Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Roger Gregerson

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 keep. - Bobet 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Roger Gregerson

Non notable criminal event TruthCrusader 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He fits the notoriety criteria - "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". He's got 28,400 google hits for his exact name, and 500 Google News hits. Think that's sufficient. If he should be removed, then so should Destiny Norton.

*Comment: Added by me somewhat earlier, forgot to sign it. Supersheep 16:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He is the indicted/confessed killer of the subject of an eight-day search conducted in part by the FBI that made national headlines in the U.S. - Chadbryant 16:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia should not only reflect the glorious history of Mormonism, but also its seamy underbelly. Linden Arden 16:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Mormonism is not relevant to this debate. The claim that the killer was motivated by his family's religion is speculative at best. BFD1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keepduskins 09:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment: I started the destiny norton page, specifically because I kept searching on wikipedia waiting for something to come up, this was national news, as someone else pointed out above he is the confessed killer and it is certain a notable considering how many searches on both google and even Destinynorton.net (which has had more than 100,000 visitors since it's creation just a month ago)/

• Comment: This appears to be a pretty cut-and-dry case of a nonsensical AfD request built more on personal agenda than on facts. Given the fact that there have been no votes to delete, how long does this need to remain open? - Chadbryant 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I agree with Chadbryant that this article should not be deleted, I think it is an egregious breach of savoir faire to claim that the original call for deletion was motivated "more on personal agenda than on facts." Linden Arden 17:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: duskins All right, we had better nominate the Mark Karr entry as well then? The crime is nearly indentical, just more publicity. Idiots. 11:38 17 August 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.