Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Wiercinski

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 merged/redirected to Timeline of antisemitism#Twenty-first century. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 06:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wiercinski[edit]

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

Though of course the anti-Semitic harassment of this individual is abhorrent and wrong, I don't see what the point is of creating a Wikipedia article for him. There are unfortunately many many people who are harassed for their ethnic background, religion, sex, sexual orientation, skin color, etc., and some of them successfully sue their harassers in court. The phenomena of anti-Semitism, harassment, discrimination, etc., are certainly worth including in WP, and are already covered pretty well (though can always be improved). There may be room for more coverage of the topic of civil litigation in civil rights law in general (something like Civil litigation in civil rights law). Another editor (User:Yambaram) has ~~proposed adding~~ added this as an item in Timeline of antisemitism#Twenty-first century.

This particular case and person do not seem notable by WP standards:

it does not break new legal ground: religion has been a "protected class" since the 1964 enactment of Title VII (employment) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC has sued on the basis of anti-Semitism
it is not an appellate case
the case is just an instance of a widespread (unfortunately) phenomenon, with nothing special about it
the only media coverage has been essentially one article published in the New York Post (the Haaretz and Daily Mail articles are nearly verbatim copies, clearly not relying on original reporting)
the person in question is not notable for anything else (see WP:1E and WP:VICTIM) and indeed the article says nothing else about him Macrakis (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP 1-E Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP1E guidelines do not apply here, as explained below. Tkuvho (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed a speedy A7 tag from this, but that does not mean I think it a viable article. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Delete - Delete as a stand-alone, does not meet significance within WP:VICTIM or MOS:LAW, allow for recreation should it be used as a precedent in other cases--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article meets general notability guidelines. There is "Significant coverage" addressing the topic directly and in detail. Such coverage was found in several leading newspapers. It is claimed by one of the nominators that the articles are not independent, which essentially amounts to a claim of plagiarism against the Haaretz newspaper. I don't think such claims have been established and it seems frivolous to base an AfD on such claims. The case is clearly precedent-setting. I am not familiar with another case where a penalty of close to a million dollars was imposed for verbal abuse. The case is currently under appeal and will likely lead to further media coverage, but in any case the existing coverage is sufficient to meet the GNG guidelines. Tkuvho (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes you think this case is "clearly precedent-setting"? Do you have a reliable source for that? What exactly is the precedent it sets in your opinion? You may not be "familiar with" other cases with large damages for workplace harassment based on race or religion, but here are a few examples found in a couple of seconds with a Google search -- I am not an expert in this area, and there may be many more:

$5m punitive damages [1]
$3m punitive damages [2]
$1m punitive damages [3]

I don't know if appeals were exhausted in all of these, and what the final damages were, but then in the Wiercinski case, appeals have just started, so we don't know there, either. --Macrakis (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not accuse Haaretz of plagiarism; I simply said that it is "clearly not relying on original reporting". Did you read the Haaretz article? It explicitly says that it is reporting the New York Post article: "..., The New York Post reported Monday"; "According to the report, ..."; "...Wiercinski told The Post"; "...Blit told The Post"; "Blit told the paper that..." Newspapers often pick up stories written elsewhere, either verbatim (typically through news agency agreements) or by reporting on the report (as in this case). --Macrakis (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the three conditions mentioned at BLP1E are not all met here. The conditions are: (1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. (3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Clearly, condition (3) is not met here. "The individual's role" was indeed substantial and well documented, and the "event" is significant. This deletion vote is based on an incorrect premise. Tkuvho (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The event is not significant. The example is of an assassination of the president of the USA, not a lawsuit for harassment covered by a couple of newspapers. -- 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Yoninah (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see there is not much support for keeping the article. However, there does not seem to be much point in deleting it as opposed to redirecting to the timeline. If it is notable enough to be mentioned at the timeline, why not redirect Adam Wiercinski to it? Tkuvho (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by the nominator, and since WP:BLP1E applies (Tkuvho's attempt to show otherwise was unsuccessful). This doesn't stop it being reduced to a redirect. Zero^talk 15:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then let's call that a unanimous consensus and save any further waste of time on this AfD. Tkuvho (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2014 (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.