The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply
I am proposing this to AfD as the next step following a possibly questionable removal of a PROD. The PROD rationale was "concern = Article lacks NPOV - fails WP:BLP must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The reason for the PROD removal was "I do not see the same issues as the nominator, I do not see it as anything other than the summary of events" without any further explanation or reference to Wikipedia policy. The PROD proposal is accurate, and to say that the article is not NPOV is putting it mildly. This article is not a biography - even broadly construed - it is an attack page. My first reaction was to consider removing all but the first two paragraphs of it. Of 9 sourced references, the majority are from the Post-Gazette, including pure opinion pieces and articles that are not even about the subject; two sources are merely copies of election results, one is a contact page from the House of Representatives, and another is a copy of the Pennsyvania Constitution. This Wkipedia article appears to be muck-raking and defamation in a gutter-press style practiced by some newspapers that achieve their sales from sensationalism. I advocate speedy deletion G10. This AfD however, will permit the community to decide. Kudpung ( talk) 04:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC) reply