Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second 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 delete. bainer (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Crook

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Having encountered this article for the first time today, I'm struck by an overwhelming sense that it is part of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a very long-running and successful troll. There is very little verifiable information in the article to support the idea that "Michael Crook" even exists as an individual, as opposed to a public persona or a project undertaken by an unknown number of people. Of the citations and external links listed at the end of the article, half of them ultimately originate from Crook himself (who, if the article is any indication, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything), half of the remaining ones are not available at the URLs given, and the one anti-Crook site that can actually be reached is far from meeting WP:V standards and may in fact have been created by Crook himself, for all we know. The talk page is dominated by IP addresses and registered users who have never edited on any non-Crook-related subject ever, as was the last AfD on this article; how many of these are sock puppets of Michael Crook? This individual/troll organization/whatever is probably notable enough to deserve an article, but the current one is fatally compromised and should either be rebuilt from the ground up using only independently verifiable information, or deleted altogether. phh (^t/_c) 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete Delete not notable other than for creating controversial websites. porges 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There's too much manipulation of this article for it to be reliable, and it's not verifiable. I find it strange that the article was kept after the previous AfD because Michael Crook doesn't want an article here. It seems like a lot of people were voting to keep it just to be contrary and thumb their noses at Michael Crook. I don't know the guy, and I don't want to know the guy. I don't think he's notable enough as a living person to have an article here. Brian G. Crawford 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brian G. Crawford. DarthVader 00:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What is verifiable shows that he more than easily meets WP:BIO. Cleanup is definitely necessary, though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete none of the references are really reliable, despite being in the correct format --Astrokey44 06:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• The subject of the article may well attain wiki-notability; the article currently reads as a series of links promoting his sites, with satiric criticism. If the article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite; as it stands my view is delete as, either, a vanity page or an attack page, depending on whether you think the editor is pro or anti Crook. -- Simon Cursitor 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no reason to delete it. From my POV, it looks unbiased. To the best of my knowledge, the info on the page is accurate. Hbk314 12:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete. 216.56.61.66 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Two similarly-worded keep votes from Wisconsin within hours of each other? Hmm. --phh (^t/_c) 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 216.56.61.66 has been a consistent vandal on the Dale Earnhardt article, claiming that Earnhardt committed suicide. The IP is registered to the University of Wisconsin (Madison). Please take these facts into consideration. Royalbroil 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Passes google test - 45,000 hits. Many call him four-letter words. Apparently there's some buzz about him on the internet, which in my mind makes him notable. I learned from the article's discussion page that this article had been nominated for deletion in March. How come people can keep nominating articles for deletion over and over? Royalbroil 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I retract that last sentence for this particular AFD due to the unusual circumstances (as cited above), but I ask it in general. Royalbroil 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I question why this has been brought up AGAIN for discussion. The person in question is notable, he has been featured on FOX news, on multiple radio shows, multiple internet radio shows, has been the subject of more than one lengthy newpaper article, and one only has to Google his name to see if he is of any reputation. There are articles on people of lesser infamy/fame still on Wiki. This guy consistantly finds more things to amke websites about for the sole purpose of attacking people and staying in the limelight. There have been numerous attempts by Michael Crook himself to manipulate the article, yet there has been no reliable sources that will come forward pointing out the items in the article that are incorrect. Why must we go through this AGAIN!!! It was nominated, decided as a keep, and then appealed, and keep was the decision... how many times does this have to happen? It is just silly. Wiki is a source of information for the public, about people that are of interest to the public. Certainly this guy is a public figure. Explain to me whay he is not? I am happy to discuss the details in the discussion area of the article, I highly doubt anyone will be able to produce any real evidence other than their opinions that this guy shouldn't be in Wiki. Sorry, he is here, and he should stay, there are too many supporting reasons as to why he is notable, like him or don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.177.1 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete It is obvious that the previous poster has a vendetta against the subject, else they would have felt strongly enough to sign their name. Wikipedia is not to be used as an attack tool. This subject is no longer notable, and I fail to see the relevance/purpose of this page, other than to attack. As has been said by others, many others make far worse websites, and aren't featured. Why must we go through this again? Because, again: Wikipedia is not an attack tool, and this subject is not noteable. Ebn6701
  • Comment This user's first edit. --phh (^t/_c) 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Whether the poster signs his/her name or not is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that he's right. Wikipedia is a a public source of information. Michael Crook has appeared on national TV, as well as many radio shows all over the east coast. I'd say that it's you who has the vendetta. Hbk314 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, I haven't a vendetta, and another thing I don't have is an understanding as to the logic of this entry. What I see here is nothing but attack, attack, attack. Heck, Wikipedia is providing free advertising for this cat. Do you not notice that all his "controversial" sites have "For Sale" signs on it? The troops site has a home phone posted on it, whether it's his or not, who knows. So hey..if Wikipedia wants to be a walking, talking commercial that's cool, I just stand firm in my belief that this isn't wikiworthy as he currently stands. He's just one of many bloggers...and you don't give this much hate to all bloggers. Ebn6701
• Strong keep, creator of an extremely notable website; has been on national news networks, etc. --Rory096 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, make that speedy keep. The nominator clearly says "This individual/troll organization/whatever is probably notable enough to deserve an article." AfD is for evaluating the potential of an article, not the current state; just because it should be rewritten doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Rory096 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you volunteering to research and rewrite this article from scratch? --phh (^t/_c) 15:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article in itself is superfluous, sketchy, and seems to be borderline violating the NPOV policy. This article is constantly vandalized, and seems to lack citations where necessary. --EMC 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Even with the cleanup, this article seems to be nothing more than harrassment. I see no profiles for numerous other bloggers. Mbn01291
  • This user's first edit. --phh (^t/_c) 16:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "His most famous public appearances were on No Holds Barred Radio in 2002 and on Hannity and Colmes in May 2005." So he's been on a "radio station" (imagine the four-fingered 'quote marks' gesture with each finger two miles high) which is actually on the Internet, and he was briefly on Fox. Self-promoters managing to get themselves fifteen minutes of fame does not meet WP:BIO. This is an encyclopaedia, not the Who's Who Of Bloggers. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Much like the Michael Crook article itself, this AfD seems to be attracting a lot of attention from anonymous contributors and editors with few if any contributions other than those to Michael Crook-related topics. Considering the nature and history of this article, I believe we should consider the possibility that some or all of these contributors, on both the Keep and Delete sides, are affiliated with Michael Crook him/her/them/itself, and are attempting to drum up more of the controversy that seems to be Crook's stock in trade. (It seems abundantly clear that this is exactly what happened in the previous AfD, leading to the article being retained, which I strongly suspect is what Crook wanted all along.) --phh (^t/_c) 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete individual isn't very notable. He runs a website that is minimally visited. JohnnyBGood t c 23:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been cleaned up a bit. It's written from an unbiased point of view in my opinion. I don't see why anyone would vote Delete for this page. 24.177.115.191 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just something to point out here: most of us have the courtesy to sign our names; this user who is forcing the "keep" issue is yet again from Wisconsin, and is likely a detractor who is not interested in POV. I must agree with the previous 'delete' comment; this subject is not notable, and Wikipedia is not a 'who's who'. Mbn01291
• Comment I actually agree with some of what Michael Crook says. Overall, I support the fact that he says what others aren't willing to say. I believe that even though the facts may look bad to the average reader, it's doesn't make them biased.24.177.115.191 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A simple check of the log will show that this particular Wisconsin user has been a volitile detractor of the subject, thereby calling his motives into question. He has taken it upon himself to ensure that this entry stays, despite the fact the subject is not notable, or is he in any way relevant. Mbn01291
• Comment What exactly do you have against Michael Crook. He's more notable than a lot of people who have a Wikipedia page. The fact that you disagree with his views does not mean he is not notable.216.56.61.66 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This IP address has been blocked for 2 weeks for vandalizing several pages, including this one. --phh (^t/_c) 16:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Again, the Wisconsin user strikes with his detractor views, but this time from an IP likely belonging to his employer, the Mcfarland School District. And yet again, this subject is not notable, and I think it's high time for a decision to be made once and for all. Mbn01291

• Comment Just as notable as Michael Crook Being Mbn01291 and making changes to his own page, like taking off references and changing the detractor site to his... Give us all a break Crook. and yes, this is my first post. I came here by way of Google. Looking over the history, Wiki has been manipulated by Crook. I seems to me, as a newcomer, that it would do the article well to have a good clean edit, and then have someone keep an eye on it to keep Crook at bay.71.227.177.1
• Comment While I am not the subject (the subject, one can tell from the logs, has been banned), a simple Google search will show that the above user is "JoseJump", who by way of the Discussion section and previous voting round, as well as all over the Internet, is proven to have a vendetta against the subject and therefore is biased, and that should be considered in this voting round. Mbn01291

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.