Talk:Duff Wilson

Duke coverage

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. LFaraone 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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)