Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Freidman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  10:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Freidman

[edit]
Gene Freidman (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)

Coatrack BLP article about a non-notable businessman in NYC. Article was initially created in violation of the TOU by a CU confirmed sock that was part of a sock farm that both promoted some subjects while creating negative articles about others. The PROD was contested by a user that tried to balance the information after the initial creation. As a whole, the subject is borderline notable at best with most of the coverage coming from beating his wife. This seems to me to be a WP:BLP1E type scenario and given the origins of the article and the trend deletion seems like the best option. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Contrary to what TonyBallioni states, most of the coverage is not from the alleged assault on his wife. Evgeny Freidman was known as "the taxi king" of New York for good reason. A quick Google search will confirm that there is no lack of coverage of his activities in reliable sources. Freidman has been involved in so many lawsuits and legal disputes that I left out quite a bit so that the article would not seem needlessly negative. Although the article very likely started as a paid puff piece, I have done my best to make it neutral. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME, that he had criminal issues with either his wife or taxi company that got coverage are not enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the heavy weighting of that material in an article that was created by a sock farm that created coatrack articles that looked promotional initially and were then updated to include negative information about the subjects is enough to push it to TNT territory for me. He was a major taximan in NYC who would have been borderline notable without the criminal actions. The criminal actions don't push him over the line because they don't meet WP:CRIME, and the TOU violation and pattern with this farm are very relevant to the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a moment and look at the references or just Google Evgeny Freidman. Paid editing and sockfarms are not relevant to this discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure they are: it was created as a violation of the terms of use. Full stop. If he was exceptionally notable for things that weren't unproven crimes or domestic disputes, there might be a case for keeping, but he also isn't there. Regarding notability, I did google, most of the significant coverage started in 2015 with the lawsuit. The actual crimes don't contribute to notability per WP:CRIME since they don't meet any of the attributes needed to have an article about the perpetrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't matter when the press coverage starts or why if there's sufficient to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. And there is. Probably this 2008 piece and this 2015 piece will do it. They were name-dropping him in the New York Times in 2007. Freidman easily meets the notability guidelines because of his status in the taxi industry. The legal issues are relevant, but not why he is notable. How the article came to created is not relevant if the article should exist anyway. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Parts borrowed from my response on the talk page from a BLPCRIME issue: when coverage starts does actually matter when dealing with criminal matters. We need to assess whether or not it meets the standards of WP:CRIME in that it has historic significance or ongoing coverage beyond routine trial updates. That has not been established here. One-line quotes in a NYT opinion piece that aren't about him aren't coverage under WP:N, a 40-under-40 certainly isn't. The Uber story in Bloomberg is better, but it is largely about Uber and its impact on the taxi industry using Freidman as a foil. I've argued succesfully in other AfDs about BLPs that being the human interest component of a story about a larger societal trend is not actually coverage about the BLP, but about the larger issue: in this case, how Uber is disrupting ground transport. Re: closing the AfD, as suggested in the edit summary, it doesn't meet any of the criteria under WP:SKCRIT, and I am continuing to advance policy-based arguments for deletion. That means a closure at this time would be inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. relatively minor crime, and there's no other notability. That's enough reason for deletion. BLP Crime is an exception to the usual notability rules.If the bulk of coverage is negative, and the crime is not a matter of public importance , or the sort of sensational crime that gets extensive press attention, we do not make a na article. The principle is do no harm: if our encyclopedia article will be the major source of information on the person, it's unfair to have an article. If there worldwide or nation-wide press coverage is such tat our article makes no difference, that's another matter.As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. In this case , the BLP concerns would be suffficient for deletion, so the question does not arise. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not be mislead by TonyBallioni's contention that the article is about Freidman's alleged assault on his wife. I think that is covered in one or two sentences. Nor is that the reason that Evgeny Freidman is notable. Freidman is notable for his involvement in the taxi business, leading him to be known as "the taxi king". And please note that the article was 'not created by a banned user. It was created by a user who was subsequently blocked as part of a sockfarm (with no banned or blocked user udentified as the sockmaster). Since the article's creation, I have worked on it quite a bit and I am perfectly willing to be held responsible for it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me who the "banned user" is? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WLC, I spent time and effort once trying to rescue Sonia Poulton (type "zebra in a wig" into Google) and it was deleted at AfD anyway. Nobody is pouring cold water on your efforts to salvage the article. It's just, well, shit happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems pretty much the same thing. A woman at the receiving end of an unfortunate insult and a businessman who has been covered by the media for years as the result of his success (and downfall) in the taxi industry. I feel much better now. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, a number of those sources are tabloid journalism (though not all, the Washington Post and New York Times sources are fine), but the acceptable level of source coverage for criminals is high, and it has to be more than just one-off coverage, but sustained pieces in the national mainstream press first before the need to accommodate the subject in an encyclopaedic manner outweighs the need to respect the subject's privacy and dignity. And indeed, my own news search shows the coverage is limited to the past 8 weeks or so. If he's still getting regular news coverage by Christmas, then we can talk about having an article. It's not like he's Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, is it? Regarding the paid editing accusations, I don't particularly care who writes an article - notable is notable; just that for me a "holy grail" of paid advocacy is the subjects turn out to be notable, but for reasons they don't particularly like, that they are then permanently stuck with. Sort of karmic retribution really. Unfortunately, most of the time it's not possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the point. He was notable BEFORE he was arrested. The article went up way before he was arrested. I dont think Charles Manson or Ted Bundy were notable before they did their heinous crimes. Its irrelevant anyway. What is relevant is that this guy is getting extensive news coverage NOW because he was notable BEFORE. I guess if he goes to jail and the news about him dies down, his fame might vanish by Christmas, but as an historical personality, an article about the man that once owned 900 taxi medallions in New York City and was known as the "Taxi King" would probably still be useful for people studying the history of the cab business, or the rise of Uber, or any of a large number of subjects. I also think it is telling that Kudpung put the tag "clarification needed" next to the word "medallions" on the article. Never having heard of a taxi medallion before, he thought it was some kind of not important bit of information. All it needed was a wikilink to clarify. A bit embarrassing, I would say. I also want to add that I am personally insulted that you think any of the sources I sited are "tabloid." They are all acceptable sources on wikipedia, and for basically all New Yorkers, perfectly legitimate places to go for news. DaringDonna (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral A TOS violation on one hand, a substantial rewrite by World's Lamest Critic on the other, and coverage that would almost certainly grant the subject inclusion if he was, say, a Youtube cook. My findings:
  1. New York hybrid cabs from 2005: an Associated Press story mentioning Freidman and a few sentences on an industry website which cites Reuters as its source.
  2. A NY Daily News piece from 2007 which discusses Freidman and his background http://www.nydailynews.com/news/takes-taxi-top-article-1.269065 (a tabloid, but a Pulitzer winning one)
  3. Yeshiva University story "Ride to Riches" from 2012 http://blogs.yu.edu/news/ride-to-riches-2/
  4. An in-depth profile of Freidman in Bloomberg BusinessWeek https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-taxi-medallion-king/ It was widely circulated. It is cited by at least two books [1] [2]
  5. Sustained, national and international coverage of his various problems: RT (2013), abcNews (2013), Politico (2014), WSJ (2015), NY Times (2015), The Times (2015), WSJ (2016) and the flurry of articles in 2017.
Rentier (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete marginally notable. But due to the obvious (negative) promotional pressure it is not going to be worth community effort to maintain the neutrality of this BLP article. Delete and salt, and enough of this nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable business man, ample coverage of his career to establish notability. Searches using terms terms like Friedman + "taxi kingpin" [3], and Friedman "https://www.google.com/search?q=Frriedman++%22taxi+king%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8" make notability clear. WP:BLPCRIME simply does not apply to a businessman who has been in the headlines for years.(It does not matter who created the article, or why. What matters is notability documented by years of news coverage.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability not being a core policy, but a guideline. WP:BLP and WP:NOT being policies that override. Additionally, the TOU are above even local policies and guidelines: if an article doesn't comply with them, it should not get the benefit of assessment under local policy. This is the same principle as we have with copyright since users have added the content in violation of our terms of use. The only content here is either a BLP violation or a TOU violation, so notability doesn't even come into the picture. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am truly astounded that you can say notability is not a "core" policy. I must be reading a different Wikipedia than you. Notability is literally the first issue discussed, along with reliable sources, on the "Your first article" page. But no need to get picky, lets say you agree Gene Friedman is notable, which you seem to think. What you are concerned about are 2 other issues: Violation of some BLP rule, and TOU. So please tell me what BLP rule is being violated by this article? Is it his criminal activity which is alleged and has not been proven? So take that bit out of the article. And if its something else, then edit that out. Why would you delete an entire article about a notable person if the problem can be fixed by editing? Second issue, violation of Terms of Use, which I haven't figured out yet if it is paid editing or sock puppet editing, or maybe both, but whichever it is, how can you possibly know, for sure, that the person that wrote this article was paid? Couldn't it be that yes, he's a paid editor, but was not paid to write this particular article? It seems to me, if I were Friedman, I'd pay to get the article taken down. The same goes for the sock puppet thing. Maybe someone does have a multiple personality disorder and just likes to write under many users. Can't a sock puppet write a legitimate article? OK, he's violated TOU, but really, isnt blocking him enough, do you have to take down the decent articles he's written too, especially those that have been subjected to some good editing, like this one has by World's Lamest Critic and a few others. I just don't get it. DaringDonna (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, notability is not a policy: this has been clarified frequently on Wikipedia and DGG above is probably one of the best people who explains it. It has also been discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 60. WP:N itself recognizes that notability alone is not a reason to keep an article by making WP:NOT an equal requisite to the general notability guideline in order for it to be met. Yes, it is a BLP violation to include things that he has not been convicted of and don't have any proof of long-term inpact. WLC introduced these into the article in an attempt to save him: as has been demonstrated above, WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME make it clear that sources discussing run of the mill crimes are not enough to make someone notable. This sock farm has actively targeted BLPs in the past to run smear campaigns. As Jytdog above has pointed out, for someone who it is borderline notable at best, it is more harmful to the encyclopedia and to the BLP to keep the article than it is to delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TonyBallioni:, first, please stop saying that the article contains violations of [[WP:BLPCRIME}}. That is not true. Second, please explain what you mean by "WLC introduced these into the article in an attempt to save him". I started editing the article on June 11, after the New York State Attorney General publicly announced Freidman's recent arrest. The SPI case which identified the creator of the article as part of a sockfarm was July 27. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient sources showing in the footnotes to clear the General Notability Guideline, which asks for multiple pieces of independently published coverage of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject of the piece. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Carrite your !vote made me look at this again, and the article falls apart when you dig into it, like all the little section with "recognition" and "philanthropy" etc. The philanthropy section is cited only to this ludicrous piece of self-puffery for example. And the sockpuppetry going on try to keep this is really quite in-your-face (not taking about you of course). So I don't understand your !vote really. This is just a little piece of overstrained corruption. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog - Don't conflate article quality or motives of article creators or motives of article editors with notability. AfD is a simple test of whether a subject is covered substantially in multiple instances of presumed reliability, published independently of the subject — or if other Special Notability criteria are fulfilled. A simple run through the footnotes will demonstrate that this is a leading figure in the New York City taxi industry, the subject of ample coverage in the periodical press, and therefore a challenge of the article on the basis of notability should fail. Paid editors, single-purpose accounts, sockpuppets, bad current content — none of that matters here. What matters is that this individual clearly fulfills GNG and this article should be kept on that basis. More work on the piece is clearly needed, don't get me wrong. Carrite (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! keeping an article also means a commitment to maintaining it, and in deletion discussions this is increasingly being factored in on marginal subjects like this one. Which in my view is good stewardship of our scarce volunteer resources. With a very clearly notable subject we have no choice but to keep and it isn't even a question. This person is not say Bill Gates. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no it doesn't! This is not the Article Improvement Workshop or the Notice Board for Problematic BLPs... This is the Traffic Court from Hell™ in which we determine whether an article merits inclusion or faces deletion under our well established standards. Editing matters are editing matters. WP:NOTPAPER. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, have you even looked at the history of the article? After 2015, which editors do you think are sockpuppets or paid editors? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the promotional pressures are obvious ( I should have mentioned "positive pressure" as well above). The question of whodunit is not relevant to an AfD. If there are socks (and I have not said there are) they would clearly be clever at avoiding detection which would make all the more reason to just delete this and be done with it. (please note the use of the subjunctive) Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC) (strike stupid remark Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
@Jytdog: Let me quote you - "the sockpuppetry going on try to keep this is really quite in-your-face". Note the lack of the subjunctive. You stated very plainly that there is sockpuppetry and that it is blatant ("in-your-face"). If you're not prepared to defend your accusations, retract them. If you're trying to suggest that I am in any way involved with paid editing, you are way off the mark. I am not. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So i did. brain fart -- my bad, and thanks for pointing it out so graciously. striking. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for retracting your accusation. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse anyone. Not sure what you are talking about. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is already in the article. Not a lot there. its a shame this marginal character came under all this promotional pressure. there a real NYC human interest story of the rise and fall of the immigrant striver, plus the role of uber. but thats not the basis on which we discuss what to keep and what not to keep. The question is can we keep this as something that is a WP article, and is not NOT an encyclopedia article? All Notability does, is help us implement NOT on the level of articles and everything i have seen says that we cannot prevent this from being constantly pushed into being SOAPBOX promoting or denigrating this guy; there isn't enough meat to hold the center. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or Move and retitle to Taxi Cab Management: There is a slight case to be made that owning the largest taxi fleet in NYC is itself notable and that there is enough potential coverage of that feat and his complicated legal history to establish that he meets GNG, or at least that the company does (perhaps an article on TCM would be a better option). Other than that, there's zilch; his criminal record is run of the mill and his civic activity is typical for someone of his social standing. That said, quality and notability are separate issues, and quality issues alone don't justify deletion. This all sounds like more of a weak keep than a week delete, but when you add in the sockfarm paid editing problem, that tips the scale somewhat. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am amazed by the level of distortion and outright dishonesty I've seen in this discussion. There are a total of 48 edits to this article since it was created in 2015. That includes bot edits and edits since it was put up for deletion. Phrases like "constantly pushed into being [a] SOAPBOX" and claims of WP:BLPCRIME violations based on false readings of the guideline make me question whether everyone here is acting in good faith, or simply arguing to justify a foregone conclusion, namely that since the article was created by an editor who was part of a paid editing sockfarm that it must be deleted regardless of the article itself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been truly remarkable. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You actually think someone other than Friedman's PR people wrote this: " The company is like a miniature United Nations with 3000 loyal drivers from a multitude of ethnic and religious backgrounds. It provides constant support and understanding, assisting them in attaining the American dream. Gene’s sense of social responsibility permeates Taxi Club. " The same person is who the subject of this headline? "Taxi mogul to pay $1.2 million over allegations he was ripping off cab drivers"? Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG. Creator of article is totally irrelevant. The four-minute Bloomberg TV segment,[5] Two articles in NY Times [6][7] that discus HIM directly, and the second one is hardly trivial, but about his successful fight to use hybrid cars as taxis. There are a ton of articles in Russian-language newspapers, in U.S. and Russia, that also discuss him in depth, beyond the tax issue. They discuss his life story etc. I'll add the details to his bio.[8][9] —МандичкаYO 😜 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article still needs work, but it's sufficiently improved that I'm striking my delete vote. The article is still largely a mix of puffery and personal attacks, but an encyclopedia article may exist with those reduced further. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Power~enwiki it is still a massive BLPCRIME violation: he is not a public figure who has not been convicted of many of the charges, he never plead guilty to the crime of beating his wife, and it was created by a sock farm that has a history of creating coatrack articles, and where the BLP issues haven't been resolved. Not to mention that all of the criminal coverage doesn't come near where we need for notability under CRIME. This AfD has been turned into a referendum on GNG vs paid editing, but the core principle here is doing no harm to living persons that is undue and having an article in line with our BLP policy. I'm sure that this will be replied to by someone else, but our BLP policies and the CRIME notability guideline is clear: he's not a public figure so he is entitled to protection under BLPCRIME, and run of the mill crimes don't count towards notability. This falls clearly under both, and nothing that has been updated in it changes any of that, and none of the sources show otherwise under either CRIME or SPIP. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the "Personal life" section entirely as un-salvageable. The issues regarding his taxi business have to be discussed somehow in an article about him, but are possibly undue weight right now. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I saw and also removed some. They have since been reverted (I just removed them again and have moved the conversation to talk). Thank you for trying to bring this in line with the BLP policy. The CRIME notability is still an issue here, and otherwise doesn't meet GNG. Ultimately, this is about enforcing BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you can re-create it as an uninvolved editor and ensure that any paid content that contravenes the Terms of Use or core content policies is removed. We need to make it clear that undisclosed paid editing in any form is unacceptable. DrStrauss talk 20:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the content contravenes the terms of use. If any of the content contravened the core policies, it has already been removed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, he meets WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you cited the daily mail there. oy veh. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I forgot about this RFC. I'll strike that one. But the others are certainly WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is better. The Jewish Voice piece is churnalism dreck, completely derived from the NY Post piece (and it says so) The NY Post piece is gossip about Bloomberg cursing the guy out. This is how you judge notability, really? Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find any policy which says we delete articles just because they were created by TOU-violators.

@RoySmith, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, read in the light that the topic itself may be notable, but we delete the version written as a means of promotion (WP:TNT). (Not watching page.) czar 05:53, 3 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gene_Freidman&oldid=1083687513"