Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Case


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ken Case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another Shreveport-related biography involving. A guy with perhaps some local notability but of no great or lasting significance. It's basically a tribute article. Sitush (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reads like an obit. Sourced from an obit. Wasn't able to find anything terribly substantive beyond the cited sources.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no indication that this person was ever anywhere near being notable by our standards – the sources in the article are a report in a local newspaper of an ordinary, though fatal, traffic accident; and a reprint in the same local paper of an obituary from the website of the funeral home.


 * Note: I've removed all the body text as it was copied more or less verbatim from the sources. This is editor Billy Hathorn, banned for repeated copyright violations and associated sockpuppetry – the huge CCI is here. When Hathorn was banned, there was a suggestion that any of his articles with no substantive contribution from other editors should be presumptively deleted. That went nowhere at the time, but I would support it if it were revived. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * that could be complicated because I am sure he has edited numerous articles while logged out also. In fact, I've just mentioned one at User talk:Iridescent. The anon edits muddy the waters. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed,, nothing about this is simple, partly because of the sheer scale of the problem; while you were clearly right to bring this one to AfD, that doesn't seem to be a viable way of dealing with 6000 or more potentially tainted articles. Moonriddengirl suggested employing the same approach as was used for the Darius Dhlomo (not sure I spelt that right) investigation, which was, I think, to blank the articles with a special template and then delete those that hadn't had any attention after a certain time. A lot of IPs are listed on subpages 12 and 13 of the CCI, but there are surely many more. As a start, a bot could be asked to list any IP that has more than, say, three edits to pages edited by Hathorn. Someone clever with edit filters might have ideas for catching new IP socks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no significant coverage outside the local media.-- Georgia Army Vet  Contribs  Talk  14:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I don't find enough on newspapers.com, genealogybank (a newspaper site like newspapers.com), etc. I see a few mentions in program notes to confirm his radio and television work. I also find a couple passing mentions as a host of other events (radio and television hosts frequently are invited to host other events, after all), and mention of his country club. To me, it isn't enough to write a neutral, verifiable, NOR article. I am generally in favor of allowing obituaries as sources, and this is clearly a public figure, suggesting the obituary is not merely vanity (regardless of the obituaries author). However, if an obituary is a/the main source, I feel it would be important to see more detail to really feel that a NPOV, NOR article can be written. I also think flexibility should be given for especially interesting cases (as suggested by WP:ANYBIO), but I don't see it here. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:20, 14 August 2017 (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.