Deletion of Billy Byars Jr.

Comment: I categorically support the stubbing of this article, obviously. I am open to arguments on how the subject is notable per sources acceptable to make an article adhering to .  But an article under the guise of a biography that is little more than slugfest of controversies just will not cut it. Currently, such an article seems to be the intent of the article's primary author. Elaragirl's suggestion that the history be deleted should definitely be followed if this article is kept. Folks, let me suggest that there hundreds, even many thousands of BLPs on WP that are as bad as this, basically hidden from everyday view. They are awaiting our proactive discovery and most diligent intervention
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: actually conjecture by an editor ''is'' prohibited even if clearly labeled.  Please see .  If the Rush Limbaugh article contains conjecture about his hearing loss, that should be removed as well.   is very clear in the prohibition of original synthesis of thougth.  Additionally Usenet postings are not  and even if clearly identified as such should not be used as a source or even included in an aricle.  Wikipedia is expressly not the place for republishing rumors, particularly those that come from Usenet threads.  Something else I've noticed that I'm not sure anyone has touched on is the "What ever happened to…?" section, which is completely inappropriate in the context of this article.  This is an article on Byers and off-topic explorations of what happened to individuals who are not Byers don't belong in an article about him. Beyond that, Natalies concerns are valid and are a good reason to see this article reduced to one line at this time per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: I freely admit I am not an administrator - I spend most of my Wiki-time on anti-vandalism patrol. That is, however, not relevant to this debate. My bottom-line point is that the article fails verifiability criteria per  and , and includes potentially defamatory claims. If the non-complying material is removed from the article in its present state (and it needs to be, sooner rather than later, unless it's |verified, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material this policy), the little remaining material is not enough for the article to pass  and the whole article should probably be deleted. I'm sorry if the author was offended - nothing personal. I recommend the author read 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:OR||WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:OWN)

Comment: Ballog, the concerns about the content remain even if the article is renamed... applies to all articles, not just "biographical" ones. For example, I couldn't put specious accusations against Bill Gates in the Microsoft article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)