Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Arthur Vanmoor

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Arthur Vanmoor


Borderline WP:CSD G10 as a negative unsourced WP:BLP, as the article has some arguably positive language about the subject, I am nominating it here instead of tagging for Speedy Deletion. This stale WP:AFC submission should be deleted as a violation of WP:BLP policy. Monty 845  22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be a BLP problem. Not obviously.  I see an AFC failure to welcome a new and interested editor, and for that reason, for future meta-project-research purposes, I would prefer to see the records blanked only.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with retaining as records non-BLP-violating Article Incubator pages, which this one is not. Blanking such unacceptable BLP violations is insufficient. I applaud Monty485's efforts at removing BLP-violating material from the Article Incubator. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP as an obvious BLP violation. The article makes highly negative claims about Arthur Vanmoor and is unsourced. The negative claims in this incubator can be read about in this article from the New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Although Arthur Vanmoor receives coverage in reliable sources, my reading of Notability (people) is that this individual should not have an article. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Biographies of living persons: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Cunard (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the claims are obviously negative. I can easily imagine that the subject is quite at ease with such laurels.  However, it probably is a good thing to delete even possible BLP problems in failed AFC submissions.  Perhaps all BLP details in failed AFC submissions should be blanked by default?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.