Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Karpen

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. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Karpen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLPCRIME. Without the allegations of illegality, this article would be empty. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Per WP:BLPCRIME. Can be recreated if charges are laid resulting in comviction or noteworthy trial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point, these are only unsubstantiated allegations with little coverage in reliable sources. If there turns out to be a notable crime, it's possible that the article could be recreated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs something to be proven before the article is re-created.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is waiting for a third party arbiter on the dispute resolution board as Roscelese has made removed several of the sources and reverted to her unilateral edits repeatedly without seeking consensus. Therefore it's impossible to make an unbiased decision about the article based on the current version. The sources she removed include The Dallas Morning News, The Washington Times, The National Review, and The New American. Frankly, I'm surprised that she is voting to delete an article that she knows is awaiting a third party review on the dispute resolution board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#douglas_karpen

Lordvolton (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- You are vastly overinflating the importance of a discussion that you began because you wouldn't accept our RS policy and that is unlikely to be taken seriously by DRN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Roscelese, If you would have followed the Wikipedia guidelines regarding dispute resolution there wouldn't be an issue. I've posted those guidelines on your talk page. Rather than seeking a common ground you made unilateral edits without seeking consensus. And then you repeatedly reverted edits that attempted to address your concerns regarding sources (see edit history of the Douglas Karpen page). I see that you're also lobbying for the deletion of the Rachel's Vineyard page that deals with a similar topic (abortion). As I've previously stated, Wikipedia is a not a platform to promote your personal ideology.Lordvolton (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. Take away the not yet proven allegations and hype from unreliable sources like lifenews.com and Operation Rescue, and there is nothing left. A search for substantial coverage only brings up mentions of a 1991 shooting. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true. I've provided multiple reputable sources that were reverted by Roscelese. Please review my edits in the history of the article.Lordvolton (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the reverted content before I posted. Roscelese reverted opinion pieces, activist sources, and sources that only repeat that Karpen is under investigation. This is not just a BIO1E, this is a biography of one investigation. Again, there is no substantial coverage to support a viable biography. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. This will be a POV magnet and a BLP nightmare. Wait until sufficient notability can be demonstrated beyond BLP1E. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME, I looked at the sources Lordvolton added, including the National Review (probably the most reputable of the ones added) and they were essentially primary sources, interviews with clinic staffers who worked with Karpen in the context of discussing the criminal allegations. Karpen is still only known for being accused and not yet convicted of any crime, so those sources do not solve the WP:BLPCRIME problem. Zad68 00:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and per User:Gamaliel - Alison ^❤ 08:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.