Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Kamal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G10. Jujutacular ^talk 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kamal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

{{{Subject is non-notable, most of the article is a very badly sourced "attack", in my opinion. Being a television meteorologist is not inherently notable; neither is an allegation of a single crime. The only intact referencing this article supplies is an anonymous posting on a television message board and a link to a U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons entry, which may or may not be the same guy. The name is different. If we're going to abide by BLP's "edit conservatively" advice; the undue weight given the allegations of criminality in this article should be a red flag in itself.}}} Deconstructhis (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. - Potentially libelous unsourced BLP. Two of the links are dead; no internal footnotes. Carrite (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an attack page. Even if it wasn't, he still isn't notable. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nommed for G10 WP:TROUT for no one else noming it as such Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trout slap"? Heck, at least when I found it I tagged it for deletion immediately; what's that say for the miscreants who edited it before me? It's been around for five years.[1]. Sometimes we're operating quite a zoo around this place aren't we. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.