Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig B. Hulet (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig B. Hulet, 2nd nomination

• Comment: There was a previous AfD on this article. Some editors have been trying to improve the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig B. Hulet for previous AfD. --TruthbringerToronto 21:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I do not know the content of the original article so I can not comment on that. The main reason I think this person is notable is that there are disputes to his claims and makes me wonder if he is a charlatan. Also, I do not know if two responses represents a strong consensus from the first afd. I have noticed some anon edits that seem to cut and paste from his website and that could be a recurring issue. There also seem to be less notable people who have their own article. Anyway, if this article is deleted, I will not try to recreate it. MrMurph101 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article, deleted because of the results of the first AFD. Should have been taken to Deletion Review, not re-created and put up for a second AFD. Also my view hasn't changed, he is a minor, occasional radio talk show guest at best who has self-published a few books and a bunch of "white papers" and is not notable enough for an article. Somebody keeps copying and pasting blatantly POV promo material to the article and the only other people who seem to be interesed in him are a few critics putting their own POV in. The article has always been a mess of pro- and anti- POV both of which inflate his importance, and is unlikely to ever be anything more. He's just not notable. KleenupKrew 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to clarify something. I am not a critic of this person. If my edits are POV I will try to adjust them unless someone already has. I just find it fascinating how he is popular with progressives while accused of being right wing. If his claims are accurate, then he is a notable person. If he is a fraud, that in itself seems notable too. As long as there are verifiable facts, whether on the web or through a lexis/nexis search, we can find the truth and have a good, accurate article. MrMurph101 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article mostly meets WP:V, and he has apparently been a fixture of West Coast politics. By WP:BIO, he meets the guidelines for inclusion fairly well. Editors have done a very good job of 1) citing sources, 2) demonstrating relevance, and 3) demonstrating notability. They've done somewhat worse on 4) wikifying, but otherwise it's a pretty good article.Captainktainer * Talk 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As others have said, it's a pretty good article. --TruthbringerToronto 04:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in some circles, and the article explores the controvery surrounding his celebrity in a relatively NPOV way. Useful. Just because his fans keep inserting POV material is no reason to delete.--Cberlet 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.