This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This addition and three subsequent refinements from the same IP number editor represent, in my quick-scan opinion, a sophisticated piece of vandalism. It looks serious, with "Citations needed" and all. But I have to believe it was pure fabrication. (I haven't Googled the "roommate" named and red-linked but think he's probably fabricated; or being tarred by the same unfortunate brush.) In any event, this removal, fortunately only an hour and a half later, by another IP-er, nonetheless used only the Edit summary reason "Undue influence towards the negative". That led me to want to highlight my opinion. It's a good test of exactly what editors need to be on the alert for -- one word may eventually have triggered a bot-based removal but the sooner the better. (It's that word more than anything that triggers my high degree of confidence in my judgment.) Cheers. Swliv (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)