Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Stokes (embezzler)

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Stokes (embezzler)[edit]

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

This biography looks like small-time fruad to me (just $401k). Maybe several millions or more might have attracted more significant coverage. Also the primary source used for the article is from the Nashville Post, a news article written by the creator of the Wiki article. Ignoring the obvious WP:COI issue here, I simply don't see how this individual was notable outside of routine news coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 401(k) is not an amount, it's a type of retirement fund. --Slashme (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was a 19M USD fraud according to Wood, E. Thomas (August 10, 2010). "Ponzi figure Stokes dies in prison". Nashville Post. Retrieved 4 November 2012. --Slashme (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so is that notable? I don't see how this is anything more than WP:ONEEVENT. Bad guy does something wrong, goes to jail. Lots of those people about. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just can't see how the subject gets past WP:BLP1E (yes, he's dead but only recently). Attaching a WP:BIGNUMBER to the crime might be interesting but that doesn't make the subject notable. Would seem a long way from passing WP:CRIME to me. Also, the title is terrible - maybe (criminal), but (embezzeler)? Seriously. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BLP-1E does not apply here, this is not a living person. The question is whether this subject passes or fails a test of general notability — multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published and reputable sources — about which I have no opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, not a living person but a recently dead person with living relatives who could be impacted (as per WP:BDP) - "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends [...] is covered by this policy". I did note that in my original comment. Even if he died long enough ago for that not to be an issue, I would still have concerns about the article against WP:BIO1E. Stalwart111 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Multi-million dollar frauds, with adequate reporting of the fraudster, seem to pass the bar. If he'd lived to see the full trial we'd have seen far more news coverage of this, yet the basis of the case (and his notoriety) would still be the same.

I'd like to see some expansion though. Particularly for someone to clarify why "Ponzi" is being bandied about, when at first sight it appears to be a legit 401k where someone just stuck their hand in the cookie jar. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" If he'd lived to see the full trial" Sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. He didn't live. The news report is in one paper, which the article creater writes for. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that only one newspaper seems to have taken notice of him indicates he was not really notable. If more in-depth sources are found then maybe. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:BASIC. While 1Point Administrative Services may be notable,[1] the individual who is the subject of this article really doesn't seem to have independent notability, regardless of how many people he ripped off. -- Trevj (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2012 (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.