Talk:2011 UBS rogue trader scandal

Starting article

Starting article. Breaking news. Subject is notible in the same was as Jérome Kerviel and Nick Leeson

Wikipedia:BLP1E

This discussion is going to be had at some point, so I think I'm going to bring it up now. Frankly, my feeling is that if Nick Leeson deserves a page this guy should get a page too. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind.... Sandstien was bold and started a deletion discussion I guess the matter will be considered there! NickCT (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I have no idea why this article would be considered for deletion? this is newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.130.115 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it meets WP:BLP1E. Later on it might become a biography but it's not really one at this time. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Leave the article like it its, there will come more later. It will become a story like Jérôme Kerviel, wait and you will see.--Cruks (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kweku Adoboli as a speedy keep, however, following WP:1E this article should likely be moved with a redirect to a more fitting title, such as 2011 UBS trading scandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a much good way to do it. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I went ahead and moved this to 2011 UBS trading scandal? Kweku Adoboli would WP:Redirect there. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be discussed in a requested move discussion. I think it is clear from some the comments in the AfD discussion that moving this article is not completely uncontroversial.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the close was incorrect. More than half the participants said KEEP without agreeing with others who said ""move" or "possible move". The issue of WP:1E seemed to be sufficiently addressed by the second paragraph of the WP:BLP1E policy (please read it) which might be called the "Hinckley Exclusion." If the event is sufficiently important, and the person's role in it very major, then the policy doesn't apply. This exclusion applies here without a doubt. Smallbones (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The speedy keep was incorrect? I think perhaps what you meant to say was, you agree with the keep, which was the pith of the close, but don't agree with my aside in the close about moving (renaming) the article. I closed the discussion and removed the AfD template from the article. However, I didn't move the article, I asked here first. Adoboli does not nearly meet the "Hinckley" level of notability put forth in WP:1E. So far he's not even so notable as, say, Jaycee Dugard (see Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard). Hence, following the policy, the title of this article shouldn't Adoboli's name. On the other hand, I don't think 1E is one of the more helpful editorial policies on en.WP, because it does stir up lots of needless back and forth about article titles. 1E or not, so far I see no consensus for a move and the title of this article should (and will) be that of a consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My two cents - I agree with TheFreeloader. WP:RM is the right way to go. I'm currently neutral as to the rename. Frankly, I think it will be obvious in future that this guy meets the WP:BLP1E, "exception" clause. Obviously, I realize that WP isn't meant to be a crystal ball.NickCT (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You're correct - it was the aside to the close that I objected to. It's clear that Adoboli isn't a Hinckley, not even a Bernard Madoff but I think the exception goes further down than that. There are now 5221 news articles at google news on the guy and it is all about serious stuff - $2.3 billion. The net loss from Madoff was only about $12 billion. As far as all time financial losses, KA is certainly in the top 10. Smallbones (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

2.3 billion is a blip for the central banks. UBS has gotten many times that in bailouts over the last few years. However, I'm indeed with you on holding off with any renaming until consensus shows up one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A blip indeed Gwen. But think Nick Leeson (1.4 billion) & Jérôme Kerviel (7 billion). These "blips" seemed to get those guys around WP:BLP1E, no? NickCT (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That's why I didn't barge on and move the article after closing the AfD. WP:1E is fuzzy and moreover, sometimes I wonder how much consensus it even has as a policy. Either way, I don't see a consensus here for moving the article to another name. Taken altogether, I think it's much more worthwhile to keep an eye on the article content and sourcing as to WP:BLP, than to spend too much time on WP:1E. I think all the input in this thread has been helpful, by the way, it's spot on what talk pages are meant to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree all around with those comments. It would be nice is WP:1E could be made less "fuzzy" by reworking "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". I wonder if any kind of objective test could be imposed..... but perhaps that's a thought for the village pump. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Or one could argue that there were really two events here, the first billion and then the second billion... Just kidding. Yet it was not just the amount lost but the nature of the event, the way he reached the position, etc. that make the plot non-trivial. So the protagonist and the supporting cast are all interesting in their own rights, beyond the event (or two). History2007 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Origin

There are no links and informations available that he is of Togolese origin.--Cruks (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Article has been included in Wikipedia

The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia: the result of the AfD was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet, it still isn't really a biography. We still know nothing of the man outside a recitation of some very basic facts, and the bulk of the article is still about the event. Did AfD get it wrong this time, or should we hope for expansion of the article into an actual biography sometime soon? One reason this matters: we now have no article about the event, and people who consider adding information here about the event will quite rightly assume that it doesn't belong here, because this is alleged to be a biography of a person. And people who consider adding information to the article about UBS will similarly realize correctly that huge amounts of information should not go there either. This article is therefore a conceptual error, a category error, that is likely blocking the development of a genuine encyclopedia article which could and should be written. We should only have a biography when enough information about the person emerges to make a quality biography possible. We aren't there yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said in closing the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kweku_Adoboli), following WP:1E this should likely be moved to something akin to 2011 UBS trading scandal but when I brought it up here on the talk page, there was no consensus for it at all. The outlook here is, it'll most likely grow into a biography. Truth be told, I don't think the consensus on WP:1E is as wide as some may think. I do understand both outlooks and tend to be neutral on WP:1E because redirects are very cheap. So, does one barge ahead against consensus and follow the policy? Only sayin', you know what I mean. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, when going down the list of trading losses, it seems like these rogue trader cases are generally covered in articles about the rogue trader himself. The SocGen case does its own article, although most of what is in it just seems like a duplicate of what is in the Jérôme Kerviel article. I think it is hard in cases like these to disassociate the person from the incident, as in most of the cases the person's actions are the whole incident. It's sort of like (I'm sorry, but this was the best I could come up with) having a Ted Bundy article and having a seperate Murders by Ted Bundy article.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I do think it's fuzzy from either outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly enough biographical information about Ted Bundy and Nick Leeson for a biographical article. We can write a realy good biography about them. Leeson, for example, has gone on to a notable career afterwards in sports management and as a public speaker about his crimes. Jerome Kerviel could go either way, but at least we have "legal repurcussions" and specific details about his crimes. In the present case, we don't have biographical information at all, outside of a very few cursory tidbits. I don't find, therefore, analogies to other articles particularly helpful. Maybe Mr. Adoboli will go on to a notable career of some kind. Or maybe noteworthy and comprehensive information about him as a person will emerge from non-tabloid sources. But today... we aren't there yet, and it is wrong and unnecessary to have an article on him. I think Gwen was right when she suggested moving the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that his actions in this incident in them of themselves are enough to make him notable. I do not think the fact that Nick Leeson went on to manage a minor Irish soccer club is what makes him a notable person. I think it is the fact that he single handedly brought down a 250 year old bank. And I don't think it is like we only have information about the incident itself. On the contrary, I would say reporting on this case has focused almost as much on Adoboli himself as on what actually happened, I have for instance not yet heard a clear description of how the loss was actually made. So I just don't think it is prudent to delete this article, just because we are still in the early phases of finding out about this case.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

This article is transparently nonsense to anyone who has attempted (or succeeded) in renting an apartment in London. The flat is alleged to be £1,000-a-week, located in Shoreditch, and alleged to be "big enough for ten bedrooms". If you can find me an apartment like that, I'll move there. There is a reason we don't source things to tabloids.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I can't believe I'm replying to you to say this but, um... you know about Wikipedia:No original research, right? And, whilst I agree that tabloids may not be WP:RS in many cases, it isn't up to Wikipedia to evaluate truth. We generally solve this by attributing the claim to the source in the text (e.g. "According to the Daily Mail...") rather than using Wikipedia's voice. --Tristessa (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very bad misinterpretation of "No original research". We are not transcription monkeys, simply writing down what every tabloid says. We can and should and must exercise thoughtful editorial judgment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Bedrooms in London flats can be very small. A thousand quid a week in that neighbourhood for what the article describes doesn't sound off to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, find me an example of a flat large enough to have ten bedrooms, in Shoreditch, for a thousand quid a week. It doesn't even have to be a "penthouse" as this place is alleged to be. Seriously, I'll give you a commission if I like it well enough to move. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: This estate agent search should illustrate my point quickly. To imagine you can find a 10 bedroom flat in Shoreditch for that price is just silly. The Daily Mail was, as usual, hyperbolic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The article comes nowhere near saying one can find a ten bedroom flat in Shoreditch for 1000 quid/wk. Meanwhile I'm still thinkin' your notion of the open space needed to fit ten bedrooms ain't at all the same as a flat floggin' London landlord's :) Also, Shoreditch may be gentrifying, but it's not Bloomsbury or Mayfair. By the way, for others reading this, GBP1000/wk is over USD6000/mo. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment If the article is renamed, 2011 UBS rogue trader scandal would be better, so as not to imply UBS itself was bent. We don't want people to think in terms of Madoff's company. The whole delete/rename debacle is the poster child for why Rfd's should be replaced with an open discussion: limiting the options to delete/don't delete confuses the issue, yet it always seems to be the first thing some Wikipedians race to do first. btw - I'm adding some decent sources to External links so the writers can avoid the tabloids. (The size of his apt is immaterial, especially in a biography. If he had been skimming UBS accounts to pay 10X that rent, it would be notable. It may have been a warehouse loft apt, big and cheap. It doesn't matter unless the rent was way out of line with his salary.) 75.59.229.4 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)