Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith (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 - Liberatore(T) 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Mcilwraith

This article was originally a hoax article by a guy allegedly passing himself off as something he wasn't. Now it's an article about the hoax. Nominated for speedy deletion; speedy removed with reasonable request to bring it here; speedy added again by the same person without comment. So I'm bringing it here so we can decide its future. This is a technical nomination, so no opinion from me, although in this case I reserve the right to add one later below if I wish. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The original AfD, which was for a different article entirely, can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he's been exposed. Keep for the fifteen minutes anyway. --MacRusgail 23:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. I'm not quite sure i understand the nominator, but I know my opinion quite well. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article on hoax. National news in the UK, and we should keep for the same reasons as we have the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy article. The article itself makes perfect sense, and is corroborated by external links to four UK national and two Scottish newspapers, so I can't see how someone can call it nonsense. Average Earthman 06:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

removed Nash references b/c Nash has been deemed by Wikipedia as not being a reliable references *Keep. It is now noteworthy. --Alabamaboy 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep . Even David Gerard was so upset that he started to talk about killing the guy. [1] -- 71.141.6.148 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per WP:BIO: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. At least, I think. -- ReyBrujo 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - exposed famous impostor and the article would help to expose him again if he tries something similar again. - Skysmith 20:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; a story that makes national news is definitely worthy of inclusion, even when it's not the national news of your own country. ^_~ -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the hoax is notable so it should stay Yuckfoo 01:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable because of the hoax.  ALKIVAR™ 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/wangi 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough hoax, widely reported. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article seems to be about the hoax itself now, which is notable enough. Canaen 23:24, 9 May 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.