Talk:Duff Wilson

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: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Duke coverage[edit]

I reverted some additions to the article discussing a specific article or series of articles penned by the author about the Duke lacrosse case, since the negative coverage seemed out of place in the middle of an overview of the person's career.

It doesn't seem obvious to me that there was "significant criticism"; one Slate article is not such a thing. In any case this seems like it more belongs in the article about the case, perhaps as a subsection of Duke_lacrosse_case#Defense_and_media_questioning. Including it at its present location seems like undue weight and does not flow well. L Faraone 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the article so I cannot say why only the slate article was used. There were several others including Columbia Journal Review, Washington Post, Times, legal punditry included Dan Abrams, Jeralyn Merrit, Eugene Volokh and others-even the NYT own ombudsman-and the list goes on. I would be happy to include them, but a view of Wilson's career has not convinced me he had any notability outside his factually inaccurate reporting and the use of a bogus documentation (proven in Nifongs disbarment hearings). The brevity and miniscule references suggest that the article should probably be considered for deletion. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]