Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 04:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Klerck

Whow, a troll trolling wikipedia even after his real life suicide. That's something new. Personally, I think he is not notable, and should be deleted. There are about 20 google hits for Klerck "Kevin Ealy", most on shacknews, the site he trolled. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:34, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacrimosus 07:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually think this is potentiall interesting - he may have been a troll - but is there any documented case of someone posting a suicide note online before? --212.95.227.168 13:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Entry Klerck should not be deleted because klerck was probably the most prolfic and famous troll ever, and not always as "klerck", and not just one site. Entry should be expanded. I suspect more info about him will come out over the next few weeks as the whole story is pieced together. --66.56.219.6
• Delete as troll-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Based on my interpretation of WP:DP, Troll-related is not valid grounds for deletion. Edogy 21:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, ok, also not notable. And one of the things Wikipedia specifically is not is a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • So what does it take to be a notable troll? He caused Slashdot, a notable website, to change the way it handled comments. The GNAA wishes they could do the same. He even went beyond the internet, driving Tolkien fans to gibbering insanity with his obviously tounge-in-cheek Two Towers petition. Reguarding the memorial claims... I hope we VfD the entry of every person who just died and has his entry expanded. Quite often people are not properly recognized for their significance until after they're gone. I don't think klerck's entry as it currently is written seems like a memorial. To NOT mention the fact that he died would be unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding his death, particularly the initially wide-spread perception that klerck's last entry was false, are a by-product of his notariety as a troll. This could cause a treatment of his past trolling activity to appear to be some sort of memorial, I suppose. Edogy 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• expand - He's no more or less important than anyone else with articles
  • Vote by User:67.167.137.150 -- Chris 73 Talk 01:45, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would just like to add that I feel if wikipedia has an article on the Gay Nigger Association of America, a massive trolling organization that klerck often spoofed, and GG Allin, the infamous, inflamatory punk rock icon, then klerck definately would be a reasonable candidate for an article. Klerck has been linked to in the Page widening article since 2002, but only recently has anyone created an article about him. 66.56.219.6 00:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Edit: Changed my vote to how it should be properly expressed, I think? 66.56.219.6 01:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hi. I signed up. Edogy 16:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Only contributions so far are to this page -- Chris 73 Talk 23:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Entirely true, sir, as I said below. I've read many a wikipedia article, but only started learning the ways of editing and such when I saw klerck was on VfD. I was 66.56.219.6 before I registered. Edogy 03:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this one's more encyclopedic than Sollog. Wyss 03:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not at all encyclopedic. -Sean Curtin 06:07, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I did not know Kevin, and do not belong to the troll community. I submit that his final LiveJournal entry by itself (and a tangential response by one of the people he addresses) is quite interesting. It provides insight to a specific online culture that exists (whether you agree with it or not) and also provokes thought about suicide itself. Also, there was teenager that overdosed on drugs and died while in an internet chatroom. I do not have the time to dig up the quite stale links right now as this happened a couple of years (at least) ago. I suspect that there may be other instances of internet witnessed death/suicide. As more people use the internet, this may happen increasingly. This can be attended to in a scholarly fashion without becoming "troll-centric" that can provide enlightenment about suicide/internet culture. Such treatment done right would be valuable. Is that not what wikipedia is trying to accomplish? eclectro
  • Note: Vote added by User: 24.10.225.43. eclectro as signed above is an existing user, but with 0 edits so far -- Chris 73 Talk 12:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps this should be a redirect to The Onion, because it sounds like something they'd come up with. Carrp | Talk 16:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 18:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• comment A google search for klerck site:shacknews.com yields over 5,000 hits. A google search for klerck troll yields 900 hits. A search for klerck "two towers" yields 270 hits. Also, some minor edits to klerck's article and this VfD page are the only edits I have ever made, and most of those before signing up. Edogy 21:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Known to me as the person who introduced me to the tasteless comedy of tribute.wmv. However, the fact that no article existed before his death suggests a limit to his notability. Gazpacho 06:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite 06:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mediocre troll. Not close to the level of the infamous USENET trolls.
  • Vote by User:66.92.234.78 -- Chris 73 Talk 03:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I wasn't aware of the user, or that he was a troll but I do remember that "Two Towers" pettition he put up, that's actually quite notable. Deathawk 20:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• comment I found a story in The Times, the UK paper, about klerck's petition [here], and added the link to the article, along with some more tidbits. Edogy 03:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. This seems awfully close to just a "memorial" page, although maybe borderline notable. I could imagine an article worth having, so I can't bring myself to vote "delete"; on the other hand, I just can't make myself say "keep", either. I'm also a little queasy about publicizing someone mostly known for a geek-ish suicide. This really seems a bit like lobbying for another spectacular, self-inflicted death. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As a friend of klerck, we had discussed making an entry for him before his death, this is not a memorial. Atleast in the scope of the internet, he was a very important and influential person, whether or not anybody was ever aware of it.--Jaypeeh 18:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Jaypeeh has only edited this page. Edogy 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As a friend of klerck, I think it would be a good honor to keep his entry here. He was/is very well known person all over the internet and has done many trolls that should be remebered..--142.162.180.39 18:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User 142.162.180.39 has only edited this page. Edogy 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and expand. If it's true about The Two Towers thing, I remember that going around and being covered in the media at the time. Also it's a fair point about the LJ thing, I don't know if it has been done before but even if it's only a recent phenomenon then it could be interesting link in the suicide note article. Comment - though Jmabel's point about publicity is fair, though *shrug* maybe if someone posts their note on their LJ then someone might see it and help? I'm pretty sure that has happened when people have posted suicide notes on chats... -- Lochaber 14:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Find a verifiable source about his "death", though. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and encyclopedic. Nightwatch 20:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this man has and always will be a legend. Deleting this entry is equivalent to deleting part of the history of the internet. Granted, one could merely search google for "klerck," but what are we trying to do.. make wikipedia an all-knowing source of information.... or just a dictionary of stuff everyone already knows? Klerck is a hero. Floortap 07:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • the user edited only this page so far -- Chris 73 Talk 09:54, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: If only we spent as much time editing real articles as we did trying to have worthy articles removed. Consider The Turnip Wars. This page is worthier than Klerck is? Simply put, The fact that so many people have voted and genuinely care about this article surviving, I'll say keep on those grounds alone. The man has devoted fans all over the net.Ich

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.