him, no matter Mueller's intentions or your speculations. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as if he has only ever been mentioned on the right-wing networks - CNN has published a piece on this. Furthermore, although politicians may be making hay of these issues, they are subject to multiple interpretations. Strzok's change in the wording of the Clinton email can easily be seen as a legally correct determination that the more severe language was unwarranted since the data on Clinton's server was never breached (although people tend to conflate the unrelated breach of the Democratic National Committee server with the court-ordered production of Clinton's emails). Mueller's swift decision to remove Strzok from the investigation can easily be seen as a demonstration of Mueller's integrity and neutrality in the conduct of the investigation, shoring up its legitimacy. bd2412 T 02:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While initial coverage regarding his reassignment from the Special Counsel probe have justified a redirect, additional coverage reported widely in major news sources, CNN, Washington Post, etc. and his involvement in not just the Trump-Russia probe but the Clinton investigation as well and significant actions in both make him notable independently of either individually. Full disclosure I've made a few earlier edits to the article, adding the current events person tag and the FBI agents category. Phil (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject has significant coverage following a recent event. (Note: I've added the CNN ref, and the new page reviewer suject to this AFD.) KGirl (Wanna chat?) 19:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: From the start of this ADF on 21:25, 5 December 2017 this article has expanded from 5,591 bytes to 13,698 bytes and from 9 RS to 27 RS as of 22:43, 9 December 2017. Grahamboat (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- it's still a "Delete / Redirect" for me. With edits such as this ("reportedly brought attention to Steele dossier"), deletion is the best option. Too many BLP concerns and WP:INVALIDBIO situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think “reportedly brought attention to Steele dossier” is supported by the cited source? Browne, Pamela. "Fired FBI official at center of Flynn, Clinton, dossier controversies revealed", Fox News (December 2, 2017). That source says, he “reportedly helped push the largely unverified dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.” The NYT confirms that Strzok made use of that dossier, see Schmidt, Michael S.; Goldman, Adam; Lichtblau, Eric (April 22, 2017). "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election". The New York Times: “It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team. Mr. Steele had been a covert agent for MI6 in Moscow, maintained deep ties with Russians and worked with the F.B.I., but his claims were largely unverified. It was increasingly clear at the F.B.I. that Russia was trying to interfere with the election.” Undoubtedly Strzok was part of a team at the FBI, but Wikipedia has BLPs on lots of members of various teams. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Strzok&oldid=1069068121"