Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beck v. Eiland-Hall

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Whilst the original article clearly had BLP concerns, it has now been re-written so that I believe they are minimized as much as possible. The article has been improved with far more reliable sources and concentrates on the legal issues involved. Black Kite 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck[edit]

note: page has now been moved to Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BLP problem doesn't just go away just because you don't actually say the name of the rumor. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep [Edited: Note - changed my !vote waay downpage] - Yes, if WP remains very careful not to itself spread the rumor, I believe there to not be any BLP vio here. After all, the subject of the spoof site is a WP:WELLKNOWN person (a guideline that of course is a subsection of BLP) and it is the laws of Florida in the U.S. which would control what legal exposure Wikipedia would chance for its giving its encyclopedic coverage to this notable website's parody of Glenn Beck, with U.S. laws generally granting broad leeway to published commentary about public persons who themselves widely disseminate their viewpoints and commentary. Also see WP:NOTCENSORED. ↜Just M E here , now 07:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe, per Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, the article should be moved to "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? See link.
  • Move to Beck v. Eiland-Hall per Justmeherenow . There's notability in the fact that a lawsuit has been filed, and this would not last long (nor would it be appropriate) in an article about Glenn Beck in the first place. I can appreciate that the author was unsure how to present the article; I think that an article about the suit satisifes the ideals that (from WP:BLP), "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." and (from WP:NOT) "Wikipedia is not censored". Mandsford (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consider nominating for deletion the entry Gilbert Godfried, which is a redirect to Gilbert Gottfried. While redirects are cheap, they shouldn't serve to perpetuate misspelling. Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge (but not to Glenn Beck article, where it would be a WP:WEIGHT problem. Note: a merge result of an AfD is not binding on the target article or any other as to whether the editors there consider it worthy of inclusion The issue (if not the site itself) is potentially notable per sourcing, and we're not censored. But how? For goodness sake! The name of the website is itself a BLP violation. We're going to have the same trouble the courts will, how to cover the subject without censorship being sensitive to BLP / attack site issues (which mirrors how the courts can honor free speech yet balance that against defamation and other worries). The [[Back v. Eiland-Hall]] idea is a good one, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the name of an actual case. Perhaps we can merge it into another article (but for heaven's sake, not Beck's!). Is there an article on WIPO domain name disputes? Maybe we can make an exception to BLP1E for purposes of naming this, and call it [[Eiland-Hall]]. A redirect from the site name to the ultimate destination for the content should be okay. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we could also merge this into the Gilbert Gottfried article, regarding his legacy / cultural impact, or an article about scandalous Internet memes. NOTCENSORED does not oblige us to have a stand-alone article about every subject that is nominally notable; other concerns like this one may justify a merge, and organizing information is not censorship. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Glenn Beck. Has been litigation reported in reliable sources. Facts on that should be merged into Glenn Beck if appropriate per BLP. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the law suit may become notable the website certainly is not; the sources are about the law suit not the website itself . It is up to the editors of Glen Beck whether this is worth a mention in the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure this matters or not, but I'm not sure that any actual law suit has been filed. As far as I know, it's just a compliant. Glenn Beck filed an administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against the privacy service for the domain. (The UDRP is a policy that website operators automatically agree to when they register a domain name; the policy enables trademark owners to initiate an administrative proceeding challenging the registration of a domain name in "bad faith.") Morphh (talk) 16:21, 04 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1.) per nom Ricky. 2.) fails WP:WEB 3.) fails WP:GNG 4.) per thinly veiled BLP attack page. — Ched :  ?  16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly exists, but is clearly not notable, not to mention not encyclopedic. If there is a lawsuit and it, for whatever reason, becomes something of note, then it would be appropriate to create an article for that. This article, however, does not satisfy inclusion criteria and it is a BLP issue. Lara 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Glenn Beck. BLP issues non-existent. It is relatively notable, however not by itself. --Cyclopia - talk 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -Tripe, not encyclopedic. Himalayan 16:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POV FORK and merge with Glenn Beck if more reliable sources cover it. --CarTick 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. BLP concerns are clearly misguided, but the website itself appears to fail WP:WEB (only 3 googlenews hits on the website name) and the controversy itself seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. No prejudice against recreation if the story becomes a bigger deal. Keep or Merge to Glenn Beck. The sources produced by Milowent and Cptnono demonstrate that this topic is notable for inclusion. Whether it's given a brief mention in Glenn Beck or a more detailed treatment in it's own article, I have no opinion on. Yilloslime TC 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no matter how carefully concealed, the website name itself is a BLP violation. It's both less notable and more offensive than Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the website would be a BLP violation if on WP, is not notable in and of itself (even if there is a lawsuit, that does not automatically confer notability), and removing this topic will not harm the tabloid encyclopedia. LadyofShalott 00:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable parody website about a notable person. BLP concerns are, frankly, vaguely silly. Crafty (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into the Glenn Beck article. Other concerns aside, there simply isn't enough information here to warrant a separate page. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Glenn Beck: The discussion of whether/when to include this on the Glenn Beck page has been going on for some time, e.g., Talk:Glenn_Beck#Anti-Beck_spoof_website. Every day or so, someone new comes onto that talk page asking why it isn't on the Glenn Beck page. I don't think there's any real argument that it isn't notable at this point. The sources covering the parody & legal proceedings (it is a lawsuit, before the World Intellectual Property Organization) are solid (now). See, e.g., in rough chronological order, Ars Technica, Gawker, HotAir, TheFirstPost(UK), BoingBoing,Citizen Media Law Project, PoliticsDaily, Ars Technica No.2, AdWeek, NPR, Bostonist, Boston Herald, Domain Name Wire. There is a precedent for including such disputes on a biography, see, e.g., Jerry_Falwell#Falwell_versus_Christopher_Lamparello which was a domain dispute over a depraved parody site about Jerry Falwell.--Milowent (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Signifigant coverage from reliable sources has surfaced recently. Merging would be a disaster. The amount of detail available fits nicely into a stub (which might even grow) but would cause huge weight concerns on the Glenn Beck page. Here are some sources: [1] (Andy Carvin fo National Public Radio meets "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully." per WP:RELIABLE), [2](Boston Herald), [3] (Adweek), [4] (Ars Technica). Tons of coverage is available from "bloggish" sites that I have not looked into the vetting process for but don't jump out as being unreliable such as [[5]], [6], [7]. It looks like WP:GNG is taken care of. WP:NTEMP might still be a concern but GNG + not giving undue weight at another article + this article being easy enough to clean (formatting, new title, a few lines here and there) more than make up for that potential concern. EDIT: HEHE, we just duplicated some sources due to an edit conflict.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Milowent (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) said it very well, above. Satisfies WP:NOTE, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Non-notable. The website is a one-off gag, and the lawsuit is no more notable than thousands of other domain-name or libel lawsuits filed annually in the U.S. If the lawsuit yields an opinion which becomes notable for breaking new legal ground, or results in an appeal to a circuit court, or generates some scholarly notice, then an article reflecting this content so far as is necessary to explain the facts of that lawsuit can be made at the case name. bd2412 T 03:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tasteless publicity stunt designed to attack a public figure. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ATP, WP:BLP. Take your pick. RayTalk 04:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - not encyclopedic, not appropriately notable.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless article with no encyclopedic value. We do not attack nice people, and we do not attack bad people, and we do not promote each new attack web site. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that there are notable external sources, per WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no valid reason to delete it. After all, we do cover notable meme's, parodies and conspiracy theories, for example, we cover The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. The threshold is notability, not who will be offended. LK (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Glenn Beck. Litigation is involved, and internet memes in regard to other celebrities are kept, for example, Chuck Norris discusses Chuck Norris jokes. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe there are some reliable sources, but that does not make it notable or encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Kevin (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Glenn Beck. Lawsuits are involved and has national merit based not only on it but its status as a Joke so it is not carried on as truth. --Marlin1975 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again Several of you have mentioned a lawsuit and litigation as part of your justification for vote, so I want to restate that there is no lawsuit that I'm aware of at this point. I only see that it is a complaint to the administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Eiland-Hall has not been sued. It is arbitration and mediation for the resolution of international commercial disputes between private parties. Morphh (talk) 17:56, 05 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is litigation, its just an arbitration forum. Not unusual for international disputes. Doesn't make it less notable, because this is one of the primary venues for 1st step adjudication.--Milowent (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the article was titled "Rumor website parody of Barack Obama," most of the hypocrites above who voted to keep would vote delete. If they aren't voting purely for a political agenda, what would be their reasoning? Lawsuits about websites concerning Glenn Beck are more notable than lawsuits about websites concerning the President? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was madly offensive. It is not a POV issue or an attempt attack Beck. One of my primary reasons is actually to prevent that since a merge would be detrimental to the main Beck article if we fully summarized the information (weight issue) but it can easily support its own. So I hope people will stop having knee-jerk reactions and realize that not everyone is pushing a POV but actually trying to make this a better project.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind -- based on the discussions here and on the ongoing media attention -- to Weak keep for now. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a content fork due to the lack of consensus to feature this website and the controversy around it in Glenn Beck, see Talk:Glenn Beck#Anti-Beck spoof website. JustMeHereNow is far too fond of "bold" moves in the middle of discussions when they're not going their way. I find it funny that they wanted to create this article but not mention the meme content or website URL; a great way to have your cake and eat it. The meme, Beck's action with WIPO against the website, and the lawyer's response are now getting press coverage in the mainstream media, which it wasn't a couple of weeks ago, so the meme might now be able to be reported carefully in Beck's article. Merge it back in and let normal debate decide if it should be included and how. Fences&Windows 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fences and Windows said, "JustMeHereNow is far too fond of "bold" moves in the middle of discussions when they're not going their way."
('JustMe' here, now): In point of fact, there is not two prongs of a fork but rather but a single metal probe connected to the metaphorical meat thermometer of this AFD's determination of whether the creation of an article on this subject was over-"bold." (As far as my motives, as the article's creator, would be concerned: for the record, I have not once advocated for the spoof to find mention in the Beck BLP nor have I contributed any mention of the meme there; from the beginning I believe it merits coverage in its own article: whereas the spoof may at some point merit mention in the BLP, I just am not convinced it has, yet.) ↜Just M E here , now 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it seems to have received significant press attention. Everyking (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, I don't think it has. The legal threats have got coverage, a different matter. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Frankly, a paragraph in the main article on Beck simply giving the basic run down may be better. As it currently stands this may be covered in NOTNEWS. However, it clearly needs to be covered here somewhere given that it is very relevant to Beck and the major media attention the subject is getting. I'm not sure a separate article is the best solution. I'm going to wait a few days, see where coverage goes and then make a decision. I do however think that claims that there is a danger of "spreading" the rumor since the entire point of the rumor is that it is a parody which is deliberately so extreme and ridiculous that one would need to be insane and stupid to take it seriously. BLP does not say "make sure imbeciles don't misunderstand you." JoshuaZ (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, WP:BLP does say, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment," and this article shows poor judgment in the way that it is written. I view this as a delete under WP:BLP only if it's beyond rewriting, and it may well be if the purpose of the article is to call attention to the website. Defamatory statements don't become less defamatory, simply because someone says "Just kidding!" This is why our articles don't include sections entitled "False rumors". Mandsford (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way that this article is the primary vector of this statement. Moreover, this isn't even the same a false rumor because this is deliberately false and that is explicitly part of the point (as everyone who spreads the meme points out, repeatedly). And yes, they do actually become non-defamatory in such circumstances. Whether we want to give them prominence is a not the same thing, but that may be worth taking into consideration. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some recent work done on refs (some awesome, some only OK, some may not be good enough) Some ideas on improvement on the talk page. Please see my comments above on GNG and reasoning along with the others on NOTE. This could also be looked at as spreading the attack, clearing his name, or simply creating a decently sourced stub thats complete erger would cause too many concerns.Cptnono (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs to be renamed, though. Not sure to what, but it has a horrible title right now. --71.255.225.245 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks like there has been some great recent work done on the article by Justmeherenow (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Ched. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLP concerns outweigh arguments that this is notable. I saw that it was ranked #110,826 in popularity, may even have moved up to #110,825 as a result of people clicking on the weblink. Though it has been suggested that this be renamed "Beck v. Eiland-Hall", this is not, and never will be, an article about a lawsuit. Sure, it could be rewritten, but I believe that having one's creation altered beyond recognition is more of an insult than letting one's peers vote upon its continued existence. We often talk in jest about murdering or beating up somebody, but there are certain accusations (cruelty to animals, race hatred, sexual crimes) that are never funny, whether they're made in all seriousness or "tongue in cheek". Wikipedia is not a jokebook, nor a vehicle for promoting someone's idea of a joke. But more importantly, Wikipedia takes WP:BLP very seriously, and the concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is balanced out by the concept that we don't promote defamation. Mandsford (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? If, by the use of "one's," Mandsford implies the article I "created" equates to its being but my creation, I am afraid I must disabuse of that notion. I moved into distinct article space a paragraph that had been composed by someone else, after I slightly edited it. It wasn't until today that I assisted several other editors in expanding it. So, Mandsford comes along, with an air of a stiff peacock's "tale" (...which type of superiority complex, as always, is more telling of secretly the opposite, in my humble opinion) to offer for our enlightenment: "Sure, it could be rewritten, but I believe that having one's creation altered beyond recognition is more of an insult than letting one's peers vote upon its continued existence."
    --Mandsford! On a Wiki? Do you think you are editing Citizendium    ?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (By the way, Mandsford: I also don't care if the article is deleted. But -- and just take this for whatever it might be worth! -- What does bother me, though, is your offputting tone of highly literate Wikisuperiority.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I change my !vote to delete. Here's my rationale. Playing with the edges of things, finding a way to excuse them, brings society down further and further. Which is OK for society as a whole, but on Wikipedia, we hew to a higher standard. (Sorta like Hebrew National hotdogs.) Let's draw the line!↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I do sound kind of preachy, don't I? I don't mean to imply that I think I'm superior to you or anyone else, and I'm sorry that it seemed that way. However, I do think that I would be insulting another author by overwriting an article that someone else has worked hard on creating; I despise those smug "it's-my-article" know-it-alls who revert all changes, and I would prefer to be one of many people debating an article, rather than, as I put it, rewriting "beyond recognition". And, like you and everyone else here, I'm concerned about what goes into Wikipedia, and I get the impression from some people that they think that WP:BLP makes no difference because Mr. Eiland-Hall says, "I'm joking". I think that the closing administrator has to look at this as a WP:BLP issue, and when it comes to that, call me Miracle Whip, but I will not tone it down. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a psychologist so I don't want to speculate as to my emotional ailments, but the fact is, I sometimes am kinda moody. Sorry.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, we're good. I don't mind saying that I'm bipolar, but I think that's true of a lot of us type A's. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are really just going to throw assuming good faith out like that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recognizing that an article is about a controversial subject doesn't mean one fails to WP:AGF. I didn't intend my comment to be taken that way, so thanks for giving me a chance to clarify. The Glenn Beck article has been the scene of numerous "battles" recently, and even off-wiki discussions in forums about how scrubbed the article appears to be.--Milowent (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vaguely funny, a little bit viral, and a big huge stinking pile of BLP-mines. Personally, I would love it if we could all just ignore him out of the political discourse, but a) every human deserves better than that, and b) if this becomes more significant (BD2412 has it about right above, though I would add had a lasting material impact on Beck's life as a route to prominence), it should be added to Glenn Beck and then spun out as required. At the moment, I would call this too recentist to merit a merge. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based only on sources. Also Rename to Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990, name of the website.--M4gnum0n (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later, THAT was going to happen. The article authors, the people in the discussion, even the press, everybody had avoided mentioning the title of the website because of its supposedly humorous suggestion of rape... until just now. It would have happened eventually anyway. I think it illustrates that it's impossible to maintain an article about the website WP:BLP problems. Sooner or later, someone's going to ask, "why are they being so evasive about mentioning the name of the website" and then post it. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means that sooner or later, someone just comes up and says the right thing. There is no BLP concern, it is just the name of the website. BLP is for defamation problems, not for already existing website titles. If there is such a website, and it is notable, no reason to censor it. People, let's not mistake BLP policies for a blanket to cover every potentially embarrassing or negative information. --Cyclopia - talk 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Not saying that the name should be mentioned on Wikipedia but just pointing out the obvious: of course, with spaces removed and "dot com" added, the name of the site is mentioned in these 2ndary sources Mandsord mentions -- eg @ the 2nd par of an article about it in the Boston Herald, several par.s down in an article about it in the Des Moines Register, and all the rest.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--to the closing admin, good luck counting all these up (yeah yeah it's not a vote) and reaching a decision--even a non-consensus decision. You have my sympathy. I propose we let one of the newbies do it. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The early !votes were made while the article was under a name referring to the website, and may have addressed a related question about notability under WP:WEB. Also note that many were made at a time when far fewer reliable sources existed than are now in the article. On the other hand, the later !votes come at a time when the controversy is older, so with some benefit of being able to know whether this is a lasting issue or just the day's news. That ought to be factored in. Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five days is not enough time to determine whether this will be a "lasting issue". My early vote stands as a vote to delete despite changes to the article, which do not address my core concerns. bd2412 T 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I raise my prior !vote to strong keep due to continued improvements in the article, and continued press coverage.--Milowent (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep are we trying to hide these allegations? This is political censorship and should not be tolerated! The world has a right to know whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990! In all seriousness, I'd lean to keep in the form of a lawsuit article. The site itself is notable, and the lawsuit is too... I know there's a BLP issue, but it can be avoided by mentioning everyone's assurances that it's a parody. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall&oldid=1146508084"