Deletion of Rex Armistead

Comment: An article that unlike this one had no sources and was intended to defame its subject would be subject to deletion under #G10 as an attack page. But that's not the same as a well-sourced and well-balanced article, as this one appears to be, that says primarily negative things about its subject. To take an extreme case, we don't delete our article on Ted Bundy for being too negative. So, while Vernon's nomination rationale could be valid in different circumstances, I'm not convinced that it applies in this case unless Vernon or other proponents of deletion can come up with substantial positive coverage which was inappropriately omitted from the article. And even if such material turns up, I agree with Esradekan that it would more likely be a cause to rewrite than to delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: No reason has been given for deletion. This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles I Think Need a Rewrite. |Be bold and rewrite it Mr. Vernon, |before you nominate it for deletion. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:BEFORE)