This article was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
It seems to me that the paragraph that keeps getting removed and reverted by Silver Buizel (talk·contribs) is running afoul of WP:UNDUE when applied to BLPs. Can we get consensus to just keep his divorce/alimony/etc information off the bio? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct - I've removed it, as well as the rest of the section because it was unsourced (which, unfortunately, was a decent portion of the article). --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the information is undue? There's nothing about the information that would suggest being bias in one direction or the other, therefore meeting WP:IMPARTIAL. The source is also clearly reliable under WP:SOURCES. Silver Buizel (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a website intended to shame the subjects. That's not really our thing - it isn't our job to shame anyone. If reliable sources pick up on this and it becomes a big deal, then maybe I'd feel differently. But from what I can tell, the issue (as well as Goodwin himself, for that matter) has received little to no coverage. And since the subject of the article apparently wants it out, I think the responsible thing to do is leave it out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
