Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex Armistead

:{{la|Rex Armistead}} ([{{fullurl:Rex Armistead|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex Armistead}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is very non-neutral and thus non-encyclopedic in tone. It would require a fairly significant rewrite to be neutral IMHO, if it could even be done. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

:: I started this article, and I think that Mr. Vernon is missing the point - Rex Armistead has been involved in well-documented and notable dirty tricks for a very long time - gubernatorial elections, the attempts by the Mississippi governors to maintain segregation, and the attempts to smear Clinton with the death of Vince Foster and with Cocaine smuggling. He's clearly notable. In addition, WP:neutrality does not mean "be nice". Every allegation there has been substantiated by reliable sources, and balanced where there is dispute. Let's not forget that the statement that Armistead has an "odoriferous background in Mississippi, ranging all the way from head-bashing of black civil rights workers to concocting a bizarre homosexual scandal in an attempt to defeat a gubernatorial candidate." was ruled by an 8-0 judges decision to be "substantially true" and not libellous. He does appear to be a nasty piece of work. If that's the case, then wikipedia shouldn't cover it up. If there is other material stating what he has done that is more positive, I honestly didn't find it.

:: If we consider what WP:neutrality has to say on bias:

::* cited selectively - I don't believe I have done this. There isn't much nice said about him in any WP:RS.

::* painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate. No. I have reported what others said (check the sources).

::* made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present. No - indeed I didn't include some material because I didn't feel it could be triangulated with other sources. There is material there on his interactions with the Ku Klux Klan which is fuzzy, so I didn't touch it, as it's not clear to what extent he took action against or tolerated their activities, at least not in the sources I could get hold of.

::* subject to other factors suggestive of bias - that's for someone else to show, of course. I admit the more I looked into his life, the more shocked I was, but I believe I have put down what makes him notable.

:: So in all, I do not agree with this AfD nomination.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural Keep. 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.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. An article that unlike this one had no sources and was intended to defame its subject would be subject to deletion under WP:CSD#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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.