Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward E. Kramer


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is nominated for deletion following the outcome of a deletion review. The content of the article is viewable in the article's history. This nomination is neutral. The reasons for deletion, chiefly WP:BLPDELETE, are set out in the deletion review and will no doubt be set out by participants in this AfD. Mkativerata (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to repeat a point I raised during the DRV, but this time I want to use stronger terms and clearer language. I'm neutral over whether it's appropriate to allow this material in the encyclopaedia but the child abuse allegations must stay out of the article unless and until he's convicted.  It's not appropriate that we have a trial by Wikipedia; if he's innocent then the allegations are extremely damaging and if he's guilty, I wouldn't want a child abuser to go free because he could prove that negative coverage prejudiced a jury.  My position is that if retained, the article should be fully protected, and if deleted, it should be salted.— S Marshall  T/C 11:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how, if we limit ourselves to simply mentioning the fact he has charges pending since 2000, there is a problem. In particular the jury in question would already be aware of the charges, so there is no information they wouldn't have had at the trial. If innocent I also don't see how there is a problem.  The charges are a large part of his life and anyone searching about him would find them quite rapidly.  There are sources such as  which paint him in a very favorable light. We could (and probably should) link to those for sake of balance. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason for deletion at this time. He's notable as a founder of one of the largest gaming/geek conventions, probably as an author and for his work on other conventions.  So BLP1E doesn't seem to apply even ignoring the issues of the (well-covered) charges against him. It's not clear what part of BLPDELETE would apply either.  I disagree with S Marshall in that I think the charges should be mentioned, but I'd certainly remove all the (admittedly sourced) editorializing in that section.  Just mention the charges and that they are pending since 2000 and be done with it.  We need to walk the line between whitewashing the article of all charges and making him look guilty without a trial.  A brief mention should manage that with our readers welcome to follow the links if they have questions.  Again, we would be doing a (potentially serious) disservice to our readers to not mention the issue.   Hobit (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (noting that I have met Kramer, and participated at Dragon*Con on multiple occasions). In terms of the article, there are plenty of sources affirming notability per WP:BIO.  Yes, some of the information is negative, but per WP:BLP, as long as any negative statements are extremely well-sourced, and the information is provided in a balanced, conservative, and neutral way, it can be included. --Elonka 19:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Page deletion is normally a last resort," and there's no indication that whatever problems might exist in the article can't be resolved by ordinary editing. The deletion of the article talk page has made it harder to determine what problems there might have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mkativerata has been kind enough to restore the talk page (behind a redirect). Hobit (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - but only if we do not allow ourselves to be used to whitewash his reputation. In his own region, the notability of this person for the charges is equal to or greater than that for his role in DragonCon, and that in turn is greater than his (limited) notability as a fringe writer/editor of SF. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (notoriously not a fan of DragonCon; neutral on Kramer)
 * Weak keep I think Kramer is notable: the latest version of the article claims and supports this sufficiently for me. However his notability is not such that it would be absurd to delete the article if there were sufficient reason. I have read the request for the article to be deleted and associated discussion. However, this, cited in the article, makes me wonder whether, at least in 2004, Kramer was willing for the allegations to be publicised so that he could also publicise the mistreatment he alleges. I do not know. The latest allegations section is well-written. It uses WP’s voice to say what little can be said in this way and does not go on with a “he said”, “she said” ramble but draws our attention to relevant external commentary. Even so, I think this section should be entirely removed. It is too prejudicial. It is not what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  If it remains the article may need full protection but the section cannot be left unchanged for there have been recent developments and the wheels of justice might turn another degree or two. Without the allegations is Kramer notable? Yes, but marginally so. A redirect to Dragon Con could be appropriate but his biographical details would not sit happily there and certainly not the allegations. Perhaps Kramer will become decidedly wiki-notable in ways he would not wish. In that case it would be more dignified to extend an existing article than to drag one up from the abyss. Thincat (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * keep Would Kramer have been notable without the allegations simply from his work with DragonCon and related things? Yes. Therefore's ot any different that say Kent Hovind or Ted Haggard except that the degree of the notability is less. But that is a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. So he's still notable. Note also that almost all the top Google hits for Kramer are about the allegations, so any sort of do-no-harm logic to BLP doesn't apply here. The allegations should therefore be mentioned in a careful neutral fashion, keeping Kramer's version of events clear and well presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.