Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis J. Posner[edit]

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

Same deletion rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner, this is a WP:BLP violating, WP:COATRACK mess that fails WP:BIO, and VoterMarch (a possible merge subject on that AFD) was recently redirected here. The first AFD was closed as no consensus primarly because it was such a mess. Delete Secret ^account 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given by the nominator. Subject does not have significant coverage and does not meet the GNG. His activity with VoterMarch never rose to significance, and the strip club episode certainly does not confer notability. There was prior consideration of redirection to VoterMarch, but it has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch. The article has now been recast to focus on his criminal activity. Though the effort has been valiant, the subject is still not notable. There are many things that wikipedia is not, and Rogue's Gallery is one of them. Does not qualify for an article under WP:CRIME. (Please see the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner, which closed as no consensus due to the effect of edits by sockpuppets of User:Lawline. It was felt that no consensus could be reached due to the well being poisoned, and that it could be sent back to AfD once the water had had a chance to clear.) Dloh cierekim 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

staying at delete despite Mendaliv's exhaustative arguement. Dloh cierekim 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this subject passes the basic notability criteria of WP:BIO, once you take into account the mainstream coverage of the arrest and disbarment, the lawsuit against Central Synagogue and New York Law Journal, and the Voter March activity. Each of these is an episode of significant coverage, and that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG when considered on the whole. As an individual known for more than a criminal act or a criminal trial, it is inappropriate to evaluate this article in terms of WP:PERP. The WP:BLP/WP:COATRACK issues are red herrings: they can be easily fixed by editing. AfD is not cleanup.
I actually had written a very nice keep rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination) (which was created in bad faith by a sockpuppet, and G5'd), which I would ask an administrator to retrieve for me (I didn't keep a copy unfortunately). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. . . But since we talked about renominating at the last AfD a few days ago, let's look at the merits:

1. Posner is notable per WP:BIO/WP:BASIC, which require the subject to have been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." "Multiple" has, in my experience, usually meant simply "greater than one", the more the better, but Posner meets this requirement. Dealing with his suit against Central Synagogue (not in the article at this time) Posner was subject to a 539 word article in the New York Law Journal, an industry periodical (Posner later brought suit over this article for libel, which was dismissed); as well as a short piece in United States Law Week (64 USLW 3446) summarizing Posner's petition for certiorari in that case. There is also coverage of Posner's role in Voter March, especially in 2001, though admittedly it's sparse and mostly refers to Voter March. Relating to Posner's arrest, conviction and disbarment, the New York Times ran an 827 word article on the arrest and accusations; Legal Intelligencier ran a 213 word article on the arrest and indictment, which was syndicated by New York Law Journal and National Law Journal; relating to the later seized funds issue, New York Law Journal ran an 1169 word article; and there are many, many more sources on this case.
2. WP:PERP should not apply here. WP:PERP is explicitly limited to persons only known in connection with a criminal event or criminal trial. As discussed above, and in the previous AfD, Posner is known also for his involvement in the suit against Central Synagogue (which the industry press found significant enough to report on), and for his involvement in Voter March. Furthermore, the issue subsequent to the criminal trial, which involved payment of attorney's fees out of seized funds, did lead to some press, and I would argue is sufficiently outside the scope of the criminal event or trial (separate proceedings held much later, brought by the NYPD) to place that coverage outside of WP:PERP.
3. AfD is not cleanup. We have here sources of the highest quality, though we also have some tabloid sources, and editors have reasonably been concerned about this. Such concerns belong at Talk:Louis J. Posner, and not here. The conviction and WP:BLP issues are red herrings, and all such concerns can be addressed by judicious editing. Mendaliv's keep rationale arried over from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination). Dloh cierekim 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to disagree with Mendaliv that the overall coverage is enough to get him over the notability bar. While he's been involved in other events besides the convictions that attracted coverage, there is a lack of coverage that addresses Posner himself in the kind of depth required to write a proper biography, which has led to it becoming unbalanced. For example, an "Early life and education" section was recently removed as unsourced, that's the kind of material we'd expect to be able to source if he was genuinely notable. I don't see how it can be fixed through editing without sources that address him in the kind of detail required by WP:SIGCOV. January (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to this, I'd like to draw a distinction between WP:N, which is at issue here, and WP:NPOV, which is the concern you're raising. We have sources to get us past WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E simply based on the NYLJ coverage of the Central Synagogue case, the NY Times coverage of the arrest, and the legal industry coverage of the disbarment and the ancillary legal issues that arose from the legal cases. You're correct that we don't have sources of a WP:N quality, but that doesn't mean we can't source relatively uncontroversial things like early life and education to lower quality sources. Now, you may ask about due weight balancing concerns; the answer is we balance our coverage based on what's in the high-quality sources, but we needn't chain ourselves to those sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the notability and NPOV problems related because they have the same underlying cause, lack of sources addressing the subject in detail. As far as I'm aware (I can't see the offline sources), the only independent sources we have cover events he was involved in, not specifically him. To my mind, that's not WP:SIGCOV. January (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we're getting into more philosophical questions. The NY Times article discusses him and the things he's done, same with the NYLJ article, and others. While these are articles were written because of and do discuss events Posner was involved in, I would argue that such coverage is appropriate for establishing a person's notability, but it seems you disagree, and that's fine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the subject recently requested deletion, as confirmed here. January (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket noted There is nothing about this BLP nightmare of an article that could compel us to keep it if the subject has requested deletion via OTRS. Dloh cierekim 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to address this point: We do requested deletions for subjects, absolutely. But in this case, we have an article created by a person who has ultimately admitted at least some relationship (if not privity) with the subject (see the comments of the Lawline socks; I don't have a diff handy) for promotional purposes suddenly making use of every single procedural mechanism we have for removing content once information he doesn't like comes to light. This happened in 2011 (in part; Lawline had demanded removal of the article), and it's happening again now. I'm not saying this alone justifies keeping, rather it should be kept in mind when considering how to weigh the OTRS request to delete and the intent of the requesting individual. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Adding up the coverage of VoterMarch, Posner's role in it, and the strip club events, I think we have enough here to meet GNG. I agree that BLP is a red herring - it just happens to be the thing for which this fellow has got the most attention, and coverage did bleed out of the tabloids into the more reputable press. All that being said, I acknowledge the arguments in favor of deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Posner seems to derive most of his notability from local tabloids. Trying to create a neutral article from the New York Daily News and New York Post is an exercise in futility. In cases where the subject of a biography has requested deletion, I usually err on the side of privacy. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we do not exist to catalog the sins of non-public figures. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. VoterMarch is, by our own standards, a non-notable entity; even when the article existed, it was poorly sourced. The crimes for which the article subject was ultimately convicted are essentially non-notable, as well; that he was disbarred as a result of conviction is a side point. We certainly do not want or need articles on every lawyer disbarred because of a criminal conviction. The majority of sources are, as noted by NinjaRobotPirate, hardly reliable. The ABA and LegalNews.com sources are not sufficient to meet notability requirements; these publications are biased to report convictions of lawyers. There are multiple primary sources used as references. No better sources were found. Notability not established, deletion requested by article subject. Risker (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS 2013123110007076 data (with permission to reproduce here) - a Delete request submitted on behalf of the article subject.

:To Whom It may Concern:
I am writing on behalf of my client Louis J. Posner. Please note that I represented Mr. Posner and his wife in an appeal to the New York Appellate Division in People v. Posner, 86 A.D.3d 443, 926 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dept. 2011) and continue to represent them as their counsel. This request is simply an authorized request on behalf of the subject of a Biography of a Living Person under Wikipedia's guidelines WP:BLPHELP. I am requesting that the Biography of a Living Person in Wikipedia at Louis J. Posner be deleted in its entirety. WP:BLPCOMPLAIN.
Under your policy for Biographies of a Living Person, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy... Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." WP:BLP
I have been advised in writing by Mr. Posner who is the subject of this Biography of a Living Person that he requested that this Article entitled Louis J. Posner be deleted. Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE,
Mr. Posner is clearly not a public figure. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and he does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:FAILN Posner was a relatively unknown New York City attorney from 1990 until his disbarment in 2010. Mr.Posner had co-founded the grassroots activist organization called Voter March in 2000. Posner also owned a strip club, the Hot Lap Dance Club, that was closed down by law enforcement in 2008. At best, Mr. Posner is a subject notable for only one event. "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." WP:BLP1E
"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." WP:BLPCRIME The article on Louis Posner states that he was arrested for money laundering, but all of these charges were dismissed. Posner pleaded guilty to a single count of promoting prostitution, and was given probation, and he did not serve a prison sentence. Mr. Posner was never charged with or convicted of any crimes in any federal court. The Wikipedia article on Louis Posner makes reference to various articles from the tabloid newspaper, NY Post which are disparaging and sensationalist WP:BLPGOSSIP. These articles also mention his wife by name who was arrested for money laundering and promoting prostitution. All charges against Mrs. Posner were dismissed and her criminal record has been sealed to protect her privacy.WP:BLPNAME
Based on the foregoing, the Wikipedia article on Louis J. Posner should be deleted in its entirety.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jonathan S. Gould, Esq. Attorney at Law
New York, NY"

I would add that the poster sent that text in with the wikilinks already formed, they have obviously had a careful read of the policies. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my vote! this time. I've deleted better articles than this. If we had an article for everyone who ran a dodgy strip club, we could probably make a serious increase in the number of articles. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note, without commenting on the merits of the request itself, that Mr. Gould's statement here is tantamount to an admission that his client is Lawline/What88 et al., insofar as it confirms Posner is the source of earlier requests for deletion. Perhaps it doesn't have bearing on this article's deletion, but it's something that I think we should note. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While no one has ever exasperated me with their antics as Lawline has, and while his attendant melodrama has been irksome, and while it would have been simpler to just go through OTRS in the first place, this in no way lessens the lack of notability. This whole charade leaves me pondering the many connections that could exist off-wiki. All irrelevant to the discussion here. Dloh cierekim 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawline would have also made it simpler by not creating and puffing up articles that extolled VoterMarch and Louis Posner, strenuously defending their notability and inclusion, then completely reversing course and demanding their deletion when it became clear that he could not control his whitewash and PR efforts. He's lucky that Posner and VM are of such questionable notability. Otherwise the articles would be here to stay forever. JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that - if one views from creation at 16:11, 23 March 2013‎ through to page blanking at 08:20, 9 April 2013 - the edits were all by What88 (except for a minor few deletions). A G7 at this point could have been proposed. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

… had we realized in April, rather than December, that that was a puppet. By that later time there was a lot more water under the bridge and a G7 harder to assert. JohnInDC (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last time I suggested a redirect - I'm changing my position based on the subject's request, per WP:BLPDELETE. If we remove the VoterMarch bit, we have a wholly negative bio. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vapid nudge-nudge-wink-wink true crime nonsense. BLP whining is neither here nor there. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 07:00, 19 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.