Talk:Harry Demopoulos

message: I am about to remove the "proposed deletion" template for this article, and would like to explain why first.  The article has been around for over seven years and been edited by dozens of people.  The material is well-referenced and the subject appears to be notable in several respects.  At the very least this deserves an AfD, but I expect that it would easily survive one. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was directed here from a note on my talk page. I don't have an opinion yet about notability, but I would want to see anything on this page that resulted from sockpuppetry by a now-blocked editor with a conflict of interest cleaned up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been edited about 10 per year, mainly by the sock-puppeteer User:Pproctor and one his pseudonyms.   I could remove the content contributed by Pproctor, but that would remove almost everything (most non-Proctor edits are bots and formatting).  So my proposal is to trim the article to its bare bones.  Advice welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I verified some of the statements about his medical contributions by checking Google Scholar, and the statements about his acting career are supported by IMDb (which is not considered a reliable source, but still ...).  So the article is apparently not 100% bullshit.   Even for sock-puppeteers, we don't ordinary remove contributions made before they started puppeting, unless there is prima facie evidence of falsity.  You should feel free to remove anything not supported by sources, but for material that gives references, you should not remove it without making an attempt to verify it first. Looie496 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. Yes I was going to say that a 7-year old turd is still a turd or something similar.  The more usual (perennial?) issue is WP:UNDUE.  But you have a point, even jerks can contribute usefully.  I will eventually pick away at the article, but selectively. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how much Looie knows about that socking account, but for me, this is one of the few times in my Wiki-career that I feel angry at someone's disruptions, and I rarely let anything really get to me. But this was truly despicable self-promotion. OK, so that's not a reason to delete reliably sourced material. But I think that an important aspect of UNDUE may be whether any of the content gives excessive emphasis to things that the socking account wanted to draw attention to, on the basis of his own semi-scientific agendas. I'm not claiming that's the case, but if it is, then it's entirely reasonable to prune that, even if it's verifiably sourced (per WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion). And if pruning that out results in almost nothing left, then page deletion remains on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing prod 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Harry Demopoulos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060308064249/http://howarth-smith.com:80/News/news-62.htm to http://www.howarth-smith.com/News/news-62.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified