| Revision as of 01:12, 3 April 2015 editDbrodbeck (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,171 edits →Kent Hovind← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:13, 3 April 2015 edit undoDbrodbeck (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,171 edits →Kent HovindNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''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.] (]) 23:58, 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 24:00, 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.] (]) 24:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :So because a guy who sues people a lot doesn't like his article we should remove it? ] (]) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC) | ::So because a guy who sues people a lot doesn't like his article we should remove it? ] (]) 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. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 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. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:13, 3 April 2015
Kent Hovind
- Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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? --NeilN 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)
- 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. –Davey2010 01:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)