Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (3rd nomination)

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Irwin[edit]

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

I began removing poorly-sourced contentious material about this BLP, such as material cited to a warning letter from the FDA, a document from the SEC and a press release from the DA. After removing BLP violations, there were no sources left, and all I found in a Google News search was ~~this blurb~~(my bad, this was an ad). Subject does not appear to have substantial coverage in independent sources. Prior AfDs appear to only barely have skid by on Keep and only because editors presumed it was well-sourced, when it actually only had primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:CorporateM has in the course of all his removals completely whitewashed an article on a man whose name appears on pretty much every blog tracking medical scams and quackery, these being his only claims to noteriety. I am not up on exactly which of these has gained our respect, if any, but it is a leadpipe cinch that the current state of the article cannot be retained, not because it is unsourced, but because it is a knowing misrepresentation. I would personally prefer to keep an article, but if we cannot come to an agreement as to which documentation of his misdeeds is acceptable, deletion would have to be preferred. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" and WP:BLPREMOVE says to remove such content, even if it means violating the three-revert rule. WP:BLPSPS says to avoid self-published sources like blogs. Additionally our notability criteria requires that there be multiple, reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in depth for the article to remain. I cannot assess whether the article is an accurate representation of the BLP's reputation or conduct - I can only evaluate the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CorporateM (Talk) 16:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you cannot, but I can and do make such an assessment, regardless of what I may write in Wikipedia. The lecture on policy notwithstanding, the current version is patently misleading to anyone who does a Google search on this guy. I did not register an opinion as to whether the article should be deleted because I am unsure whether his notoriety can be sourced to our standards; however, I would strenuously object to retaining it as it currently stands. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're in agreement then ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've voted the other way before on the article because the argument for deletion was weak. This is a better argument. I've research press on the guy and have found almost nothing; there is nothing that shows the person as notable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reviewed the contents of the AfDs plural. Reviewed the article itself. The only citation in the version I reviewed was being used to support a sentence with 2 claim elements - 1: that SU is unaccredited (which is in the citation) and 2: that the subject of this BLP helped found SU (but I cant find where the source mentions the subject of this BLP at all). I deleted the citation because it incompletely supported the text, particularly the element that might have been relevant to the BLP. As such, the citation was misleading. Which leaves the rest of the article as a rickety tickety donkey bridge, except there is no donkey and no bridge. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and other delete votes. Clearly not notable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2014 (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.