516:) about his indictment, and seeing that he was a former state legislator, I knew that he was notable and wrote an article that used everything that I had before me. I'm an Ohio native who has never really "lived" in Pennsylvania, and I'm not a political science student — I had never heard of the guy before reading the article, and don't exactly know where to find more. There's no reason to delete the article on the aforementioned grounds — I would write a similar article on any other former state legislator if I found such information. I'd appreciate it if motives were not assigned to me incorrectly.
490:'s motives). Knowledge (XXG) is a collaborative project - we weed out problems over time, and improve the articles that are here. If this article does not violate our core policies, but you perceive defects in it, then keep it and allow this process to take place. Add additional appropriate information, or remove inappropriate/unsourced information, but don't delete an article because you disagree with the original author's perceived intent. (For clarity's sake, this comment was added after Nyttend's below.)
300:
subject notable (status as an elected official/political appointee). When you have this close nexus between the source of notability and the source of the negative information, it seems to me that it is fair to make mention of the negative information. As I write this, the article has 2 sentences about the indictment. In light of the fact that the information has been widely reported elsewhere, this does not strike me as giving the matter undue weight.
277:. The article is neutral, factual, and fully sourced. The individual is doubtless notable due to his service in the Pennsyvlannia legislature, including leadership positions, and for the political scandal that has received considerable attention in the local and national press. "Weight" issues are not a reason to delete an article. If weight is a problem then the nominator is free to add more info to improve the balance.
464:
reason this article is here, and there is apparently no interest in expanding this article to provide balance, then it should be deleted. There is NO context around his political career, NO context around the charges, and this article has absolutely NO value as a "biography" other than as a platform
359:
Granted, this article needs to be expanded (something I have been trying to do), but deleting it is unreasonable. An elected official indicted for corruption is inherently notable. It is also verifiable; it is a fact (and there are multiple sourced) that show he was indicted. As far as undue burden
299:
concerns mentioned, and unlike some editors, I would be willing to consider deletion on undue weight grounds in an extreme case. This, however, is not one. To me, the weight issue not as troubling because the allegations (misuse of one's public position) are related to the very thing that makes the
321:, which states that elected state-level officials are inherently notable. I'd support the addition of some information about his record of legislative accomplishments (if any) to provide appropriate weight, but deletion isn't going to help anything.
213:
Comparing this no-name guy to
Richard Nixon is faulty. It's not appropriate to have a BLP of a little known individual be comprised of 50% indictment. If you want an article about that event, then create it, but it should not dominate this man's bio.
511:
As the author, I would like to note: I don't generally work with biographical articles, although sometimes I'll do it when a source appears in front of me. That was the reason for creating this article: I read the article in the local paper (the
552:, specifically "Do no harm", for reasons I will place on the talk page shortly. Meanwhile, please do not restore any material related to the charges until we reach agreement here or get a professional opinion from a BLP reviewer.
465:
for putting the "news" out there. Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid newspaper. I have learned NOTHING about this living person other than he is a democrat and that he is up on charges. This is a clear deletion candidate.
459:
of reporting the charges. This is clearly not any kind of BLP. The editor who created this article did not include any information on this individual's public record other than the charges, and since that is the
385:. Undue weight is an issue for editing and talk pages, not a rationale for deletion. When the negative information amounts to two complete sentences, "undue weight" is hard to swallow anyway. --
233:
Yes, being "off balance" certainly IS a reason for deletion of a BLP, if there is otherwise no interest in reporting any aspect of this person's life other than the charges. This is a
429:
113:
403:
260:- As has been stated, concern of bias is not a deletion reason. The article might need improvement, but he clearly meets notability as a state representative.
120:
Nominating for deletion -- article is too off balance for a bio, and suffers from undue weight b/c of the indictment section which takes 50% of the article. --
186:. Being "off balance" is not a valid reason for deletion, and I don't see any POV issue here in any case. He was a state official, which easily satisfies
548:. I nonetheless think this article stumbles into a very dangerous area and I am temporarily removing all references to the charges according to
338:
tag, and expand. There is plenty of material that can be used to expand the article. As it stands it is unbalanced and in violation of
86:
81:
17:
278:
90:
73:
486:
In reference to the above, it truly does not matter what was the original author's intent (and I don't mean to question
605:
36:
584:
326:
138:
The subject is a former State
Representative in Pennsylvania who has been indicted in a corruption investigation.
604:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
588:
574:
561:
525:
499:
474:
444:
418:
393:
369:
351:
330:
309:
287:
269:
246:
223:
207:
174:
156:
129:
55:
580:
322:
203:
284:
145:
365:
540:. This editor appears to have an inpeccable history here on Knowledge (XXG) and I clearly failed to
265:
77:
390:
360:
is concerned, add more information about his bio or his term in office before he was indicted. --
339:
521:
439:
413:
199:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
571:
557:
495:
470:
305:
281:
242:
219:
170:
152:
142:
125:
52:
549:
541:
382:
378:
318:
296:
234:
187:
455:. The history of this article shows clearly and unambiguously that it was created for the
361:
347:
261:
69:
61:
386:
191:
139:
537:
517:
487:
436:
410:
147:. Information in the article is factual and drawn from sources, no apparent POV.
107:
568:
553:
491:
466:
301:
238:
215:
166:
148:
121:
49:
343:
165:
You don't see POV in a BLP where an indictment takes up 50% of the article?--
195:
567:
This is a matter for the article talk page, not the AFD discussion.
598:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
48:- content issues should be worked out on the talk page.
103:
99:
95:
544:
on his part in characterizing the editor rather than
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
430:list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions
608:). No further edits should be made to this page.
404:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
381:, negative information is sourced meeting
428:: This debate has been included in the
402:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
144:. He is also named in a civil suit
532:Need a professional opinion on this
24:
579:I've initiated discussion there.
190:. What next? Should we delete
1:
589:17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
575:17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
562:17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
526:06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
500:14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
475:04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
445:01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
419:01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
394:22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
370:22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
352:21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
331:21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
310:21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
288:20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
270:20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
247:04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
224:19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
208:19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
175:18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
157:17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
130:16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
56:18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
625:
536:My sincerest apologies to
377:, meets basic criteria of
601:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
546:the effect of the edit
295:I am sensitive to the
554:riverguy42 aka WNDL42
467:riverguy42 aka WNDL42
239:riverguy42 aka WNDL42
237:-- read up, please.
194:because of all that
514:Beaver County Times
581:Sarcasticidealist
542:assume good faith
447:
433:
421:
407:
350:
323:Sarcasticidealist
616:
603:
442:
434:
424:
416:
408:
398:
346:
111:
93:
34:
624:
623:
619:
618:
617:
615:
614:
613:
612:
606:deletion review
599:
534:
440:
414:
84:
68:
65:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
622:
620:
611:
610:
594:
593:
592:
591:
533:
530:
529:
528:
505:
504:
503:
502:
478:
477:
457:single purpose
449:
448:
422:
396:
372:
354:
333:
312:
290:
272:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
211:
210:
180:
179:
178:
177:
160:
159:
118:
117:
70:Frank LaGrotta
64:
62:Frank LaGrotta
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
621:
609:
607:
602:
596:
595:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
573:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
510:
507:
506:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
463:
458:
454:
451:
450:
446:
443:
438:
431:
427:
423:
420:
417:
412:
405:
401:
397:
395:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:
371:
367:
363:
358:
355:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
311:
307:
303:
298:
294:
291:
289:
286:
283:
280:
276:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
255:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
192:Richard Nixon
189:
185:
182:
181:
176:
172:
168:
164:
163:
162:
161:
158:
154:
150:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
127:
123:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
600:
597:
545:
535:
513:
508:
488:User:Nyttend
483:
461:
456:
452:
425:
399:
374:
356:
335:
314:
292:
274:
257:
212:
200:Clarityfiend
183:
135:
119:
45:
43:
31:
28:
357:Strong Keep
315:Strong keep
282:Will Beback
258:Strong Keep
184:Strong keep
362:RedShiftPA
198:business?
344:≈ jossi ≈
262:matt91486
196:Watergate
387:Dhartung
340:WP:UNDUE
114:View log
538:Nyttend
518:Nyttend
484:Comment
437:the wub
411:the wub
87:protect
82:history
572:(talk)
569:Friday
550:WP:BLP
492:Xymmax
453:Delete
383:WP:BLP
379:WP:BIO
348:(talk)
319:WP:BIO
302:Xymmax
297:WP:BLP
235:WP:BLP
216:Jkp212
188:WP:BIO
167:Jkp212
149:Montco
122:Jkp212
91:delete
53:(talk)
50:Friday
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
585:talk
558:talk
522:talk
509:Keep
496:talk
471:talk
462:only
441:"?!"
426:Note
415:"?!"
400:Note
391:Talk
375:Keep
366:talk
336:Keep
327:talk
317:per
306:talk
293:Keep
279:·:·
275:Keep
266:talk
243:talk
220:talk
204:talk
171:talk
153:talk
136:keep
126:talk
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
46:keep
435:--
432:.
409:--
406:.
285:·:·
112:– (
587:)
560:)
524:)
498:)
473:)
389:|
368:)
342:.
329:)
308:)
268:)
245:)
222:)
214:--
206:)
173:)
155:)
141:,
128:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
583:(
556:(
520:(
494:(
469:(
364:(
325:(
304:(
264:(
241:(
218:(
202:(
169:(
151:(
124:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.