Talk:Phil Kerpen

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus, defaulting to keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability Policy[edit]

How does this person satisfy the notability policy? Most of these sources are not "independent of the subject." Seems like this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.160.61 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Comments on some of the stuff I'm reverting:

These have been criticized for taking conservative positions more often than not.

This needs a citation for who is making the criticism - "have been criticized" is just weasel wording. Anyway, I'd argue that it's far more neutral to just say his writing is conservative.

He was banned from the NDT for collecting evidence cites while a round was still in progress causing a debater to exhaust their preparation time searching for the stolen cards.

Need a source or citation for this - as it is, it's a vague story of the kind that is especially suspect in an article that's had as much crap dumped in it in it as this one has. It also is totally incomprehensible for someone who isn't familiar with debate tournament jargon and rules.

Here's Kerpen's explanation: http://ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0324.html

And Dallas Perkins': http://ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0336.html

To say that he was actually banned from the tournament would be incorrect, even though he probably would have been if Hester had not preemptively withdrawn him.--deathdrive 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the stuff I've removed doesn't need comment. CDC (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcewatch link[edit]

The Sourcewatch article is in fact the same text as revision 27054987 of this article, with one sentence added, and two links added. The reason that the Sourcewatch article predates the Wikipedia article is because it was used as the basis for creating the Wikipedia article. If you think these additions really improve the context offered by linking to a mirror of a previous revision of the article, might I suggest simply adding them to the Wikipedia article? Sourcewatch is GFDL licensed and therefore all of its contents are compatible with Wikipedia's license. It seems deceptive to me to link to what amounts to a draft of the current Wikipedia article. —ptk✰fgs 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on Kerpen[edit]

Is there a source for the claim that Phil Kerpen has been attacked by leftist member of the debate community or has been called a nazi? The complaint about how "odious" these attacks are also doesn't seem very NPOV. The whole paragraph doesn't seem worthy of being in an article in an encyclopedia.