Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Kent Leppink

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 keep. Michig (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kent Leppink[edit]

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

This article is nominated for deletion for the following reasons: content-fork; one event; person of topic, no notability; other persons included, insufficient notability; single event; biographical of living person; potential libel; off-topic; cited sources insufficient/plot-only; scandal; unverifiable assertions; soapbox; lacks neutrality

This article contains nonfactual and unsubstantiated information about a living person, and states contested assertions as fact, which is libel. The subject was not notable in any way, he was merely killed as are countless people around the globe every day. None of the other individuals discussed in the article are notable, but were reported on temporarily for one event that has passed. The article is off-topic as it is not about the actual death of Kent Leppink. Sources cited as evidence of some claims about a still living individual are unreliable, merely containing accusations without substantiation evidence. News articles are not sufficient when they do not contain substantiation or reliable sources for claims they repeat. The article lacks neutrality, and although the topic is Kent Leppink's death, the article and all of its sources are about someone else, a still living person, so the title is misleading and it appears to be a personal agenda/soapbox article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyhooya! (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination was made by a WP:SPA. It was completely screwed up, and I tried my best to fix it. However, the article (then differently named) was nominated before in 2008 with a result of "no consensus". Historyhooya tosses around a lot of accusations, including inappropriate ones of libel. They also apparently don't want to believe otherwise reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nomination. This looks like a case that received some high-profile coverage. What exactly is the complaint? Everyking (talk) 16:06, 10 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.