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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eringer[edit]

Unintelligable nonsense, with about 100 BLP violations and bad bad sourcing. Probably conspiracy nut-job stuff. There may be an interesting article here,, but wow.....Let me end with a quote

"Various articles on the Internet connect Robert Eringer to Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, in addition to the CIA. In one piece, convicted murderer Ira Einhorn voices his belief that Eringer was involved in an operation to make him disappear[3] while he was still living in France contesting extradition. (Einhorn currently lives at Houtzdale State Prison in Pennsylvania.) Another piece, by rogue MI6 spy Richard Tomlinson, whose blog actually did disappear[4] after mentioning Eringer by name, claimed that Eringer was part of an operation to make his writings disappear."

Sheesh! Troikoalogo (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just BLP violations and ridiculousness, I'd just put a cleanup tag on it, but this appears to completely fail WP:N. Gnews turns up nothing, and Google itself just turns up conspiracy sites and such. Delete per WP:N. miquonranger03 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Thanks for a great read! The Pottker vs. Feld et al. (et al includes Robert Eringer) court case seems to be definitely notable. Here's the <presumed genuine> court memo [1] NVO (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current article, which is a blatant violation of speedy deletion criteria (BLP violations and intended solely to attack the subject), and start over with a fresh stub. He may have some mild notability as an espionage fiction writer. Apparently, the global-conspiracy crowd thinks him a subject for their conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to give undue weight to their theories, nor any weight at all to them for that matter. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.