This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Byrgenwulf (talk | contribs) at 07:50, 18 July 2006 (Why should Langdon's personal conduct matter, anyway?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:50, 18 July 2006 by Byrgenwulf (talk | contribs) (Why should Langdon's personal conduct matter, anyway?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Refactored comment later removed from AfD discussion. -- NORTH 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted libelluous statement as per Wiki talk page policy
- I tried to remove the above libel, but it was reverted with the claim that it is sourced. It isn't, as an inspection of the "source" shows. --Michael C. Price 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Libelous or not, we can't pretend it never happened. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with HowlinWolf's statement; I'm just maintaining the discussion. -- NORTH 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Michael. I'm not sure wholesale deletion was necessary; I think a comment that in your view he was wrong would have sufficed. For those wondering, the removed content was a claim by a new user that "Langdon is a known fraud", with a link to this site: . I agree that the claim isn't supported by the link, although it does appear that Langdon was in violation of the law. Why this would matter for deciding whether to keep the Mega Society article, I can't fathom. William Pietri 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wiki guidelines says libellous material must be struck out, even from the historical record. And the statement "Langdon was in violation of the law" looks factually dubious since it seems we are talking about whether a change in the law requred Langdon to be licenced or not in the future. All-in-all libellous and misleading. Better to delete the whole thing and pretend the mud-slinging never happened. --Michael C. Price 07:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- To add my opinion here, while I still think the article should be deleted, I don't think Langdon's alleged personal conduct really has anything to do with this discussion. There's no reason why it should be taken into account, when we are trying to decide whether the article about the Mega Society merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I don't think the article even mentions Langdon, anyway...and even if someone is a convicted career fraudster, an article about their operations might still be merited. Byrgenwulf 07:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)