Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony T. DiPietro: Difference between revisions

Line 1: Line 1:

:”The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style=”color:var(–color-error, red);”>”’Please do not modify it.”'</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.”

<!–Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. –>

The result was ”’no consensus”’‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is a consensus against deleting the article, and no consensus between keeping and redirecting. With deletion off the table, AFD does not need to be involved further. Debate of whether to redirect can be taken forward on the article talk page. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

===[[:Anthony T. DiPietro]]===

Line 31: Line 37:

:Finally, if editors feel the current draft is too case-centric or promotional, the remedy under [[WP:ONUS]]/[[WP:NPOV]] is improvement, not deletion: trim routine self-published/press-release content, emphasize the independent sources above, and keep the focus encyclopedic. That path best honors [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and [[WP:PRESERVE]] while respecting [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Sonnyangels|Sonnyangels]] ([[User talk:Sonnyangels|talk]]) 20:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Sonnyangels|Sonnyangels]] ([[User talk:Sonnyangels|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sonnyangels|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>

*”’Redirect”’I think a redirect to [[Robert_Hadden#Sexual_assault_allegations]] is the most logical move. [[User:Agnieszka653|Agnieszka653]] ([[User talk:Agnieszka653|talk]]) 19:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”><span style=”color: #FF6600;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”'</span><br />”’Relisting comment:”’ I think this discussion needs a bit more time so we can settle between Keeping the article or Redirecting it. Just a note, editors arguing for a Redirect should feel responsible for putting forth an argument for their stance which hasn’t happened here yet. Why shiould this article be Redirected rather than Kept?<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style=”font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;”>[[User:Liz|””’L””’iz]]</span> <sup style=”font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;”>[[Special:Contributions/Liz|””’Read!””’]] [[User talk:Liz|””’Talk!””’]]</sup> 22:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)</small><!– from Template:XfD relist —~~><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Anthony T. DiPietro]]</noinclude~~></div>

*”’Oppose redirect”’ – if the article is deleted, the proposed redirect target will still be searchable; we don’t need to be sending readers directly there as though this man is synonymous with Hadden’s sexual assault cases. He’s barely mentioned at that article, so I don’t think this meets [[WP:ASTONISH]]. Also, guidelines aside, I don’t think it would be very pleasant to find that your name on Wikipedia automatically redirected to an article on a sex criminal you fought in court. — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

:”The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style=”color:var(–color-error, red)”>Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article’s [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.”<!–Template:Afd bottom–></div>

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. There is a consensus against deleting the article, and no consensus between keeping and redirecting. With deletion off the table, AFD does not need to be involved further. Debate of whether to redirect can be taken forward on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia’s content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Sources fail WP:SIGCOV, since they all talk about the high-profile court case he was involved in and not about him. Even if significant coverage is found, he probably still meets WP:BLP1E. A check only revealed more sources of this kind and some paid placement. Also see Draft:Anthony T. DiPietro. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is one of those annoying AfDs where the article, and subject, are notable for exactly one brief moment of their lives, which begs the question of how notable they should be considered for Wikipedia. But, and I say this with some remorse, the article’s citations make clear that the article’s subject is the non-trivial subject of multiple reliable secondary sources (NYT, WSJ, Newsweek, etc). So the article subject is wiki-notable, and real world non-notable. Keep. –Markeer 02:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSWEEK says post-2013 articles aren’t reliable. The NYT and WSJ pieces fail WP:SIGCOV because they mention him once in the entire article. SIGCOV basically means the source must be about the subject, or must talk about them in sufficient detail, and the sources I can find don’t do that. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it’s a fair challenge, it’s good someone is querying, and maybe in a few years time the BLP1E argument will run differently. But for now it’s clearly not a promotion piece, which lawyers and BLP seem to attract, and this article will help anyone wanting to know more about the issue. GNG and SIGCOV here is good enough.

ChrysGalley (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrysGalley: See WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:ITSUSEFUL. “This person may pass BLP1E in the future” and “it’s useful to readers” are not valid reasons to keep the article. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 11:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think I was unclear: I am arguing they may not pass BLP1E in the future. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrysGalley: Yeah, that’s what I meant. Right now, they are only notable for one event, and per WP:BLP1E, should either be deleted or be made about the event. Whether they may be notable for other stuff in the future shouldn’t be taken into account per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it doesn’t read like a promotion piece, but I do think it fits BLP1E. Also, the sources aren’t primarily about the lawyer (DiPietro) but about the court case. Lijil (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO, there is multiple, independent, reliable, secondary coverage that treats DiPietro as more than a passing name, across years and across more than one matter, so WP:BLP1E does not apply.

AP/Spectrum/NY1 all report and directly quote DiPietro by name in coverage of the court-approved $750M settlement (bringing payouts to >$1B). That is substantial, independent coverage with the subject’s role explained at length.

Wall Street Journal covered the large expansion of civil suits against Columbia, identifying DiPietro’s role in bringing the filings.. Again, independent national coverage focused on his litigation work.

Inside Higher Ed and AP further document the scale and significance of the settlements and litigation chronology, independent of any firm materials.

Columbia Spectator ran multiple reported pieces focusing on DiPietro’s filings/accusations and ongoing suits (Article 78 action; additional 80-plaintiff filing), reflecting sustained attention to his actions over time.

Beyond Hadden, DiPietro is the leading plaintiffs’ counsel in the Darius Paduch matters (separate physician/defendants), which broadens coverage beyond a single event and supports that notability is not limited to one incident.

DiPietro is also actively involved in the former OBGYN Barry Brock matters against Cedars Sinai and former OBGYN David Broadbent matters in Salt Lake City, Utah – further demonstrating notability and WP:SIGCOV requirements on those individual topics.

Independent recognition (e.g., City & State’s “Trailblazers in Law” list, Top 100 High Stakes Litigators,etc.) further indicates coverage of the person’s professional significance, not just a case recap.

Under WP:SIGCOV, what matters is non-trivial discussion in independent reliable sources. The AP/WSJ/NY1/Inside Higher Ed coverage provides that; it is not mere directory or routine passing mention.

Finally, if editors feel the current draft is too case-centric or promotional, the remedy under WP:ONUS/WP:NPOV is improvement, not deletion: trim routine self-published/press-release content, emphasize the independent sources above, and keep the focus encyclopedic. That path best honors WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE while respecting WP:BLP. Sonnyangels (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC) — Sonnyangels (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time so we can settle between Keeping the article or Redirecting it. Just a note, editors arguing for a Redirect should feel responsible for putting forth an argument for their stance which hasn’t happened here yet. Why shiould this article be Redirected rather than Kept?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect – if the article is deleted, the proposed redirect target will still be searchable; we don’t need to be sending readers directly there as though this man is synonymous with Hadden’s sexual assault cases. He’s barely mentioned at that article, so I don’t think this meets WP:ASTONISH. Also, guidelines aside, I don’t think it would be very pleasant to find that your name on Wikipedia automatically redirected to an article on a sex criminal you fought in court. — asilvering (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2025 (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.

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply