Howard Rubin (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log |edits since nomination)

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

All sourcing is about purported sex and financial crimes of which the subject has not been convicted.WP:BLPCRIME... and even if he was convicted, he does not passWP:NCRIMINAL. All sourcing is from his recent charge and one local routine news piece about him getting married (he lived in NY, so "local couple weds" is local routine news, even if from the NYT)PARAKANYAA (talk)22:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in thedeletion sorting lists for the following topics:People andCrime.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rubin is a notorious trader who satisfied the GNG before the 2017 accusations.[1][2][3]Morbidthoughts (talk)22:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You linked one article multiple times, FWIW. The material of that source is about a single crimeof which he was not convicted. Still does not passWP:NCRIMINAL, still aWP:BLPCRIME issue.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The duplicate link was meant to be this[4]. His 80s trading notoriety with merrill lynch did not involve criminal accusations or prosecution so of course he wasn't convicted then.Morbidthoughts (talk)20:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It did, because link 3 says he settled the scandal without any admission of guilt.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a administrative civil matter. There is a difference.Morbidthoughts (talk)23:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I am misreading it, but doesn't this policy say a person normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is another article that can incorporate the encyclopedic material - i.e. suggesting a merge. There is no other existing Wikipedia article that could house the encyclopedic material as it stands. @PARAKANYAA

  Thanks in advanceKatzrockso (talk)22:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Katzrockso NCRIMINAL says "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or

  The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It also specifies we should usually only have an article on a criminal BLP if they have been convicted. My bigger issue is he hasn't been convicted of anything and is covered only for his alleged crimes.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, you are right on that. I think the question is over the second point. There was sustained coverage of this crime over a long period of time - there are news articles from 2017 to 2025 that specifically identify Howard Rubin as the alleged culprit;[5][6][7][8]. I have a hard time understanding this coverage as anything other than "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

  Some of the media coverage I already read specifically mentions his infamy for the Merrill Lynch[9]. I found extensive coverage of him in the New York Times regarding this incident as well, as @NatGertler points out.Katzrockso (talk)22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Katzrockso This fails "unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event". There are a lot of sex crime cases, and I wouldn't say that "persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage" given that all appears to me to be just the case breaking and the immediate developments. Any time there is a development in a case it gets a blurb in the news but that is not "persisting beyond contemporaneous news coverage".

  But the bigger issue here is that he has never been convicted of any crime, so we can't even include any of it. He is only covered for things that we cannot say he did! The NYT coverage is the same, as the Merill Lynch losses are related to alleged crimes on his part.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @PARAKANYAA The Deadspin article I linked is specifically when there is no immediate development in the case - it asks the question "Whatever Happened To The Other Wall Street Millionaire Accused Of Sexual Assault" in the title.

  As explained below, there was no crime in the 1980s/1990s reporting - a SEC recordkeeping violation is not a crime. Is there any prior discussion on Wikipedia whether BLPCRIME covers civil offenses? This actually seems like a major oversight in the wording of BLPCRIME if it is intended to include civil and administrative violations as well.Katzrockso (talk)23:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Deadspin's article does not give me hope on its reliability, given it is owned by the same people as Gawker, and the only mention in a reliability discussions do not show great confidence[10]. Especially for a topic like sexual assault... but that aside, I always assumed it did, e.g. when we were writing about OJ Simpson's civil case while he was still alive I belief we had to operate by BLPCRIME rules. I do agree this is not very clear.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not have linked the article here without considering its reliability prior to this. Most commenters on the RS Noticeboard expressed that the reliability of G/O Media-owned sources declined after 2021 and that like usual, reliability should be considered in context. The source here is based on information that was reported in prior reliable sources.

  Moreover, it seems puzzling to me to say that the sustained coverage here can be dismissed by saying it is a "development" that qualifies as "contemporaneous media coverage". The media reports on things when there is new things to report -

  The allegations in the OJ Simpson civil case are the same allegations of fact as in the criminal case. There is no comparable allegation of criminal conduct to parallel the allegations of administrative misconduct.Katzrockso (talk)00:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  UnderWP:BLPCRIME as it currently stands (I've never tracked any changes on that), it should protected Rubin much more than Simpson. OJ was undeniably a "public figure", in that he had given plenty of interviews, starred as himself on advertisements, and so forth. As far as I've seen so far, Rubin qualifies asWP:LOWPROFILE -- I don't see any interviews or personally-sought publicity for him. --Nat Gertler (talk)01:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't think Rubin is a notable person. Perhaps if a conviction is secured a page can be restablished, but the article significantly over-exaggerates his importance regarding financial work and Wall Street ...Aesurias (talk)01:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in thedeletion sorting lists for the following topics:Businesspeople,Finance,Massachusetts, andPennsylvania.WCQuidditch☎✎06:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While the article currently lacks sourcing, newspapers.com search finds a lot of coverage of the bad trades at Marrill Lynch on April 30, 1987, and a few days after. Often it'sthis Boston Globe piece, which is talking about a broker but only names him several paragraphs in. Not finding earlier coverage of him (doing separate searches of his name with "Merrill Lynch". Namein 1989 for SEC hearing, in 1990 forhis settling without admission of guilt, and some follow up as Merrill dealt with the larger matter andRubin received pay they'd been withholding. After that (and only looking through to 2000), I'm finding only passing mentions in articles on similar cases or lists of financial disasters. Searching for his name and "Salomon" to find pre-Merrill mentions brings up nothing of use. (I should note, however, that neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are in the newspapers.com database.) So... there are sources to be had even if they are not currently in use in the article; I will refrain judgment for now on whether they are enough to conquer notability concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk)15:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Rubin's financial crimes seems to (rightfully) overshadow his background I think a new page should be created focusing solely on his financial indiscretions rather than being about him as a person specifically.Agnieszka653 (talk)19:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Financial crimes of Howard Rubin" is even worse than providing a neutral biography on Howard Rubin.Katzrockso (talk)22:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And that would be a hard title to claim, as what he was charged with was not (at least it seems from a simple description) a financial crime (a la, say, embezzlement or tax avoision), buta record-keeping violation. If there were to be an article that would cover this, it would likely survive not by being about "crime" per se, but about Merrill's big loss, with Rubin's perceived involvement being an aspect of that. --Nat Gertler (talk)22:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are exactly correct in that the coverage from the 1990s is not about a crime, but about his perceived role in the losses that Merrill Lynch incurred. There is a lot of coverage from the New York Times on this;[11][12][13][14], as well as the coverage that you have linked to. It's even mentioned in the original article on him that he was mentioned as a key player in the bookLiar's Poker (I downloaded the book - "Rubin" the surname is used 66 times).

  I think even if we struck the entire section about the allegations of him with regards to sex offenses, there is still plenty of significant coverage to create an article. Consequently I am !voting toKeep this article.Katzrockso (talk)23:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rubin seems to be the recipient of passing coverage and coverage which if we were to make the whole article about it, would be a clear BLP violation. I think this could be deleted unlessWP:SIGCOV can be provided, but then the article still would need a rewrite, but I don't think we will get there as I think it will be deleted.Iljhgtn (talk)00:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way do the articles from the NY Times from the 80s and 90s not qualify as significant coverage?Katzrockso (talk)00:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Svartner (talk)01:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm surprised to hear about the sex trafficking charges but I knew about Howard Rubin from his Wall Street career and how it was portrayed in popular media and I do not make it a habit of following financial news. I mean, he was notorious in the past. I have no new sources to add to this discussion, unfortunately, I'm just surprised to see this article even nominated, much less getting so much support for Deletion.Liz^Read!Talk!00:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All coverage linked here is of his (alleged) misconduct, which is not enough to base a BLP on. Until we have evidence that he meets the GNG entirely independently of these legal issues, the article should be deleted. The comment above mine amounts to "but he's famous" and does not address theBLPCRIME issue.Toadspike[Talk]08:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, how does BLPCrime apply to someone accused of civil misconduct? If there is an internal dispute in a company that garners significant coverage, is Wikipedia not supposed to cover it? He garnered notoriety because of a controversy within the company where he supposedly caused significant loss to the company. I don't see this as significantly different than people who gain notoriety for other contentious actions. Moreover, despite there being coverage about him alleged misconduct (which again is not a criminal charge and no such allegations of criminal wrongdoing have been made with regards to his financial activities), he received significant coverage in media for his role in Wall Street. I mentioned the book Liar's Poker above, which is most definitely significant coverage above and beyond any of the financial misconduct allegations, but he was also covered in "Rouge Traders". This is why the media coverage on him with respect to his most recent allegations almost unanimously refers to him with terms like "known on Wall Street" to the point that he is very commonly mentioned in popular history books about Wall Street or the Financial Crisis. Most of the earlier coverage surrounding Rubin relates to allegations by his firm against him, none of which rose to criminal activity - his firing, his trades, etc.

  WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NCRIME andWP:CRIME all explicitly refer to criminal acts or crimes, which is explicit language because not every allegation of misconduct arises to criminality.Katzrockso (talk)09:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For three examples of coverage that cover Rubin in significant ways that are not exhausted by his financial or sexual misconduct;

  1. His marriage announcement[15] (this is not routine, as someone who has researched family history in New York City, marriages are not commonly announced in the New York Times, its contribution to SIGCOV is marginal, but it all adds up perWP:BASIC)

  2. His career at Salomon Brothers was covered in Liar's Poker. Here is one example of a quote from the book

  A young Salomon Brothers trader named Howie Rubin began to calculate the probability of homeowners' prepaying their mortgages. He discovered that the probability varied according to where they lived, the length of time their loans had been outstanding, and the sizes of their loans. He used historical data collected by Lew Ranieri's research department. The researchers were meant to be used like scientific advisers at an arms talk. More often, however, they were treated like the water boys on the football team. But the best traders knew how to use the researchers well. The American homeowner became, to Rubin and the research department, a sort of laboratory rat.

  3. His career at Bear, Stearns & Co.[16] (thismentions the allegations of financial misconduct, but this is limited to 3 sentences, and the other ~23 are about his background and career at Bear, Stearns & Co.) [some other passing mentions of his career there[17])Katzrockso (talk)09:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  TheNew York Times doespaid wedding announcements. If this is one of those, a wedding announcement is just a sign of willingness to spend money than of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk)17:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Nat, good point - appreciate your comment. I didn't think about that when looking at it.

  I still think there we have multiple sources demonstrating significant coverage of the subject that don't focus on his alleged indiscretions and I think that the Merrill Lynch coverage is fair game too, so there is more than enough for the subject to be notable underWP:BASIC.Katzrockso (talk)23:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What I find interesting is that the Merrill situation, which may deserve its own article (and there might be at least a case for a BLP1E deletion if there was one), isn't even mentioned atMerrill (company). --Nat Gertler (talk)23:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That article seems to have a vastly underdeveloped history of the firm before 2007 - only random events and factoids are included, bar some information about the founding of the company.Katzrockso (talk)12:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: unclear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)16:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates