Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Robert Pangborn
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 delete. Nufy8 01:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable usenet poster. Fails WP:BIO. Similiar article deleted, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Pangborn, but never had a full afd discussion. Thus, its shouldn't be speedied. If deleted, these pages should be protected from re-creation. Arbusto 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lessee... a rape threat, a few awards from net.kooks, and a fake diploma? Nothing there to suggest he is even close to Mentifex or Timecube levels. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy and speedy it quick Probably libelous. Clearly a hit piece. "There is much controversy over whether Pangborn's services are of any value", "Diploma mill", etc. Look at the name of the only reference. I'd indef block the poster too for a clear and intentional WP:BLP violation, since he's got essentially no constructive contributions. Derex 06:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Its clear this is at least the third time this has been deleted, but it should be fully reviewed with the afd so we can speedy it in the future. --Arbusto 06:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just leave a BLP violation up for people to chat about. The concern is a legal one. See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. That describes the _entire_ article. Jimbo says there "I can NOT emphasize this enough. .... It should be removed, aggressively" Derex 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I just removed everything obvious. Now the main problem is that the whole remaining article is unverifiable without a bunch original research. Derex 06:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just leave a BLP violation up for people to chat about. The concern is a legal one. See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. That describes the _entire_ article. Jimbo says there "I can NOT emphasize this enough. .... It should be removed, aggressively" Derex 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any claim to notablility here, personally I think this is half-way between db-bio and db-repost. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO, and I certainly wouldn't oppose a Speedy either. Article at time of AFD was a clear attack page, and once the attack stuff has been taken out there's very little left (and it's still unreferenced, to boot!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt the earth for both this article and Kenneth Pangborn, per all problems noted above. --Aaron 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt as above, clearly misses WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, not notable SkerHawx 19:22, 6 October 2006 (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.