Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Kjer
But only in accordance with , which would most efficiently mean removal of factoid and locking said page from future vandalism, which as the history indicates, is bound to occur again.  Under , "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources."  The subject is notable as indicated by others as they pass  and , but that is all they are notable for. If we adhere to  "include only material relevant to the person's notability" then the disparaging factoid is irrelevant to their notability.  I am confused how one could link said factoid, even if it did mention his resignation to the subject's reason for -low-profile- notability in the first place.  This page is about the subject's professional life, which is notable.  It is not about the subject's personal life.  If it were, then by the same logic we should write an entire biography about them including when he was born, the elementary school he went to, what he studied, important childhood life-changing events, his fear of spiders, why he chose what he studied in school, whom he married and when, his other interests and hobbies, his favorite ice cream, and an unlimited amount of other such details, but it doesn't because those arn't related to his notability. Just as about no other page discusses an individual's personal life, this one should stick to what he is notable for.  That's why  exists.  Additionally the secondary source is not credible.  It is a local newspaper which says the subject "allegedly" did such and such and therefore contradicts itself - participants in this debate are encouraged to read it for themselves
— User:NHreigh, 05:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NPF||WP:NPF||WP:PROF||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NPF||WP:NPF (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)