Deletion of Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination)

Comment: as the person who first nominated this article for the exact same reason that Rd232 has above, I find that the article, in the state it is in today, does not give  coverage to the firing, and it appears that notability has been established via other references.  I appreciate not wanting to reward banned editors, (both of the editors involved in creating and expanding this article have been banned, those being Grundle and ChildofMidnight), however, in this case, I do not find that fact to be a compelling reason to delete this article in light of the state it is in today, which is pretty unobjectionable if you knew nothing of the history of the article.  You would not count me among the friends of either of these banned editors, and they have well earned their ban, but I don't think that cutting off our own nose to spite our face is productive, and that's all this deletion would do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing and BLP1E.  The post in question is not a notable post meriting an automatic  qualification.  It's a minor federal agency; the current CEO of the agency doesn't even have a bio article, and neither do several of his predecessors.  Walpin's successor and predecessor do not have articles.  If the article is kept, the current version is a violent violation of  and  by failing to fairly detail the lawsuit; Walpin's side of the story; or Senator Grassley's investigation.  Amazingly, the words "Kevin Johnson" never appear in the article.  The Kevin Johnson article is similarly lacking.  I note that bringing this article up to par on the subject of his firing would then cause the article to violate UNDUE, further demonstrating how this article is a BLP1E.  In fairness, I note that if someone were willing to spend the money dredging up old New York newspaper articles from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, it would be possible to construct an article that meets the weak standards of .  (For example, Walpin's 1999 op-ed criticizing the American Bar Association received national publicity.)  I would change my !vote if someone promised to do that, but I see no indication that anyone ever will
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NPOV||WP:BLP||WP:BIO)