Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Doyle (ex-FBI agent)

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 delete. Per our policies on BLPs the only effective choice here is to delete the article... However there is no prejudice against recreation as long as the article appropriately meets our standards. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Doyle (ex-FBI agent)[edit]

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

Copied from Judi Bari. A seperate page is not needed, for various reasons. TBr and ley 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judi Bari. AutomaticStrikeout 20:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judi Bari - The article is not about Frank Doyle per se, but Judi Bari instead, so a redirect to that article seems appropriate. -- AussieLegend (✉) 00:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article about Frank Doyle should talk about his career with the FBI, his current company (Frank Doyle and Assoc.) and/or appearances on Mythbusters and other activities. This article concentrates on just one case, and not even focusing on his involvement, but the impact on other people, such as Judi Bari. This is written in an accusatory fashion; only statements with a neutral point of view should be present. I disagree with redirecting Frank Doyle to Judi Bari as they are not strongly related; a search for Frank Doyle is not a search for information on Judi Bari. Either make the article about him using a layout common to celebrities, or remove it entirely, until someone does the research and does it correctly. Nutster (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changing my vote based on a re-read of the article. I agree with Nutster's assessment. There is virtually nothing in this article that would suit a BLP on Frank Doyle. Unless I missed something, there's not even a direct link between the MythBusters Frank Doyle and the Frank Doyle associated with Judi Bari, other than a single mention in the first sentence. This is an article best created from scratch. -- AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I agree this article as it stands is of low quality, but the notability standards for a BLP are met. This needs a rewrite, not a deletion. Some people need to learn the difference. --Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. This has huge BLP issues that should be immediately addressed by blanking large sections of the article. Much of it is unreferenced material about his alleged involvement in a killing. It hardly gets more dangerous than this with regard to BLP concerns. Having said this, a variety of news articles in reliable sources easily found in a google search establish this as notable under WP:GNG. If there are problems with the article, the solution is to fix the article, not delete it. Notability criteria are met. I'll try to fix some of these things myself. --Batard0 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A note that I've commented out the first part of the article under WP:BLPREMOVE. I didn't blank it because there actually is a list of references at the end of the article. They're not cited using inline citations to the material, however, which I think makes them problematic. I posted to the talk page about it, and invite any interested parties to fix the issue, which I imagine shouldn't be too difficult. I would do it, but don't have time for it right now. --Batard0 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I would do it, but don't have time for it right now" is the biggest problem with keeping this article. Most of us are too busy and don't have time, knowledge or the inclination to create a reasonable article, so keeping the article is just going to leave the mess for God only knows how long before somebody gets around to fixing it, if that ever happens. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles shouldn't be deleted if they're notable just because people don't have time to work on them under WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. --Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible." There are plenty of unsourced, negative statements in the article as it stands. The list of references don't make the comments in the article sourced. WP:NOEFFORT is about articles that have not been worked on in a long time. This is a new, poorly copied and pasted article that has almost no useful content and very little of the article is even about the subject. Better to delete it and start from scratch. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Fix it/rewrite: There is no evidence of an intent to write a biography of Frank Doyle. Rather, the article shows an intent to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to carry on ideological battles against Frank Doyle. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a Wikipedia:Coatrack: the article discusses the biography of Frank Doyle on the surface, but in reality is a cover for the tangentially related subject Bari v. Doyle. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote a one way negative view of Doyle by using Frank Doyle's name to hook readers into opening the biography of Frank Doyle and slam them with the tangentially related subject. Wikipedia is not a battleground to carry on ideological battles against Frank Doyle. There is no evidence of an intent to write a biography of Frank Doyle. Rather, this page appears to have been created to disparage the subject. Delete per WP:NOT and WP:BLP. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2012 (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.