Talk:Charity Grimm Krupa

Hello,

I am the representative of Charity Grimm Kruppa who is subject of this article (Charity Grimm Kruppa), and I am formally requesting the removal of this page under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The page is being used for defamatory and politically motivated purposes.

Specifically:

   •    The article has been weaponized by anonymous editors during an election cycle to harm my reputation.
   •    It contains cherry-picked, unsourced, or poorly sourced content that violates neutrality and presents a misleading narrative.
   •    The timing and framing of the article appear to be intended to damage my standing as a candidate, rather than inform the public neutrally.

Wikipedia’s BLP policy clearly states that poorly sourced or controversial content about living people must be removed immediately, and that subjects of BLPs have a right to request deletion in cases of harassment or defamation.

I am respectfully asking administrators and editors to consider a full deletion of this article to prevent ongoing harm. I will also be contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly for further review.

Thank you. 2600:1016:B009:3E47:41B2:2E90:79D9:B412 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Removal of content by IP editor 2600:1016:B009:3E47:41B2:2E90:79D9:B412 at the same time as the same editor posted a request for deleting over content issues stating they are acting as a representative for the article subject. If true, that would be undisclosed paid editing or, at a minimum, COI editing. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

I propose removing the following sections from the article due to violations of Wikipedia’s core content policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE:

• “Controversies”
• “Lost legal cases”
• “Family legal history”
• “Legislative disputes and social media controversies”
• Parts of “Judicial ambitions,” if presented in a negative context

Reasons for Removal:

1. Violates WP:BLP – The inclusion of a private client quote (“we had to settle for scraps”) is anecdotal and not presented in reliable, secondary sources. Similarly, bringing up a relative’s unrelated legal history (Krupa’s father’s malpractice case) is a clear violation of WP:BLP, which prohibits negative material about living persons unless it is directly relevant and well-sourced.
2. Lacks WP:DUE Weight – These sections cherry-pick isolated incidents and frame them as part of a broader “controversy” without demonstrating that they received sustained, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to catalog grievances or amplify marginal criticism.
3. Fails WP:NPOV – The language used (“divisive distractions,” “eroded trust”) reflects editorial bias rather than encyclopedic tone. If criticism is to be included, it must be attributed and balanced with context and response.
4. No Clear Relevance to Notability – Much of the content here does not speak to Krupa’s public notability or policy impact but instead focuses on legal minutiae, speculative career moves, and uncontextualized disputes.

Unless strong consensus and reliable sourcing can justify these sections, I recommend they be removed entirely for now, per Wikipedia’s “remove and discuss” standard under BLP. 2600:4040:7B54:B600:1DF3:4908:E3C8:9DC6 (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jonmarietta (@C.Fred re: reversion)

I was passing by and I thought I'd look closer at this.

While I don't specifically endorse the listed reasoning, I think there's definitely room for improvement. In the WP:BLP context, this is fairly sourced content with WP:NPOV or WP:VNOT concerns. 'Remove and discuss' is generally applied to unsourced or poorly sourced content, so I reckon a bit of discussion first is okay.

• Recommended to remove: "Lost legal cases", "Family legal history" These two items are simply not relevant to the article. It's not standard practice to highlight an attorney's each loss in their Wikipedia article and these aren't notable in their own right.
• Recommend to re-write: “Legislative disputes and social media controversies” The tone of this section is not encyclopedic and it should be neutralized.
• Re-organize: “Judicial ambitions" I don't think this has to be its own section at all - it can fit in another section, like 'Career', but add another line about their election to complete the career arch.

I'd be happy to implement a few of these, once folks have a chance to discuss. Mad Jim Bey talk 02:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)