Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk
Wolk meets Wikipedia notability standards under  and .  If Wolk wants the article deleted, as Jehochman states, I support its deletion.  If Wolk wants the article kept, as Lawrencewarwick states, I support keeping it.  I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors if his Wikipedia presence is not to his liking.  (Wolk might sue poor Lawrence Warwick and his marketing firm if Warwick didn't warn him about  when he made that phone call.)  American Wikipedia editors considering editing the article should review http://www.scribd.com/doc/40195985/Wolk-v-Overlawyered-complaint this recent lawsuit by Wolk (page 9 forward) that (1) alleges that anyone who links to a website is a "co-partner" of everything that website and all of its commenters say and (2) shows what sort of statement about Wolk Wolk considers legally actionable.  ('''Disclosure of conflict of interest''': Wolk has sued me. Twice. For the same 2007 blog post.)  Because Wolk has accused me of "inciting" negative comments about him, I hereby request that no one on Wikipedia write anything about Wolk that Wolk does not want them to write. Editors should only write true things about Wolk. Contrary to Lawrence Warwick's complaint, I have not edited and will not edit the Wolk article.  My only edit was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson|to nominate the forked lawsuit article for deletion, which Wolk's marketing representatives requested. Long-time Wikipedia editors will know that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.|I have consistently (if unsuccessfully) argued that district-court cases do not merit their own articles except in rare cases like the Scopes trial
— User:THF, 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:GNG||WP:LUC (Wikipedia:Notability)