Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy
putting all other issues aside I am not at all convinced that Wikipedia is able to cover this topic from a |neutral perspective with the amount of source material that is available. Even the title of the article suggests this, most of the sources barely mention the Wikipedia user name and none use it in their titles. Beyond that the citation of example diffs and contribution logs is not at all ideal and the (presently) short term and small scale of the incident to me means that this looks more like a #NEWS|news story than an |encyclopaedia article. Some of the information given in the sources we know to be false, above someone says that this doesn't matter, just the sources saying it makes it |verifiable. To me this is a worrying interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, all sources are situational to a degree and "verifiability not truth" - in my view - means something must be verified to be "true" by an appropriate |reliable source. Users compare this to the Essjay scandal but that has sources including the BBC, The Telegraph and many others, this has a few tabloid and local publications - some information from which has been shown to be false - and for an article primarily about a |living person (in whatever context and however the title is phrased) I do not think that is acceptable, especially when the information is largely negative
— User:Guest9999, 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:NOT||WP:5P||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)