Talk:Phil Kerpen

Notability Policy
How does this person satisfy the notability policy? Most of these sources are not "independent of the subject." Seems like this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.160.61 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
Comments on some of the stuff I'm reverting:
 * These have been criticized for taking conservative positions more often than not.

This needs a citation for who is making the criticism - "have been criticized" is just weasel wording. Anyway, I'd argue that it's far more neutral to just say his writing is conservative.
 * He was banned from the NDT for collecting evidence cites while a round was still in progress causing a debater to exhaust their preparation time searching for the stolen cards.

Need a source or citation for this - as it is, it's a vague story of the kind that is especially suspect in an article that's had as much crap dumped in it in it as this one has. It also is totally incomprehensible for someone who isn't familiar with debate tournament jargon and rules.
 * Here's Kerpen's explanation: http://ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0324.html
 * And Dallas Perkins': http://ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0336.html
 * To say that he was actually banned from the tournament would be incorrect, even though he probably would have been if Hester had not preemptively withdrawn him.--deathdrive 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the stuff I've removed doesn't need comment. CDC (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sourcewatch link
The Sourcewatch article is in fact the same text as revision 27054987 of this article, with one sentence added, and two links added. The reason that the Sourcewatch article predates the Wikipedia article is because it was used as the basis for creating the Wikipedia article. If you think these additions really improve the context offered by linking to a mirror of a previous revision of the article, might I suggest simply adding them to the Wikipedia article? Sourcewatch is GFDL licensed and therefore all of its contents are compatible with Wikipedia's license. It seems deceptive to me to link to what amounts to a draft of the current Wikipedia article. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on Kerpen
Is there a source for the claim that Phil Kerpen has been attacked by leftist member of the debate community or has been called a nazi? The complaint about how "odious" these attacks are also doesn't seem very NPOV. The whole paragraph doesn't seem worthy of being in an article in an encyclopedia.