Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson

{{ns:0|W}}

:{{la|Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson}})

WP:FORK. District-court cases do not merit their own articles under WP:N. As LEW says, it is [http://www.scribd.com/doc/39837765/Arthur-Wolk-v-Olson-10-3352-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Certify well-settled law] that the statute of limitations runs from the date of publication. (COI disclaimer: I am [http://www.scribd.com/doc/39837765/Arthur-Wolk-v-Olson-10-3352-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Certify a defendant] in this case. Also, I have been sued (along with twelve other parties) a [http://www.scribd.com/doc/40195985/Wolk-v-Overlawyered-complaint second time] under an accusation that I have "incited" others to defame Wolk whenever someone writes about this lawsuit. And I don't want to be accused of inciting if someone writes something in Wikipedia that Wolk doesn't like, so I hereby announce that my position is that no one should ever write anything about Arthur Alan Wolk on Wikipedia ever unless they have Arthur Wolk's permission.) THF (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

:Do you mean that this article is a WP:POVFORK? If so, where was this article forked from? There appears to be an edit war currently on this page, but the first three references (staff blog on reason.com, law.com, and philadelphia biz journal) appear to bring the subject of this article above the bar of the WP:GNG. Thanks for the disclaimer; that's a significant COI. VQuakr (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

::Seems to be forked from Arthur Alan Wolk, where a WP:SPA has deleted it. I don't know why there is a COI tag on the fork but not on the main article, but I'm not going to edit either article, because I do not have Arthur Wolk's permission to write about Arthur Wolk on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and lack of notability. Ray^Talk 15:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - As per all of above. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arthur Alan Wolk, it's a POV fork that should be redirected back to the main article. There seems to be a dispute over whether or not the contents of this article belong on the page, but that's a discussion that must take place on the talk page. Either way, this does not merit a separate article.--hkr Laozi speak 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• And no comment on the editing dispute currently going on between User:Off2riorob, User:Lawrencewarwick and User:Boo the puppy over possible WP:BLP violations. Whatever conflicts there are should be resolved on the talk page, a POV fork is unwarranted. I maintain my redirect, since a redirect is, by itself, not defamatory (or is it? I'm relatively new here, so could someone more familiar with BLP clarify?).--hkr Laozi speak 16:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The diff provided below on User:LEW: I am self employed, a partner in Websketching.com which is a website developer and online marketing firm", is extremely alarming. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Financial and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Legal_antagonists immediately come to mind.--hkr Laozi speak 18:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Since the merits of the libel complaint were never ruled upon, calling attention to potentially defamatory material makes my BLP alarms go off. The only lingering concern I have is whether the actual ruling itself is important enough to warrant an article. That is, that Internet blogs are considered Mass Media for purposes of the Statute of Limitations. From reading the above links, it is settled law that mass-media publication dates start the clock, but the reliable sources imply that this ruling was a first to lump blogs into that definition. The case is under appeal it seems, so perhaps the ultimate final ruling would warrant an article solely on that matter of law. Arakunem^Talk 16:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge into Arthur Alan Wolk. I understand that an article about a particular lawsuit covers both parties and the underlying legal principles at issue. However, here the topic would be best covered by a section in the plaintiff's existing biographical article. Should the case go further up to the Supreme Court, it could be forked off again. Having this be a part of the biography would avoid the need to repeat a lot of background information. Racepacket (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect, agree with Racepacket that it is sufficient to include this in the Wolk article for now. Note that this requires an editor who has been deleting info on the case there to refrain from further deletion. I also disagree that POVFORK applies here -- the only issue is that the case itself might not be notable for a separate article at this stage (though this could change depending on further developments). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Alan_Wolk_v._Walter_Olson&diff=394794952&oldid=394607717 User:Boo the dog created the article] after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Alan_Wolk&diff=394771678&oldid=394770420 User:Off2riorob removed it from the main page], so POVFORK does apply. Whether or not this entry merits its own article, or whether this belongs in the main article, is up for debate, but the article was created out of an editing dispute between two users.--hkr Laozi speak 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Arthur Alan Wolk. Saw the post on WP:BLPN, and really wondered why this case had an article to itself. Spidey senses tingle when you have to source the word "notable" in the lead. If this case goes up to the SC, probably will make sense to split it back into it's own article, but for now, merge. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Article should not be merged with main article Arthur Alan Wolk because it is a minor issue and bloated coverage calling attention to potentially defamatory material, which is why it was removed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Alan_Wolk&diff=394771678&oldid=394770420 User:Off2riorob] in the first place. LEW (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)— Lawrencewarwick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::*Comment Please be aware of this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=394805457&oldid=394799149 legal threat] regarding "posting information not relevant to Mr. Wolk's area of expertise" and demanding that this article be deleted. Also interesting: [http://www.websketching.com/AboutUs/default.asp Ms. deGraff's employer] and User:Lawrencewarwick's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lawrencewarwick&diff=prev&oldid=394821244 recent admission] that contradicts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=394663940 this earlier implausible claim]. THF (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

:::* Comment if this AfD closes as Merge, whatever administrator does the closing should lay down the law at the Wolk article that the material belongs there and the Community consensus on the issue has been determined. Anyone who hires someone to create an autobiographical wikipedia article is just asking for trouble, because all of the negative viewpoints will eventually get included in the article. Apparently, Christine DeGraff is not a real lawyer, but just plays one on the internet. Racepacket (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

::::* Comment Please be fair Christine DeGraff did not represent herself as a Lawyer but was asked by Arthur Wolk to represent him in this discussion and I have disclosed my relationship as a matter of courtesy when I made a request to delete this article. LEW (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::* Comment. You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=394663940 previously stated] "Furthermore Boo the puppy says I am an associate of Arthur Wolk which is not true I wrote the article because I'm interested in air safety issues and from seaching the internet found he is an expert in air safety and aviation law I called him and asked if I could write an article for Wikipedia." THF (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::* Comment. That is how I came to know Arthur Wolk and I guess I did become an "associate" after he said yes to writing an article he has also hired my firm to represent him on the internet. I am sorry you are involved in a libel suit with him, are you Boo the puppy? LEW (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::*No: In case you didn't notice, I was the one who nominated Boo's article for deletion, the one who warned Boo not to write about Wolk, and the one who agreed with you that this is well-settled law (which raises the question why your employer is appealing his loss, and why he brought a second lawsuit on the same subject--and why you work for him if you think he's suing people contrary to well-settled law). But nice try at changing the subject of your meat-puppet violation. THF (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::::* That's not exactly true, is it, Lawrencewarwick - you announced on Oct 15 that you were hired by the Wolk Lawfirm, and you started this article on Oct 14. Do you really expect people to believe you? Are you being paid by an interested party to edit wikipedia? Please read and follow WP:COI and WP:PAID, both of which you, and your employees, are in flagrant violation of. Hipocrite (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::::* In this context, the word "represent" implies "legal representation." In the future, could you please say "represent in a non-legal capacity" or "public relations representative" to avoid the deception about legal representation. Racepacket (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - district court cases are almost never notable until appealed, and I can't see how this one would be an exception. There are BLP violation, coatrack, and NPOV issues galore. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

:P.S. If it must be kept, please move it to the correct title of Wolk v. Olson. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete JNN. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge. It is sufficiently unusual for a lawyer to sue for libel for accurately (accurately, or not) reporting court proceedings, that it should be in his article. Suggest also, that all related articles be semi-protected, and the subject banned from editing the article, or from making threats about others editing the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Arthur Alan Wolk.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge if you're feeling ballsy. Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Anything that makes neo-cons like Ted Frank uncomfortable has to be notable. Jeux sans frontieres (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• weak keep seems to be a notable case with a notable precedent that has been discussed in reliable sources as a noteworthy case. If there isn't enough about the case should then be merged to Arthur Alan Wolk. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I think it's bordeline insane to call this a notable case, let alone a precedent—even the sources suggest that precedent was followed. Cool Hand Luke 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hrrm? I see how you can argue that the precedent isn't notable, but I'm a bit curious as to how you can argue that it is "bordeline insane to call this a notable case." Aside from the slight WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA issues with that phrasing, this is a case that received coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's notability in a nutshell. Moreover, those sources aren't minor sources but major news sources such as Reason Magazine. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• I apologize for the wording. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• I care more about addressing the substantive issue than any apology. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is a mess and hardly refers to the case in the title. It is very hard to follow and doesn't seem worth cleaning up. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• comment -- at this point, 5 people say merge, 1 for redirect (which is really the same as merge), 2 for keep (one of which a newbie/SPA), and 8 for delete -- one of which (LEW) is a COI/SPA, and another of which adds "or merge if feeling ballsy". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

: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.