Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Hovind


 * 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. Snow Keep. After reviewing with the OTRS team, no valid reason for deletion was presented. Nakon 04:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Request from subject of the article to delete - OTRS Ticket #2015040110028951 " Due to the high volume of inaccuracies, falsehoods, and libel that appear on his page directly impacting he (sic) reputation and court case in a negative manner"  Flat Out   let's discuss it  22:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Super extra speedy Keep Article is referenced. This is patently ridiculous.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Flat Out, did you look at the article? --Neil N  talk to me 22:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, the subject has the right to nominate or request nomination on their behalf and has done so.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  23:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article doesn't appear to fall under anything in WP:DEL-REASON. The article is also heavily referenced.LethalFlower (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is accurate, subject is notable. Complaint should be rejected as bogus. 85.210.161.130 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Since Kent Hovind has proposed that the article be replaced by a recent version with his edits, it follows that he feels the article has content worth retaining, and its deletion would create a potential for copyright violations.BiologicalMe (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Edit Article Using Kents Revisions The article is full of libel and defamator remarks. Kent Hovind has already brought a court case against rationalwiki for the same type of disinformation. Please use his recomendations in the following video.DonnaCAGLE1972 (talk) 24:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * — DonnaCAGLE1972 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BMK (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So because a guy who sues people a lot doesn't like his article we should remove it? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - All the crap that he and or other editors disagree with can and should be removed, We shouldn't remove well sourced articles just because he doesn't want one, No valid reason to delete IMHO. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete until all libel corrections are made - A case has been made against rational wiki for libelous content. This article is no different. Delete article until all corrections are made according to the videos above. BAvarado (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BAvarado (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy Keep notability clearly established, well sourced, meets BLP with sources providing references for content. Nothing meeting Reasons for deletion. This should be a snow keep. Editors making claims of libel or defamation should be clearly notified of No legal threats. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Kent Hovind made a video on youtube entitled, "Pastor Kent Hovind responds to email from Wikipedia". Unless edits are made according to Kent Hovinds demand that it is said that wikipedia will be included in a lawsuit he has against rationalwiki. CBombWorthy41 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * CBombWorthy41 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy Delete until all corrections have been made. - A man's reputation should not be subject to a popularity contest by his enemies. Wiki will be held accountable for false and libel comments. LoneStar1776 (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * LoneStar1776 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep perhaps the subject could provide a list of the "inaccuracies, falsehoods, and libel", so they could be addressed? There doesn't appear to be anything in the article which isn't reliably sourced. He is clearly notable, with plenty of coverage. And legal threats aren't going to help. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   State of the Union   ‖ 01:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment And the SPA's have arrived. Who could have predicted that? --Neil N  talk to me 01:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit or Delete Hello Wikipedia, Kent Hovind has made a video of all the 46-edits that should be made. I tried to copy and past the video here but it is being blocked for some reason. You can view edits by looking on youtube under - Pastor Kent Hovind responds to email from Wikipedia -. margeforsythe (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * margeforsythe (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I watched the video. Perhaps I'm missing it, but I did not see or hear any specific editing suggestions in it. --B (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO notability as supported by WP:RS citations. Keep WP:NPOV based on the sources. Reject on its face demands of the subject for content removal or change unless in keeping with RS/NPOV/etc. Subjects do not get to convert our neutral encyclopedia into a spin-doctored version that fits their opinion of themselves. All objections to content can be discussed specifically on the article talkpage (AFD is not for cleanup). And many of them have. Dozens of times. And the article is the result of their policy/guideline-based analysis. Block on sight any editor making WP:NLT demands. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete until all edits are made despite anti-christian SPA's If Wiki wants to maintain its integrity as an online encyclopedia it must remain truthful and correct. According to the slanderous and wrong information on Kent Hovind's page it is a disgrace to the "truth" wiki promotes. Please do what is right and edit this article or delete it all together. If you are to write a truthful account you would take Kent Hovind's edits in to consideration. I have been told the youtube URL is blocked on this page. Please make CORRECTIONS according to Kent Hovind's wishes BY SEARCHING: Pastor Kent Hovind responds to email from Wikipedia. I am seeing some very hateful and anti-Christian SPA's to the liking of Peter Reilly, Deanna Holmes, EX IRS Agent Robert Baty and the bunch. These type of people have an incredible Bias and are ruining Wikipedia which in this case is slanderous remarks towards Kent Hovind. Do the right think Wiki, please. WikiUser2k15 (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WikiUser2k15 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Do you even know what an SPA is? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. There's no chance that this will ever get deleted.  He's too notable.  If there are neutrality or reliability issues, they can be resolved through normal editing.  WP:NPOVN would be a better forum for these issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously, the subject of the article is notable. The article is extensively referenced. Famspear (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously notable. Any potential neutrality issues go to another place, not here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, sinply no doubt about notability. Also, block all the SPAs for meatpuppetry. BMK (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy and Snow Keep Per WP:SK reason 3. I suggest the correct solution for this is Kent can discuss any changes he likes at Talk:Kent Hovind. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per WP:SK.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   04:00, 3 April 2015 (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.