Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck (2nd nomination)

Klerck

"Not notable". No vote from me. Kotepho 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Previously nominated at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck

• Keep. This AfD is because of a prior bogus speedy nomination from an apparent GNAA troll Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). See for example Image:Freelimbaugh247.png (note the data in the form fields) and trolling at [1] and [2]. -- Phr (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep definitely notable. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Doesn't matter who nominated this article, it blatantly violates WP:BIO and WP:V. The sole claim to notability is "Some credit his page widening techniques as the primary reason Slashdot implemented the lameness filter, which checks pending comments for repetitive text or malicious formatting before allowing them to appear on a website". Even if you consider that noteworthy - which I don't, some blog changed some setting in response to some nerd making pages wide and annoying other nerds? Why didn't I see his obituary in The Times? - the claim is tagged with {{fact}}, and it's obviously never going to get a citation from a reliable source. "Some credit"... "Some users found..." "May show..." - this is a complete joke. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The nominator removed stuff about the notorious Two Towers petition which got considerable press attention. I'll put it back. Phr (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict (I saw the petition stuff)) Might as well cover the other supposed claims to notability: he got banned from somewhere, he founded a joke petition, and he committed suicide, all of which I could probably do myself within 3-12 hours, depending on how quickly I can procure a bottle of vodka and some sleeping pills. The petition is supposedly notable for its external coverage, but I read the Times article via Factiva. It's 8 lines long and doesn't mention Klerck at all. There is also an MSNBC article which is only mentioned in a blog article, with no actual proper citation to be found to give us any hint of how we can find the actual article (and if verification isn't repeatable, it's not verification at all), and it sounds bloggish anyway from the article actually linked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment a minute with Proquest found several news stories from all over the world about the petition incident (they don't mention Klerck by name); I added a few more cites to the article. I don't think this is the most important article in the world but I'm a bit bothered by the notion that Wikipedia articles can get removed if MSNBC takes down a story that the Wikipedia article cites. WP:V expresses a preference for citing online media instead of print media and maybe that's not such a great idea. I like to think Wikipedia will be around long after organizations like MSNBC are gone. Phr (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete-especially after reading the previous AfD. I see this article being a real POV fork, in either direction. For those who love them, they can slather unsourced Weasel Words and craft it as a Wiki-Memorial. For others, it can be a lightening rod for troll vandalism. But on the whole, I don't see how all the sums merits an article. 1.) He was a notable troll. Trolls are not inherently notable and in fact tend to have a short shelf life. Is anyone going to be looking up a particular internet troll 10 years from now? But he was "famous" in his own time and to that extent I would think he warrants his mention on the Internet troll page. 2.) The Petition. I could possibly see an argument for this having an article but in truth, it's best served with the mention it already has for on the Two Towers page. 3.) He posted a suicide note on the web. Sadly, this all too common and the nature of his suicide doesn't have the unique element that Brandon Vedas had in regards to internet culpability. Adding it all together, I just don't see a reason to keep it. Agne 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a list of everything ever mentioned in the press. Too-brief-fad. -- GWO
• Keep. Notable in so many different ways. Internet troll culture, suicide and exploiting flaws. Viscid 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete I have merged the encyclopedic aspects of the Two Towers petition to The Two Towers (film)#9/11 "controversy". As some have mentioned, there might be some bits worthy of merging to Internet troll or the Slashdot pages. Goodbye, Klerck. KWH 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I actually like the article for sort-of-literary reasons that are hard to explain. It somehow got on my watchlist a fairly long time ago and it does get vandalized regularly, so I end up looking at it again every so often when fixing it. Its view into Klerck's personality adds some character to the encyclopedia, or something like that. I'm reminded also of User:Grace Note's and User:Vizjim's comments in Sam Sloan's AfD about AfD's on semi-notable, unusual personalities and I'm somewhat persuaded by their arguments when self-promotion isn't involved (and I'm a long way from being an inclusionist). Sam Blanning's remark that it doesn't matter who nominated the article is of course true, but the speedy nominator was blocked as a GNAA troll a few hours after making the nom. It will be ironic if a troll takes out the article after the regular editors have left it in peace for so long. Phr (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The circumstances in which this has been nominated concern me. I think the nom could be an attempt at disruption. --Tim1988 ^talk 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Trollish nomination or not, this subject really doesn't merit an article, and as usable content has been merged to appropriate locations, this is rendered unnecessary. It is sort of an interesting content, but it doesn't belong on this site. GassyGuy 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy someone whose biggest claim to fame was posting an online petition to get a movie title changed??? Even if successful (and it wasn't), it wouldn't be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The petition got press coverage from around the world, and someone thought it was notable enough to document it in the "Two Towers" film article in its own section (I don't think I would have gone that far). It's attributed there to Klerck (originally without a wikilink) but that immediately raises the question "what kind of person would have done this?". And where else is anyone going to find the info? My original "keep" sentiments were lukewarm but I feel somewhat firmer about it now. Phr (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that addition to the Two Towers article was just done today, and seems to be a response to this AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear that I was responding to that. Phr (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial to dead losers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Q0 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete --KJFhjf 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Brand new user, contrib history shows pattern of vandalism (KJFhjf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)). Removed newly added 9/11 section from Two Towers film page with no edit summary. Phr (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User is now indef blocked. Phr (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' It can improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.148.223 (talk • contribs)
• Keep The article needs some work but is on someone with a relatively large importance on parts of the internet which had some effects into the real world as well Crummy 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Account created 2 days before the AfD was entered and has just a few edits, not sure that should be weighted. Phr (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)