Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Demery

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. There is not a clear consensus either way and the BLPREQ 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". Since notability appears to reflect from the scandals, the BLP compliant approach is to delete this and ensure that the scandals are fully covered at the appropriate place. I will make the sources available to anyone that needs them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Demery (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)

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requested by a representative of the subject (Special:Permalink/958743072#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Demery, verified by the subject at VRTS ticket # 2020052510005286). I think it's a reasonable deletion request - this seems to be a fairly low-profile person, I think it's a case of WP:BLP1E for the Reagan administration court case mentioned in the lead, pretty much all of the coverage is either factual "he's the Assistant Secretary for HUD" or mention of the trial. Didn't turn up any SIGCOV in a BEFORE search other than the outcome of the aforementioned trial. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree that he probably doesn't need an article, but the scandal was widely covered at the time, and for years after, and was part of the corruption problems during Reagan's second term. Would not a sentence in the HUD article be appropriate? There is a history section. Caro7200 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Caro7200, I wouldn't be opposed, though I'd prefer to see general coverage of the corruption problems and have this as a part so that it gets due weight. creffett (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept Request Assistant Secretary of HUD is not a position that confers automatic notability. Merge any relevant information to Reagan administration scandals. --Enos733 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That works as well. Caro7200 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, agreed with merge - would have suggested myself if I'd known there was a page for that. creffett (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Reagan administration scandals per comments above. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need to respect the privacy of living people. The postion held is not high enough to make a person default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Assistant secretary of a government department is not a significant enough role to be "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, the crime angle is far too minor and unimportant to claim that he would pass WP:PERP as an individual, and he's basically not a high-profile enough person that the need to have an article about him should outweight his personal privacy rights. As noted above, there are other articles where content about scandals in the Reagan administration can be included without needing to maintain a standalone BLP of every individual person who was implicated in one of them. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if there's anything worth merging to Enos733's link, do so without a redirect (which may violate some rule, but IAR.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised there were a number of keep !votes in this discussion, but this is a low profile WP:BLP1E who received sustained coverage for exactly one event who can be covered elsewhere and who has a privacy concern. A Newspapers.com graph doesn't bring up much coverage apart from the 1989 scandal and a blurp from his guilty plea in the early 1990s. None of the links that are presented below cover him significantly and all link him back to the HUD. I still don't see how he's not a WP:BLP1E. The scandal with African fundraising was directly related to the one event. SportingFlyer T·C 01:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. What is going on here? These comments have little to do with reality. The very first reference identifies Demery as "the {HUD]department’s No. 3 executive". The NY Times called him a "key player" at that cabinet-level department and covered his activities extensively, including at least six front-page articles (most of those in 1989). We're not dealing with some low-level bureaucrat. We're dealing with a prominent national figure with extensive coverage in national media. And this is in no way a BLP1E situation; Demery has also been covered in relation to his role in Pat Robertson's "blood diamonds" business [1], his fundraising for presidential campaigns [2], and his fundraising on behalf of RENAMO, a Rhodesian-backed faction in the post-independence Mozambique Civil War [3]. It's evident that none of the delete !voters have done the most minimally adequate WP;BEFORE search (and, frankly, far more caustic comments are justifiable. This is the bio of a notorious white-collar criminal, and his significance shouldn't be minimized because his crimes predate the social media era. It's not Wikipedia's job to sanitize the reputation of politically connected felons. We don't work for Bill Barr. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolfowitz. The person is, or at least was, a public figure, and is notable enough and notorious enough to where deleting the article would violate WP:CENSOR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Updating my comment (see above) after thinking about it for a few days. It's clear, per Wolfowitz, that this is a case of more than just one incident. I don't quite agree that Demery is/was notorious--he just isn't/wasn't as famous as North, Watt, Poindexter, etc. Aside from the ethical and moral aspects of his misdeeds, he also seemed, in a criminal and quasi-criminal sense, to be notable as a consistent screw-up, to put it politely and ironically. Caro7200 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As some of the sources lack anything about Mr. Demery. Only one of them actually talks about him significantly. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 22:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The subject of the article was quite notable at the time. There are numerous sources testifying as to the subject's independent notability, even though lots of them date from the pre-internet era, e.g.:

• Maier, Karl (17 June 1993). "United States policy". Conspicuous Destruction: War, Famine and the Reform Process in Mozambique. Yale University Press. p. 193. ISBN 978-0300056181.
• Hays, R. Allen (9 March 1995). The Federal Government and Urban Housing. SUNY Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-0791423264.
• Shapiro, Bruce (1998). Keeping Special Counsel. Vol. 266. The Nation. p. 7.
• "3rd HUD Official Indicted In Influence3-Peddling Scandal". The Washington Post. 10 June 1992. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
• Jackson, Robert L. (10 June 1992). "Ex-Official Pleads Guilty in HUD Corruption Probe". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
• Kaplan, Joel (27 August 1989). "At HUD, Home Deals Often Begin With Charity At HUD". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
• Yancey, Matt (6 January 1993). "Three Convicted in HUD Influence-Peddling Case". Associated Press. Retrieved 9 June 2020.

This article, of course, should be linked to the Reagan administration scandals, as it already is; but not "merged" to it. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wolfowitz and The Gnome. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2020 (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.