Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Freeman (2)


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 12:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bill Freeman

 * — (View AfD)

(See also first AFD) This page was brought to the attention of WP:BLPN so I took a look at it. It is filled with nothing but rumors and allegations against the subject of the article. "By the late 1990s, allegations resurfaced that Freeman's wife, Patsy, had caused numerous divorces in different cities and mentally abused many different church-members." What the heck does that mean? She caused numerous divorces? That doesn't even make sense. The ENTIRE article is an attack page - it isn't just one or two sentences. I looked back in history and this article is basically identical to the first version 1.5 years ago, so there is no good version to revert back to. The article was kept at AFD before, but the only question was notability. But we now have a new policy, WP:BLP which says that unsourced or poorly sourced information must be removed. I have no idea if the guy is notable or not, but this attack page ought to be deleted so that a decent article can be written, if desired.
 * Speedy delete as attack page. So tagged. MER-C 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you ... I just think it seems strange to speedy a page that has survived an AFD and been edited by three administrators I recognize. By all means, though, I am in favor of a speedy. BigDT 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure I agree that the "entire article" is an attack page -- seems to me about two sentences could be removed and two others trimmed, and you have a basic history of the group. The "Whitworthian" coverage is certainly WP:V to that extent. I'm less convinced of the WP:N side of things, because the controversy seems to all be local and minor (of the church kerfuffle variety). They don't cause controversy in the community, that is. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Whitworthian is a school newspaper ... if it's like our school newspaper was at Tech, I'm not sure I'd believe it if it said the sky was blue. The content of the article seems mostly to come from an opinion piece written by the editor of the school newspaper.  The other two references are anti-cult sources.  Googling, I couldn't find anything else out there except for other anti-cult publications ... so I'm not sure that there's anything out there to even attempt to write a neutral article.  At any rate, an article that is just a rehash of allegations is, in my book, an attack page, even if someone else has made the allegations too. BigDT 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an attack page, per Dhartung.  But the sourcing fails WP:V and the subject(s) fail WP:N   Buck  ets  ofg  00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Balance The two anti-cult sites are clearly relying on the Whitworthian coverage, and are effectively just reprinting portions of it. (The Apologetics Index is more honest about it; it uses quotations and cites its source.)  At this time, there is one book he edited with Amazon sales rank above 150K, and three he wrote with sales ranks between 500K and 1 Million.  Amazon shows that he wrote some books back in the 1970s, so somewhere in the past 30 years there probably have been multiple independent reviews of his work, causing him to pass WP:BIO.  But the article doesn't demonstrate it, or even say anything about his writing books.  So I'm comfortable with deletion as the article really only has one source, and that one is inadequate for writing a NPOV article.  GRBerry 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deletion for violating Wiki policies on biographies of living persons. This article is highly biased. When blatant POV statements are removed, the author promptly reinserts them, making a neutral article about Bill Freeman's life and work as a Christian speaker and writer impossible. Additionally, the article is factually incorrect. For example, it claims that the Freemans own SIX houses, which is not accurate. It is apparent that the author of this article has a personal vendetta against the Freemans. The "sources" are nothing more than published personal attacks which do not constitute a factual biographical article.  This article needs to be deleted entirely to prevent the propogation of misinformation.Wh4ever 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deletion for obvious attack article. The author uses and maintains incorrect facts to support a personal agenda. Ckmnstr


 * 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.