Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Rubashkin

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sholom Rubashkin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of OTRS email 2010061110029759, this blatantly fails WP:BLP1E. All the coverage is from his conviction. Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a wealth of available sources establishes notability beyond the criminal activity. CEO of significant operation -- significant both in the context of the agricultural setting in which it was located and in the context of kosher food production for American Jews; the article briefly addresses the latter and there is a need for expansion on the former (in lieu of deletion). Re OTRS, I have to wonder whether it is really established that Wikipedia has been contacted by Rubashkin, who is currently in jail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except the sources don't cover his other actions as CEO, do they? Just his source. And no, it wasn't Rubashkin, but thank you for the inference that I'm either lying or unable to read an email correctly. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do -- and given that there is something approaching 1000 news articles (plus coverage in books and scholarly articles) on him I can imagine it would be difficult to form that kind of judgement in a brief period. As for inference -- I implied nothing of the sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So he has coverage... for a single event, is what you're saying. Show me, then, that his work as CEO got significant coverage and not just his arrest and conviction. You assumed that I'd meant I was contacted by Rubashkin via OTRS, and then said that this was unlikely because he's in prison. The presumption there is either 1) "it's unlikely, he's in jail, Ironholds obviously can't read" or "it's unlikely, he's in jail, Ironholds is lying". Ironholds (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I didn't understand Nomoskedasticity to be suggesting either of those things; I thought xe was suggesting that the person claiming to be Sholom might in fact be someone else. That sort of thing has happened before. As far as coverage of Sholom's activities other than the crimes, I'd just note that he's all over the book Postville (listed under "Further reading" and viewable at Google Books[1]).--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know how many "fraudsters" become famous, but most of it is news related and needs rewriting to become encyclopaedic. Furthermore (and more importantly), there isn't any reason of worldwide recognition, which is contrary to the policy on WP:ANYBIO. Minima c (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources only cover his conviction. Fails WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but then merge to Agriprocessors. I do think he is notable, but the article contains no content about him that isn't better covered in the company article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nearly two dozen articles in the NY Times alone; note particularly this one [2], which demonstrates just how high-profile the criminal cases (plural) involving him have become. An archive GNews search shows significant coverage even before the fraud/child labor/illegal immigrant issues became public, eg [3] [4]. Not to mention the scholarly book about his business activities and their effects. [5] comment added by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, [6]
Keep but then merge as per. --80.192.21.253 (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Extensive press coverage. Agriprocessors had other issues; they had problems under previous managers years before Sholom R. took over. Note that R. had a well-funded PR operation lobbying for a shorter sentence.[7] Some of that activity may have spilled over onto Wikipedia. At least 3 single purpose accounts edited the article in the April 23-27 period. --John Nagle (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. --ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is a sockpuppet and has been blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opening sentence says "He was responsible for creating the largest kosher meat supplier in the world, and largely through his efforts, kosher meat became available in supermarket chains across the country". That makes him notable right there, he even getting coverage for it[8]. He has received news coverage for things other than the raid. [9] He had problems with PETA investigating him with hidden cameras at his business, which got news years before. So that's three things he's gotten news coverage for, news media publishing his comments, etc. Dream Focus 05:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. There is material on him in addition to his conviction--multiple stories in general and Jewish papers-- a major national figure in his field & would have been even if the conviction had never occurred. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. I have placed the {{current}} on the article's page and {{Controversial}} on its talk page. The subject of this article has turned into, well, a big subject with many articles in many important newspapers and media sources. Not quite sure how this article gets to be nominated for deletion, it's been around for over three years. On the contrary, it needs work to become a serious WP:NPOV article befitting a serious WP:BIO, but NOT "deletion" for goodness sakes. Sholom Rubashkin is presently the focus of a major trial and has garnered total support among all sectors of American Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic Judaism. He is a major Chabad Lubavitch lay personality by dint of his (former) wealth and status. Articles and ads pleading on his behalf appear weekly in the English language American Haredi Yated, Hamodia and Orthodox The Jewish Press. At this time, among many American Orthodox Jews, his cause and attaining exoneration and freedom is on a par with the the tragi-sagas of the French Dreyfus affair and the Russian Beilis trial. Anyhow, a few simple Google searches for "Rubashkin news" (yields over 800,000 hits); "Sholom Rubashin" (over 200,000); "Rubashkin trial" (over 30,000); "Rubashkin scandal" (over 100,000); "Rubashkin case" (over 280,000); etc etc etc, whichever way one slices it, this has become a BIG story about someone who, even had he never landed in court, would have been worthy of a biography based in his achievements in becoming the BIGGEST supplier of kosher meat in north America over the last 25 years. Therefore, what is called for is a balanced, NPOV and detailed biography of this man and the complex story that now surrounds him. IZAK (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. The article is only focusing on his trials and conviction; it only needs to be fleshed out with biographical data to make it acceptable to everyone. Yoninah (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2010 (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.