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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 16:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Krampf[edit]

Robert Krampf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was entirely unsourced for fourteen years and sounds like an autobiography written in third-person. Recently he's been arrested for possession of child porn and now he's on local news in the United States, but that begs the question, does this make him notable? I would argue no; before he was a scientist with no claim of notability, now he's a scientist and criminal with no claim of notability. A majority of the article pertaining to who he is and what he has done remains unsourced and he has less than 10,000 subscribers on YouTube. Definitely not a notable person in my opinion. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CentreLeftRight, It's irrelevant how many YouTube subscribers he has: all that matters is that there are sources establishing notability. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have not yet looked at the article to evaluate its notability. But in general, an arrest for child porn should stay out of the article; it's only once he's convicted (if he is) that we should cover it. I could point you to a previous example of a notable academic with the same issue, where despite newspaper coverage of the child porn arrest we kept it out of the article, but I won't because it might be considered a WP:BLP violation just to name names here. So in any case, what we need to evaluate is the notability that was present before this event. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the part about the arrest per WP:BLPCRIME. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The coverage of his more recent (YouTube-era) career is pretty spotty; this is about the best I could find, and I'd hardly call that in-depth. But he did get in the news for criticizing the FCAT standardized test, and there are some older stories about his doing "Mr. Electricity" shows. XOR'easter (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was just arrested for child porn. So he may be an example that helps prevent these crimes in the future. I’d leave the article and add a section for the arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4800:a010:d950:691e:84f9:ef61 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Revisiting the topic a couple days later, I think the links I included above are enough to meet the general notability guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum His trial is scheduled for December [1]. Per David Eppstein's comment, I don't think WP:BLP permits our writing about it until it is concluded, nor is there a pressing need to do so. (The stories of his career are from twenty years or more ago; on the one hand, notability is not temporary, but on the other, he hardly seems to be a high-profile individual at this point.) I trimmed the article way back to a two-sentence stub supported by the older news stories linked above, so the text is no longer adulatory, and the autobiography concerns mentioned in the nomination are no longer operative. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete right now the aticle is a puff piece that covers up Mr. Krampf's alleged crimes. However to mention the alleged crimes will turn it into an attack article. The sourcing is low quality human interest stories often of the local event variety. The sourcing does not justify an article, and we cannot avoid mentioning the criminal accusations, but they themselves are not really notable, so there is no need for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there is a refusal to allow any contents about his arrest makes me think having this article is highly questionable since people want it to just be a hagiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, in absence of any request from the subject. The coverage in the LA Times is a fairly profile of the subject. I didn't manage to view the coverage in the Sun-Sentinel, but I did see ongoing coverage about his activism concerning the FCAT. I think it's weakly enough to meet GNG. I'll remark that pre-trial notability is marginal enough that I would certainly support a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; under the circumstances, there's a moderate chance that one will come. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROF. Honestly, this sounds like a run of the mill touring "edutainer". Any allegations of crimes do not rise to the level of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2020 (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.