Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ingram
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Ingram
nn criminal, not every murder involving alleged Satanism is noteworthy, the sourcing of this article seems not based on reliable sources and is hence violative of WP:BLP Carlossuarez46 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't let the book & TV movie throw you; the imdb entry for the movie says it was based on the McMartin preschool events and doesn't mention Ingram at all. Also, the WP article for the film itself makes some leaps of logic unsupported by facts to weave a semblence of support to the premises advanced: that this guy was wrongfully convicted despite his guilty plea. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I cannot help but conclude that this is a nomination intended to push a POV; how else to explain the nominator expressing concern for WP:BLP violations and in the very same sentence asserting "nn criminal" (a point that is very much in doubt) and talking about "murder" -- an act that the article makes no mention of, and Ingram was not charged with? Carlos claims "the IMDB entry for the movie says it was based on the McMartin preschool events" and complains that "the WP article for the film itself makes some leaps of logic unsupported by facts", but it is in fact Carlos whose logic seems unsupported by facts: the IMDB entry does not say that it was based upon the McMartin preschool events. Carlos seems to be basing his allegation that the movie is about the McMartin case upon a user comment which begins "This is an interesting film which was made after the McMartin scandal, the many headlines of Satanic rituals, and the Fooster child abuse/daycare scandal in South Florida." Moreover, Carlos claims the IMDB entry "doesn't mention Ingram at all." Well, that is in fact just plain false, because the main page of the IMDB entry says "Based on the case of Paul Ingram, who was accused of sexually abusing his daughters during the child abuse/satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the late 1980s." And guess what? You get to that before you get to the user comment which Carlos so radically misinterpreted -- so how is it that Carlos missed the statement which says in plain English "Based on the case of Paul Ingram" and skipped right down to a user comment which says "this was made after the McMartin scandal" and proceeded to misread it as "this was based on the McMartin scandal"? There's no doubt in my mind; this is a nomination in bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bad faith? I laugh. Under WP:BLP unsourced negative information on living people MUST BE REMOVED. You are pushing your POV that Paul Ingram was somehow railroaded. The article is a sourceless possible character attack either on Paul Ingram or on whoever YOU contend railroaded him. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your actions speak for themselves. You talk about WP:BLP violations but you are the one who added the completely unsourced implication that Paul Ingram's case involves a "murder involving alleged Satanism." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bad faith? I laugh. Under WP:BLP unsourced negative information on living people MUST BE REMOVED. You are pushing your POV that Paul Ingram was somehow railroaded. The article is a sourceless possible character attack either on Paul Ingram or on whoever YOU contend railroaded him. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as this is a notable case discussed on TV and in numerous reliable sources[1][2][3][4][5]. The nominator seems to be incorrect; IMDb, which is not a reliable source for this sort of thing anyway, does in fact mention Ingram, while a user comment brings in McMartin (definitely NOT a reliable source in any way shape or form). (Antaeus says the same thing in more words and too much formatting.) In any case, the article may have some leaps of logic that would be solved by better attribution (and must be, per WP:BLP). But the subject passes WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If imdb is not a reliable source, then the whole article is a WP:BLP violation and should be deleted along with its history. You prove my point. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not once in the history of the article has it ever presented IMDB as a source. The person who started trying to use IMDB as a reliable source was you, but as we've seen, even if all editor-approved content on IMDB was reliable, you ignored the editor-approved content and based your assertions on a user comment. Even if all content on IMDB was reliable, even down to the user-submitted comments, your assertions are still unsupported because the user comment which mentioned McMartin said the movie was made after McMartin (and similar cases), not based on McMartin, as you claimed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If imdb is not a reliable source, then the whole article is a WP:BLP violation and should be deleted along with its history. You prove my point. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep His unfortunate life story is described in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (which can, I believe, be used to cite all the unsourced claims). Anville 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep and bulk up --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:22, 24 April 2007 (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.
