Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner

Louis Joseph Posner

Louis Joseph Posner (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)

Don't see that this meets notability guidelines and don't see coverage as significant. There's a negative BLP aspect as well. User who has spent hundreds of edits on the thing wants badly to delete it. May be this is the same user that created the thing with a new nick. Too much editorial water under the bridge for G7 and I don't see a prior AfD for G4. A7 is out too, so here we go! Dlohcierekim 15:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Article was previously deleted under "Speedy Deletion" as an unambiguous advertising which only promotes a person, and by virtue of the creator of the original article User:lawline who was banned in January 2011. See Talk Page for User:lawline, that stated:

==Speedy deletion nomination of Louis Joseph Posner==

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Louis Joseph Posner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.User:What88 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not AfD Why not let the AfD play out? And could you please remove the copy paste from the talk page? It is unsightly and not germaine. Simply stating the previous CSD nomination suffices. Dlohcierekim 16:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, let the AfD play out.User:What88 17:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:GNG in the strictest sense. Posner is probably most recently remembered for his disbarment following a guilty plea to promoting prostitution, as well as a suit by NYPD to fight enforcement of an order to disburse seized/forfeited monies to Posner to fund his criminal defense (he had also been indicted money laundering, and falsifying business records related to a Voter March bank account). [1] (and other sources) In 1993, Posner was also noted for lawsuits against the Central Synagogue Nursery School (both state and federal) which failed, as well as a lawsuit against the New York Law Publishing Company for a satirical cartoon and article criticizing him for those lawsuits. (source not available online, but see Posner v. N.Y.L. Pub. Co., 644 N.Y.S.2d 227 (App. Div. 1996)). Another possible source of notability (though substantially less significant) is his involvement in Voter March. As to the negative BLP aspect, while some respect for the subject's wishes might be in order if he wanted to remain private, that's not the case here; we've got at least one person here trying to promote this individual's political advocacy pursuits. It's not our job to either promote this person or say nothing at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Delete As primary author of the Article on Posner, I had researched law cases related to his work as an attorney, and had indicated the following:

Posner was co-counsel for a defendant in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) insider trading case involving Motel 6 in the U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., and related class action suit. Posner also represented the plaintiff in Ox v. Union Central Life, a U.S. District Court case involving wrongful rescission of a disability insurance policy, which was reported in Westlaw, Lexis, Mealey's Litigation Reporter and the American Disabilities Reporter.

On December 19, 2013, User:Mendaliv removed these cases as "unremarkable small-time positions in unremarkable small-time cases; WP:UNDUE still applies to this guy"

I had also come across the cases involving Central Synagogue and the New York Law Journal which are about 20 years old. Both cases were ultimately dismissed, and accordingly, there is nothing notable about a lawyer losing a case. Further, in that the cases involved a minor child with a disability, I was concerned with the sensitivity of the subject and possible violations of WP:BLP.

The article is in violation of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and should be deleted for that reason alone. The article makes reference to sensationalist articles in the tabloid, the NY Post. A person is presumed innocent unless convicted of the crime charged; the Article improperly makes reference to money laundering charges which Posner was never convicted of. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and must exercise caution on any article involving a living person, and must refrain from being sensationalist, judgmental, accusatory, retaliatory and malicious.

Further, there is nothing in this article meets notability standards at WP:GNG. The only possibly notable items are Posner's former involvement with the HLD Club and VoterMarch. However, there are separate articles on both the HLD Club and VoterMarch, and the article on Posner is merely duplicative of these articles. User:What88 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP are red herrings. Posner’s arrest, plea, conviction and disbarment were not only covered by the NY tabloid media (NY Post, Daily News) but by more sedate outlets such as the New York Times and the ABA Journal. Posner pleaded guilty and is a convicted felon. The events are well-sourced, and the article here does not sensationalize them. It should also be noted that What88, who now argues so strenuously for the deletion, had previously contended that this subject was in fact notable, here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As the creator of the Article on Posner, my initial position was that the subject was notable. However, after numerous comments and edits from other Users and Editors who have questioned the notability of the subject, I have changed course. I now agree with the nominator User:Dlohcierekim that the Article should be deleted as not notable and that there is a negative Biography of a Living Person aspect, as well. WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME are not red herrings, but serious concerns. There are millions of people in this country who have been convicted of crimes, including felonies, and that does not make them notable. WP:BLP states that "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...; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." WP:BLPCRIME states that "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." The Article on Posner states that Posner was arrested for money laundering. However, Posner was never convicted of money laundering and a person is presumed innocent unless found guilty of that charge. The Article also makes reference to three articles from the tabloid, NY Post, which mention Posner's wife by name. Mrs. Posner was never convicted of crime and is presumed innocent. The NY Post tabloids referenced in the Article are sensationalist and refer to Posner as Lap Dance King, Big Daddy Lou, pimp, and other pejorative and degrading terms. Where we have a biography of a living person that is clearly not notable, and we also have serious violations of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, we have a professional and ethical responsibility to delete this article. As the creator of the Article, deference should be given to my "strong delete."

• • • Also. What88 should delete one of his two "Strong Deletes" above. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted and done, only one "Strong Delete".User:What88 18:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)