Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kal K. Korff


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 05:46Z 

Kal K. Korff

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hopelessly biased toward the subject of the article. I know AFD isn't clean-up, but unlike most articles with POV problems, there's nothing salvageable here. I am tempted to paraphrase Mary McCarthy and say "Every word in this article is non-neutral, including and and the". The only way to get a neutral article on Korff is to delete this one and have someone else start over from scratch. —Angr 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This just in: the majority of the article (all except the Criticism and Controversy section) is a copyvio from, so I'm removing it. But even the Criticism and Controversy section is unrepentantly pro-Korff in its bias. —Angr 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Angr, WHY don't you contact Kal Korff and check things out firsthand. You claim "bias" but cannot know the full story unless you check first.

I'm one of the individuals that was mentioned on this problematic Wiki article, in a defamatory fashion. Mr. Korff is creating his own reality via Wikipedia, and publicly attacking specific individuals who have questioned his credibility. In my case, my comments to Mr. Korff have all occurred in semi-private emails (the other folks being defamed were all CC'd), but he has chosen to attack me in the public arena, and on Wikipedia. His entry here on Wikipedia goes against ALL of the community standards, and is as close to a puff promo piece as one can get - witness that the majority of the entry here is directly copied from his "credibility" page on his personal site. I do not really care about what Korff posts on his own web site, but I will NOT stand by while he takes advantage of the public and open nature of Wikipedia. He claims he is working on a "TV show" that is going after "self-proclaimed UFO experts", which is interesting, given that I've never made any such claims about my background or profession. To go into the details of his negativity towards me, Paul Kimball and Royce Myers III is to lower myself to his level, which I will not do. Freedom of personal speech on personal sites does not give Mr. Korff the right to express his opinions on Wikipedia - he is obviously welcome to do that on his own personal page. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Wikipedia is a factual information reference? It's certainly not a blog or self-promotional vehicle. There are clearly posted editorial policies, few of which have been respected in the creation of this article. When Mr. Korff states that he invented a plutonium-based nuclear weapon as a teenager, is he not obliged to provide some sort of material proof or third-party substantiation of this claim? Or can anyone make any claim on Wikipedia, without any proof or backing data? The articles linked at the end of the article all make the situation painfully clear, it all makes for a funny - but sad - read.

Angr, thanks for your attention & diligence in dealing with this situation.

David Biedny


 * Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. PaddyM 02:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Daniel.Bryant  10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV, schmov... he's just not notable. No multiple reliable third-party coverage per WP:BIO. Sandstein 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:V, WP:VAIN, WP:ATK. This article is a good bit more devoted to cussing out a skeptic than actually talking about the ostensible subject, a sure guide to his relative non-notability.  Granted, the guy actually does exist (he even has one of his vanity press books on Amazon under 500,000th in sales rank), but.  RGTraynor 19:34, 20 February 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.