You shouldn't be writing a biography about the guy at all if you have become so invested in outing him as a fraud that you have undertaken such extensive investigation. It would be better to hand all the verifiable, reliable information to a third party who can determine if the subject is notable and if so, write a biography from it. - Mark 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If the subject is making legal threats, we block him and direct him to OTRS.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 23:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't write such a biography, especially if my sources of information rely on personal (albeit reliable) connections that aren't readily verifiable by others. I would go so far as to post the results of my investigation on the article's talk page and see how it goes from there. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Trained employees or volunteers officially entrusted with the job need to handle legal threats. Launching do-it-yourselfer editors to play a whack-a-mole to shush legal threats may serve a purpose but I don't know what it would be. And for heaven's sake, ignore all the original research conducted by editors confusing an encyclopedia with investigative journalism. Let RS determine NPOV balance, not the article's subject nor dumpster diving editors.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The notable thing about this guy is the controversy over his credentials. I would write a factual description of what he has actually done (written several books, etc.). Then I would have a section on the claims he makes - statements that he's "the greatest orchid guy ever" or whatnot. Then I'd have a "criticism" or a "controversy" section in which I outline some of his detractors' views. Applejuicefool (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Only things of note should be published, all other content should be excluded ~ AmericanEagle 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Invoke "WP:Wikipedia is not the New York Times and you are not going to win a Pulitzer for either investigative reporting or for being a public service." -- Fullstop (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a newpaper, and much of the investigation is original research/synthesis. The private discussions with the dean aren't quotable, for example. Do we have reliable sources for the material "uncovered"? Are there reliable sources on the topic of "Johnson - the fraudster"? Too many questions here. We report what reliable sources state, not what we have "figured out". Writing a negative bio or deleting a bio, is a serious choice and would need consensus discussion. One thing is for sure, we cannot write a POV bio. Deletion or stubbing is preferable if we cannot agree there are sufficient reliable sources to write a neutral accurate bio. But we cannot write one that portrays him in an unduely favorable light, or an unduely negative light. Definitely one where communal views will be needed, probably contentious. Realistically it may end up deleted just because nobody can agree how to handle it. FT2(Talk | email) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't touch the subject's Wikipedia biography. If I did all this research on my own, I'd write up an investigate article for publication in a newspaper or magazine . . . or turn it all over to an interested journalist to write up and include in a newspaper, magazine, et al. Then if it gets published, maybe someone else on Wikipedia (not me) cites the article and writes about it.BrownHornet21 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I would leave the article on WIkipedia, but go more in depth with my re-search. Get more people on my side, ask more questions. That way, I'll have more solid evidence to talk to a journalist of some sort to report it. After it has been reported, admins on Wikipedia can decide what to do with the article Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
