Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland De Wolk

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roland De Wolk

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

Roland De Wolk is not a public figure and has been libeled, slandered and doxed in this space by a party or parties who are anonymous, breaking a legal and moral standard in legitimate media. He has been an investigative reporter with national and international standing and has done stories for major media outlets from The New York Times and beyond and has exposed corrupt politicians, fraudulent business practices, and criminals -- some of whom are taking the open nature of the wiki to libel him. The only way to stop this exposure to Wikipedia and Mr. De Wolk is to delete the page. Ejordens (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 29. Snotbot t • c » 21:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as per Wikipedia:No legal threats for posts elsewhere on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral ~~Speedy keep~~ - and restore at least some portion of the information removed by Ejordens. You created the article about a notable journalist and now want to have it deleted because the subject did something wrong, got fired and received significant coverage for it? There are dozens and dozens of stories from reputable news sources that cover his dismissal. These were not written by "corrupt politicians, fraudulent business practices, and criminals" seeking to use WP to defame the subject:

Do you have a personal connection to the subject? (Your editing history certainly suggests as much) If so, you should explain to him that you "irrevocably agree[d] to release your contribution" when you first created the article and that Wikipedia doesn't have an "opt-out" clause. Stalwart111 00:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm adding a caveat to my opinion above. Having had another look, I'm not convinced the nominator should have ever created the previous, tacky puff-piece for the subject in the first place. I can't find much that would suggest the subject is notable beyond the couple of events for which he has now received criticism. But there's more than one event so it's not really a matter of WP:BLP1E. Really just a great big lesson in what not to do here on Wikipedia. Stalwart111 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - I didn't "instigate an edit war". I didn't edit the article at all. The editor's COI is a matter for him. The subject has received coverage for multiple "events" but if others want to cite BLP1E and delete this, I won't object. In fact, I don't care enough to stay engaged. Stalwart111 16:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help us to evaluate this deletion nomination if Ejordens could explain why the article was created in the first place if the subject is not a public figure. It always amazes me that some of the loudest complainants about their own actions receiving coverage are those who make their living by exposing such actions of others. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Seems like a BLP1E to me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the way the nominator is going about this and the legal threats, this is a clear WP:BLP1E to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Poor behavior by nominator notwithstanding, this is a BLP1E that doesn't contextualize the life and works of its subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cleanup by User:Crtew has resulted in a workable article that at this point appears to clear the bar for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This faculty profile from San Francisco State University makes it clear that De Wolk was notable before the recent embarassing incident that led to his firing, as an award-winning working journalist, television news producer, academic and textbook author. Though filled with puffery and poorly referenced, the version of the article that was stable for months before the recent controversy actually did "contextualize the life and works of its subject". BLP1E is not an appropriate rationale for deleting an article about a notable journalist with a 35 year career. Instead, the article needs the attention of editors willing to write from the neutral point of view, giving due weight in this biography to the incident that led to his recent termination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your work on improving this article. I am torn on this one. Can you make your case for "keep" in terms of some WP policy such as WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR? It would be nice to have a policy-based reason. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Logical Cowboy. The WP:GNG should suffice. Simply use the Google News news archive search tool provided above. In particular, see the coverage in the context of the Chauncey Bailey Project, reviews of his travel books, the claim (seemingly accurate) that his online journalism textbook was the first ever published, coverage by independent media outlets of his reporting on missing children, respected journalism publications quoting him extensively 10 to 15 years ago on the emergence of online journalism, and so on. His career has been broad, varied, innovative and award winning, until this recent fiasco. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I meant to thank Crtew for improving the article. But thanks for the reply, Cullen! Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've changed by vote to keep based on the link provided by Cullen328. Not because he works for SFSU, because it's fairly non-notable to become an adjunct (temporary, non-tenured) professor. A long career in the trenches of journalism doesn't always add up to notability either. But he is the author of what appears to be a significant textbook, Introduction to Online Journalism, and has enough minor awards that it might very well be a borderline case. I am strongly against adding a minor controversy to some minor awards and making a case of notability out of that, and if this is kept and becomes a coatrack I'll delete it myself. Gamaliel (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First, fresh sources have been added to this entry between the time of its nomination and the end of 1 August 2013, and so this article is no longer a BLP without references. Second, the article has also been rewritten to remove any doubt about COI (see above). Taking a look at the references added (over 20 citations), De Wolk is the subject of WP:SIGCOV over decades, which is one sign that he is not a BLP1E. In addition, he passes several criteria listed under WP:JOURNALIST based on peer regard for his professionalism and significant and multiple awards won, as well as for his early textbook for online journalism. In addition to his individual awards, one source lists De Wolk as one of 16 who were responsible for coverage that secured the newspaper's 1990 Pulitzer, which is the most important journalism award in United States. The other mistake of the nominator, besides the reason for the block (see above), was to tie deletion to recentism. The context about his four decades as a journalist now in the article provides readers with the means to evaluate the most recent incident. Crtew (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its current state clearly demonstrates notability, does not overemphasize the recent controversy, and does not have BLP or NPOV issues. I will watchlist it to make sure it stays that way. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crosses the threshold of WP:JOURNALIST. Thanks everyone. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per additions from Crtew and comments by Cullen, both supporting WP:JOURNALIST and as a subject receiving significant coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 14:58, 5 August 2013 (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.