Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard altman

Howard altman
Howard altman was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Article has been speedy deleted

Not quite sure if howard altman deserves an article or not, but either way this is no help in what that article should look like. --fvw *  13:27, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
 * Just speedy delete garbage like this, instead of putting it here for a week. - DavidWBrooks 13:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just delete. Fredrik | talk 13:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's garbage, but it's not a Candidate for Speedy Deletion. --fvw *  14:05, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
 * Agree it's not a speedy candidate...but delete as being a POV rant from an apparent Sollog supporter -- Ferkelparade &pi; 15:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Being the writer of a few newspaper columns criticizing Sollog does not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. Current article is hopelessly POV and is not a starting point for an acceptable article. Not a valid speedy candidate, though. Not a newbie test, not vandalism, not a substub, not incomprehensible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Follow the links to this anti-Semitic filth. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy, please, vandalism by John Ennis aka Sollog. Wyss 19:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can verify that he actually claims to be a Mossad spy, I'd say this is a speedy, as libel. -R. fiend 21:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability.  Can probably be safely speedied, as Googling on "Howard Altman" and "Mossad" produces absolutely no support for the allegation that Altman has ever claimed to be a Mossad spy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll tag it speedy as libel and see what happens. -R. fiend 22:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's libellous about it. It's incorrect (he was fired as editor of City Paper six months ago), certainly; but what's libellous about saying someone claims to be a Mossad spy? I'm more inclined to stub out the article; the man is at least slightly newsworthy, especially since he was prevented from covering a John Ashcroft press conference last year ("Sorry, no print media allowed.") --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Isn't libel anything printed that is both untrue and potentially damaging? An encyclopedia saying someone is a spy for a foreign country, when it isn't true, seems to fit the bill to me. This guy is an American citizen, isn't he? If this guy is notable and someone wants to write an actual article about him, then someone should go ahead, but they might as well delete this first and start from scratch, and leave out unfounded accusations. -R. fiend 23:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point. Me, I'd just delete anything contributed by the Sollog trolls on sight. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Quick summary of the difference: to say someone is a spy when there is no reason to believe so, is probably libellous. To say a lot of people have claimed someone to be a spy when they have is reporting, and probably not. To say a specific person has claimed that they themselves are a spy is libellous unless they have; the difference here is between "some claim" and "named person claims". (Although it's all a lot more complex than that, but you get the gist) Shimgray 23:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In this case, it appears the peson has not said so, making this libel. Still waiting for someone to act on that speedy. -R. fiend 00:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, could be speedy as vandalism (deliberate bad faith attempt to insert inaccurate information). Shane King 23:39, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment I added an {accuracy} tag which might help if someone decided to sue wikipedia for libel. Assuming it's libel it should still be speedied ASAP. Kappa 00:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedily Deleted as "libel, continuing Sollog vandalism." SWAdair | Talk  04:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.