Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inspector General Gerald Walpin firing controversy

:{{la|Inspector General Gerald Walpin firing controversy}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Inspector General Gerald Walpin firing controversy}})

Wikipedia is not the place for partisan advocacy; there isn't even a Wikipedia article about Gerald Walpin (not that there should be); Walpin's wrongful-termination lawsuit was dismissed; this dismissal is uncontroversial except among a few notably partisan sources. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep The subject is not "partisan." On the contrary, the article cites multiple examples of Democrats criticizing Obama on this issue.

Furthermore, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Politico, and thehill.com are all cited in the article, and none of them are "partisan."

The reliable sources report the facts. The article is not POV. Instead, the article cites reliably sourced facts. All of the information in the article is true and reliably sourced. The article meets all of wikipedia's policies.

In order to debunk the nominator's claim that the article is "partisan," I would like to quote these two paragraphs from the article:

:On June 16, 2009, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), said the president failed to follow a law that she had sponsored, which requires that the President give Congress 30 days advance notice of an inspector general's firing, along with the cause for the firing. McCaskill stated, "Loss of confidence is not a sufficient reason." She also stated, "I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible." That same day, a White House lawyer said that Walpin was fired because he was "unduly disruptive" and engaged in "trouble and inappropriate conduct."[3]

:On June 23, 2009, a bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. Signers of the letter included Michael Mukasey (former Attorney General), Bernard Nussbaum (President Clinton’s former counsel), former U.S. Attorneys Otto Obermaier, John Martin, Zachary Carter, and Andrew Maloney, and six former and current presidents of the Federal Bar Council.[5] The letter can be read here.

Therefore, the article is not "partisan" at all.

Since this debunks the entire reason for the nomination, I propose a speedy keep, and that this debate discussion be ended.

Friendly Freeper (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to go with Weak Keep. This wasn't a major controversy, and doesn't seem to have had much lasting impact; but it did receive a significant amount of press coverage and involvement from notable people at the time, so I think an article can be justified. I think this one does need to be slightly rewritten to be in line with WP:NPOV, as at the moment it seems somewhat biased in favour of Mr Walpin and against the position of the Obama administration. I also note that articles on the subject have been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing (June 2009) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination) (November 2010), but it's possible that consensus has changed since then. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Somehow this seems like somethign that should be a part of a broader article. But it meets wp:notability for a stand-alone article. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Spotlighting the partisan slant of the article:

- Ultra-right Glenn Beck's alleged senility test is used to support the claim that Walpin was not senile, but the White House didn't say that Walpin was senile, but that he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve". This is very different from being senile.

- The two criticisms of the dismissal of Walpin's lawsuit are both from strongly right-wing sources, Byron York and The Washington Times. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2012 (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.