The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kept deleted. - brenneman^{L} 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first nomination

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second nomination) was closed as delete. This is probably a good decision, if you count votes. If, however, you listen to the template at the top of that AfD, it's clearly not a good close. It had 9 delete and 4 keep, once the users who the closer said weren't "counted" were removed from the tally. However, several of these delete "votes" are clearly invalid. The very first reads "Complete Delete not notable other than for creating controversial websites. porges 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)." Now, this does is probably true. However, that is clearly not at all relevant, because the reason he was on Wikipedia in the first place is that he created controversial websites; he was notable because he was notorious because of his websites. It's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Jimbo because he's not notable other than for creating Wikipedia. Later, User:71.227.177.1 left a very detailed argument about why we should have kept the article. This was completely ignored in the closing decision as the user was an anon and so did not have "suffrage." Another delete "vote" read, "Delete This article in itself is superfluous, sketchy, and seems to be borderline violating the NPOV policy. This article is constantly vandalized, and seems to lack citations where necessary. --EMC 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)." Since when is an article being vandalized, a bit unreferenced and slightly POV a valid reason to delete an article? Then there's the nom itself. The nom said that "...There is very little verifiable information in the article to support the idea that "Michael Crook" even exists as an individual, as opposed to a public persona or a project undertaken by an unknown number of people. Of the citations and external links listed at the end of the article, half of them ultimately originate from Crook himself (who, if the article is any indication, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything), half of the remaining ones are not available at the URLs given, and the one anti-Crook site that can actually be reached is far from meeting WP:V standards and may in fact have been created by Crook himself, for all we know. The talk page is dominated by IP addresses and registered users who have never edited on any non-Crook-related subject ever, as was the last AfD on this article; how many of these are sock puppets of Michael Crook?" In short, the nominator wanted the article deleted because a) it was lacking some sources and b) the nom thought that Michael Crook sockpuppets were editing the article. The nom actually does say that Crook is probably notable enough for an article. These are clearly not valid reasons for deletion; one might post an ((unreferenced)) or a RFCU if they think there aren't enough sources or there are sockpuppets, not take it to AfD! Michael Crook is clearly notable, as the nom admits, and should not have been deleted. --Rory096 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per rory. I didn't quite get this, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted. Whatever the nominator thought, consensus was that the article should be deleted, and as I read it those advocating deletion did not agree with the nominator that Michael Crook was notable enough for an article. Therefore relisting on the basis of what was, in the end, merely the first of many opinions would be nonsensical. Consensus validly judged, it was considerate of Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:V, which is a policy, whereas WP:BIO is a guideline and its applicability to Internet trolls with 15 minutes of fame on Fox is dubious anyway) and no new evidence has been presented. (P.S. I voted 'delete', disregard this if it comes down to a vote if necessary, but I think my arguments are valid from a DRV perspective.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The guy has had less media exposure than I have (I've been on national radio four times, plus I've been interviewed at length twice on radio and featured in the Times Educational Supplement). I am definitely not notable. This guy is just another loudmouth with a website, of which there is no shortage. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure/kd Discounting of anons and new users is within administrative discretion. Concerns over the authorship and sourcing of the article are valid reasons to delete. If anyone believes Crook is notable, they are free to write a NPOV, sourced article right now. The version deleted at AfD, however, was correctly judged. Xoloz 12:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, keep deleted Discounting anons and new users is common closure practice. Looks like a valid AfD to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The discounting of votes was within reasonable admin discretion. Poor wording of a nomination is not sufficient grounds to overturn the community consensus. Rossami (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank goodness this was removed. I recall it doing the rounds on AFD and DRV a while ago, and the article read like a horrendous attack piece sourced almost entirely to dubious websites—many not even any longer in existence. Verifiability and encyclopediability are important with all subjects, but with biographies of living persons they take on additional urgency. As to the AFD close, I concur with the sentiments expressed by Rossami and Xoloz. —Encephalon 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.