Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agne27 (talk | contribs) at 16:23, 27 July 2006 (→[[Klerck]]: comment in regards to AGF need). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Klerck

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

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)[reply]
  • Speedy keep definitely notable. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per norm --Yunipo 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brand new account, first contribution is to this AFD and next is to insert a bunch of {{fact}} tags into the Klerck article for things that were in fact documented in the references cited in the article.
  • Delete per Sam Blanning. -- Scientizzle 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I completely agree with Agne. I was honestly strongly considering a Weak Keep, I guess partly in sympathy... but the points in keeping an article to Wiki standards outweigh that notion. The Two Towers Petition thing could be notable as an internet phenomenon, and yeah, could technically have its own article, actually. I see it's been merged into the film's article though, which I think is enough. His death, while tragic, is something that happens regularly in this world. Still, I think brief information about him in the internet troll article should stay intact as well though, as a sort of "famous example." Maybe a little more info could be added to the Two Towers article of his antic (maybe his death could fit in to the Trivia section, possibly, heh). -- Shadowolf 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as hard as it is for me to say - don't care much about the circumstances of nomination, this clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:V. All of this stuff sounds a bit fishy to me, especially the supposed trolling stuff (as in "disruptive behaviour even the most thick-headed hooligans can come up in two seconds flat"). And if all of this stuff were true, that still would barely climb above the notability threshold. The petition may or may not be notable in itself but that doesn't mean petitioner is. ("I believe every dog and wolf puppy should have an article." There. You can quote me on that. Now please make an article about me. Don't feel like? Well, neither do I.) And while suicides are always tragic, this is neither first of its kind nor notable in its own right, I'm terribly sorry. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I notice that the brand new user "Yunica" (who I suspect is yet another sock of the original nominator) recently went and spewed bogus {{fact}} tags all over the article, to make the verifiability issues look worse than they are (the tags were bogus because they were attached to items which were in fact already documented in the references section). I added footnotes to where most of the tags were, though to be fair there are still a few things needing to be checked out. Inserting those tags appears to have been a bad faith edit to manipulate the afd. If that was the version you saw, it would be nice if you could take another look. Most of the article is in fact pretty well sourced. Phr (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even with that stuff sourced, this person's notability is still rather marginal. Like I said, the petition is probably more infamous than the person. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well sure, the newsmedia didn't report on the person because (like Jack the Ripper) he didn't attach his name to his activity; but unlike Jack the Ripper, there wasn't a trail of bodies and consequent huge manhunt, so there wasn't that much attempt to find the person behind the events. What documentation remains is of some historical interest, but it's fading away steadily and is mostly concentrated in places like this, and is simply going to be lost if the article is deleted. I see preserving that type of hard-to-collect documentation as part of why Wikipedia is here. Wikipedia shouldn't be entirely about video game characters. Phr (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Also see: No true Scotsman) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, he's notable enough, with some of his activities cited and his death also fairly notable in the online community, though the "some... while others..." chaff really has to go. I think it's safe to remove any text flagged with the {{fact}} tags if they haven't been fixed by the conclusion of this AfD (assuming this article is kept). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I am a bit concerned at the path this AfD is starting to take, in particular with the isolating of users who favor delete for an examination of their "good faith". An AfD is never meant to be a vote and frankly, the three word "keep/delete per nom" reply is rather useless unless there is persuasive reasoning behind the view. Hence, there is not a need to "swift boat" the other side to try and cancel out their "vote". I do believe it is in the best interest of all to simply WP:AGF and state your reason for keep or deletion and leave it at that. There is no need to comment on each and every user's possible vote motivation. Agne 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Klerck_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=66182813"