Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith (3rd 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The result was nomination withdrawn, speedy keep GRBerry 04:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Mcilwraith

Alan Mcilwraith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Consistency with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay Catchpole 11:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)I'm happy to withdraw this nomination per the consensus below. Catchpole 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith (2nd nomination) (this version of the article); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith (the original hoax article)

• Keep. Newsworthy hoax involving Wikipedia which was widely covered by the UK and Scottish press - see [1] for media citations. I'm not at all happy with the extremely thin rationale given for this AfD; it seems to be little more than a tu quoque argument. We should be assessing articles on the basis of their individual merit. -- ChrisO 13:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Added - for the background to this article, see this Wikipedia Signpost article of 17 April 2006. -- ChrisO 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - No apparent reason for AfD. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, what has a widely covered con-job to to with Essjay? Alf^Photoman 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is hard to see why someone should want to delete this article. It is informative and relates to a real life incident where a person tried to con Wikipedia and failed. It is not glorifying Alan McIlwraith in any way, and the incident received a great deal of media coverage in the UK.--Ianmacm 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable hoax. Multiple independent sources. Was notable not so much for Wikipedia as for the wider fraud - wikipedia article was just a small part of the hoax. Nssdfdsfds 16:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per ChrisO and Ianmacm. Beginning 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. A hoax that garnered more than enough attention to satisfy WP:N. -- Black Falcon 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Yet another one of these. So somebody apparently decided to use the unconnected controversy to start another AFD for this. The fact was that Mcilwright failed to get himself into Wikipedia at the first place when the others around him were fooled. No direct connection to Essjay debacle. Not to mention that this nomination is a borderline potential violation of WP:POINT - Skysmith 10:50, 5 March 2007 (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.