Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dengelegi

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. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dengelegi[edit]

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

A couple of years back, User:Psymba created a short bio article on a minor author, as part of a short series of articles on authors. I get the distinct impression s/he is associated with him. Problem is, someone else came along and posted referenced material about his criminal conviction. Since then, related IPs have tried to blank the offending text. Steve Dufour just PRODDED it with the rationale "He is not notable. No sources for minor career as author. No reason to think he is more notable than 1,000s of others in prison for drug offenses." I agree entirely, and think this is probably a good way to resolve what may be an embarrassing episode for Dengelegi personally as well as an article of dubious notability. However, I want to avoid a situation whereby the subject could repost the article in sanitized form, and felt that an AfD is a better way to go, so a recreated article could be speedied. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable dentist convicted of issuing painkiller prescriptions illegally, the article is an attack as it stands. He fails WP:BIO Off2riorob (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said, not notable as an author or a criminal, or even as a dentist. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a newspaper article on the subject in the Connecticut Post on January 25, 2007.--Rockfang (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, but if he's not a notable author then this would seem to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP continues to blank the critical content past 4th warning: s/he may be blocked. If any editors in this discussion do not see the text on the criminal conviction, and wish to do so, please check the revision history. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a pretty clear WP:ONEEVENT. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked twice for trying to blank the criminal stuff, the IP has now sought to bury it beneath a 1300 word description of the Casca book series. I'm leaving it. Makes no difference and it's just one more reason to pull the plug, I warrant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur, the subject isn't notable based enough to meet WP:AUTHOR, and the rest is BLP1E material. Ful disclosure, I blocked the IP once and declined to protect the page when request at WP:RFPP since it was at AfD. I'm tempted to speedy delete the page on A7 grounds and put the poor ip out of its misery, but given the maelstrom that is our current BLP policy it seems best to wait out the AfD. Strongly encourage privacy blanking upon closure. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the IP hopping blanker strikes again I won't intervene or revert, as it's become increasingly clear the article is being deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (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.