Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram

Note: Before assuming that this page was deleted in error, please also see the subsequent discussions on this article:


 * 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 Early keep - clearly this article isn't going to be deleted, so I've closed this early so it can have its moment on the front page as a DYK, which it was entitled to. It is also one of the better sourced articles on the encyclopedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Martin Ingram

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A smear article. It's sourced and makes attempts at neutrality, so I don't think this needs speedy deletion, but this is the kind of article I think that WP:BLP and Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism are specifically warning against. This person is a private investigator, formerly a cop that was fired after some infractions serious enough to make the news 26 years ago, but not serious enough to attract any serious attention, and certainly no attention from biographers. The person is not a public figure in the least. The article lays out every salacious detail of his life, and sources them to reliable sources that mention this person tangentially, or are local news stories from a very long time ago. Plus, even from the article I can't really figure out why we're supposed to care: so he was a dirty cop... so he's gotten into trouble... so he works for the Church of Scientology - so what? This seems to be a cult-watch page masquerading as a Wikipedia article. (I request that my fellow admins not speedy delete this article until the debate is over, though. I'd like to avoid a DRV.) Mango juice talk 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. -- The article is sourced to (10) reputable citations. This individual currently is being sought by the Tampa, Florida police, for falsely impersonating a police officer, and there is a warrant out for his arrest in Tampa for this charge, which is a felony.  He has been discussed in United States Federal court, U.S. v. Kattar 840 F.2d 118 (1988).  And he has been the subject of articles in multiple secondary sources.  Obviously a public figure.  Smee 20:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - well referenced which in my opinion shows the notability. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Chris well referenced which shows some kind of notability. I can see though why the nominator might think well who could care less? but there are far far more trivial articles on wikipedia that are not even referenced -p.s couldn't this have waited?. We now have an article for deletion on the main page of one of the world's biggest sites which is supposed to identify wikipedia latest greatest work -makes all involved look rather foolish ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 21:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very interesting point that you bring up, User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Due to this very AFD nomination, the article was removed from the Main Page. Care to elaborate on your concerns re: the timing of the AfD? Smee 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, I think that an article with this kind of problem should not be left alone just because it is linked from the main page. If anything, that makes it more urgent.  Mango juice talk 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not answer my question, which I posed to User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Smee 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Maybe not, but I was addressing it at Sir Blofeld, not you. I originally had indented my comment to make that clear, but it got changed.  Mango juice talk 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the best cited pages I've seen in awhile. All statements are cited by reputable sources, making this far from being a "smear page". BTW, Scientology is a cult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDoober (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. felonies, impersonating an officer, and so on. All sourced. The fact that the man has done bad things doesn't make the article biased. It's reported here neutrally. There's no way to make felonies sound distinctly positive, however. ThuranX 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, this would be forgotten and buried and would never have a place here if this article hadn't been written, as a way to criticize the Church of Scientology. Criminals can be notable, but in fact a great many private investigators are disgraced cops, and one being accused of "impersonating an officer" is not exactly unusual.  This guy is not notable as a criminal or a dirty cop; there is really very little coverage of that, and there is no need to write up every person ever publically accused of wrongdoing.  In the meantime, he is not a public figure, unless making it into the local crime beat pages 25 years ago counts, and this article is completely negative, and seems quite hurtful to me.  Mango juice talk 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability of this particular individual is due to his connection to an on-going, high profile controversy that ought to be well-covered. As for the article being POV, incomplete, or negative, that suggests fixing it, not deleting it. Zzombie 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject of this article is notable, it is well-sourced, and written NPOV. The originator of this AfD is seriously misreading something into the article.--Fahrenheit451 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appropriately sourced.  I see nothing even close to a WP:BLP violation here.  Ford MF 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, and censure nominator for disruption. This AfD nomination appears to be an attempt to escalate an existing conflict over this article. As such, it is a disruptive act. --FOo 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Fubar Obfusco, did you see User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld's comments, above, and would you like to comment on them? Smee 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I beg your pardon. What existing conflict?  Mango juice talk 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:16, 14 June 2007 (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.