Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Proto::type 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klerck

"Not notable". No vote from me. Kotepho 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Previously nominated at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klerck

  • Keep. This AfD is because of a prior bogus speedy nomination from an apparent GNAA troll Werto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). See for example Image:Freelimbaugh247.png (note the data in the form fields) and trolling at [1] and [2]. -- Phr (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep definitely notable. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Doesn't matter who nominated this article, it blatantly violates WP:BIO and WP:V. The sole claim to notability is "Some credit his page widening techniques as the primary reason Slashdot implemented the lameness filter, which checks pending comments for repetitive text or malicious formatting before allowing them to appear on a website". Even if you consider that noteworthy - which I don't, some blog changed some setting in response to some nerd making pages wide and annoying other nerds? Why didn't I see his obituary in The Times? - the claim is tagged with {{fact}}, and it's obviously never going to get a citation from a reliable source. "Some credit"... "Some users found..." "May show..." - this is a complete joke. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The nominator removed stuff about the notorious Two Towers petition which got considerable press attention. I'll put it back. Phr (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict (I saw the petition stuff)) Might as well cover the other supposed claims to notability: he got banned from somewhere, he founded a joke petition, and he committed suicide, all of which I could probably do myself within 3-12 hours, depending on how quickly I can procure a bottle of vodka and some sleeping pills. The petition is supposedly notable for its external coverage, but I read the Times article via Factiva. It's 8 lines long and doesn't mention Klerck at all. There is also an MSNBC article which is only mentioned in a blog article, with no actual proper citation to be found to give us any hint of how we can find the actual article (and if verification isn't repeatable, it's not verification at all), and it sounds bloggish anyway from the article actually linked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment a minute with Proquest found several news stories from all over the world about the petition incident (they don't mention Klerck by name); I added a few more cites to the article. I don't think this is the most important article in the world but I'm a bit bothered by the notion that Wikipedia articles can get removed if MSNBC takes down a story that the Wikipedia article cites. WP:V expresses a preference for citing online media instead of print media and maybe that's not such a great idea. I like to think Wikipedia will be around long after organizations like MSNBC are gone. Phr (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete-especially after reading the previous AfD. I see this article being a real POV fork, in either direction. For those who love them, they can slather unsourced Weasel Words and craft it as a Wiki-Memorial. For others, it can be a lightening rod for troll vandalism. But on the whole, I don't see how all the sums merits an article. 1.) He was a notable troll. Trolls are not inherently notable and in fact tend to have a short shelf life. Is anyone going to be looking up a particular internet troll 10 years from now? But he was "famous" in his own time and to that extent I would think he warrants his mention on the Internet troll page. 2.) The Petition. I could possibly see an argument for this having an article but in truth, it's best served with the mention it already has for on the Two Towers page. 3.) He posted a suicide note on the web. Sadly, this all too common and the nature of his suicide doesn't have the unique element that Brandon Vedas had in regards to internet culpability. Adding it all together, I just don't see a reason to keep it. Agne 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a list of everything ever mentioned in the press. Too-brief-fad. -- GWO
  • Keep. Notable in so many different ways. Internet troll culture, suicide and exploiting flaws. Viscid 08:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete I have merged the encyclopedic aspects of the Two Towers petition to The Two Towers (film)#9/11 "controversy". As some have mentioned, there might be some bits worthy of merging to Internet troll or the Slashdot pages. Goodbye, Klerck. KWH 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually like the article for sort-of-literary reasons that are hard to explain. It somehow got on my watchlist a fairly long time ago and it does get vandalized regularly, so I end up looking at it again every so often when fixing it. Its view into Klerck's personality adds some character to the encyclopedia, or something like that. I'm reminded also of User:Grace Note's and User:Vizjim's comments in Sam Sloan's AfD about AfD's on semi-notable, unusual personalities and I'm somewhat persuaded by their arguments when self-promotion isn't involved (and I'm a long way from being an inclusionist). Sam Blanning's remark that it doesn't matter who nominated the article is of course true, but the speedy nominator was blocked as a GNAA troll a few hours after making the nom. It will be ironic if a troll takes out the article after the regular editors have left it in peace for so long. Phr (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: The circumstances in which this has been nominated concern me. I think the nom could be an attempt at disruption. --Tim1988 talk 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trollish nomination or not, this subject really doesn't merit an article, and as usable content has been merged to appropriate locations, this is rendered unnecessary. It is sort of an interesting content, but it doesn't belong on this site. GassyGuy 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy someone whose biggest claim to fame was posting an online petition to get a movie title changed??? Even if successful (and it wasn't), it wouldn't be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually there is some circumstantial evidence that the petition was partly successful. As reported in the LA Times, the LOTR filmmakers did a big benefit premiere of Fellowship of the Ring in NYC for a 9/11 charity, but then, subsequent to Klerck's petition making the internet rounds, they got cold feet at doing a similar premiere for the second film. However, it's not directly established (at least right now) that the second premiere was cancelled because of the petition. Phr (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The petition got press coverage from around the world, and someone thought it was notable enough to document it in the "Two Towers" film article in its own section (I don't think I would have gone that far). It's attributed there to Klerck (originally without a wikilink) but that immediately raises the question "what kind of person would have done this?". And where else is anyone going to find the info? My original "keep" sentiments were lukewarm but I feel somewhat firmer about it now. Phr (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that addition to the Two Towers article was just done today, and seems to be a response to this AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, sorry if it wasn't clear that I was responding to that. Phr (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial to dead losers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Q0 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete --KJFhjf 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' It can improve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.148.223 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The article needs some work but is on someone with a relatively large importance on parts of the internet which had some effects into the real world as well Crummy 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Account created 2 days before the AfD was entered and has just a few edits, not sure that should be weighted. Phr (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This page is essential in documenting internet troll and GNAA culture. This infomation is of the kind that can be very easily lost. He was an important net personality at one point.--CalPaterson 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Articles like this are not only non-notable but also glorify and support trolling. --Vergardio 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Brand new account, jumps immediately into this afd and related ones, possible sock. Phr (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete --TheEmoEater 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ka-Me-Ha-Me-Ha! Keep! This man is an icon of Trolling in the same way Che Guevara is an icon of socialist revolutionary movements worldwide!--Gainax 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • New account, not sure what to make of contribs, doesn't appear sock-like. Phr (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Phr, I know this person in real life. Gainax is not a sock, and has just recieved a barnstar.--CalPaterson 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Coment I don't see any Klerck t-shirts. --Yunipo 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per norm --Yunipo 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Brand new account, first contribution is to this AFD and next is to insert a bunch of {{fact}} tags into the Klerck article for things that were in fact documented in the references cited in the article.
  • Delete per Sam Blanning. -- Scientizzle 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I completely agree with Agne. I was honestly strongly considering a Weak Keep, I guess partly in sympathy... but the points in keeping an article to Wiki standards outweigh that notion. The Two Towers Petition thing could be notable as an internet phenomenon, and yeah, could technically have its own article, actually. I see it's been merged into the film's article though, which I think is enough. His death, while tragic, is something that happens regularly in this world. Still, I think brief information about him in the internet troll article should stay intact as well though, as a sort of "famous example." Maybe a little more info could be added to the Two Towers article of his antic (maybe his death could fit in to the Trivia section, possibly, heh). -- Shadowolf 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as hard as it is for me to say - don't care much about the circumstances of nomination, this clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:V. All of this stuff sounds a bit fishy to me, especially the supposed trolling stuff (as in "disruptive behaviour even the most thick-headed hooligans can come up in two seconds flat"). And if all of this stuff were true, that still would barely climb above the notability threshold. The petition may or may not be notable in itself but that doesn't mean petitioner is. ("I believe every dog and wolf puppy should have an article." There. You can quote me on that. Now please make an article about me. Don't feel like? Well, neither do I.) And while suicides are always tragic, this is neither first of its kind nor notable in its own right, I'm terribly sorry. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I notice that the brand new user "Yunica" (who I suspect is yet another sock of the original nominator) recently went and spewed bogus {{fact}} tags all over the article, to make the verifiability issues look worse than they are (the tags were bogus because they were attached to items which were in fact already documented in the references section). I added footnotes to where most of the tags were, though to be fair there are still a few things needing to be checked out. Inserting those tags appears to have been a bad faith edit to manipulate the afd. If that was the version you saw, it would be nice if you could take another look. Most of the article is in fact pretty well sourced. Phr (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Even with that stuff sourced, this person's notability is still rather marginal. Like I said, the petition is probably more infamous than the person. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well sure, the newsmedia didn't report on the person because (like Jack the Ripper) he didn't attach his name to his activity; but unlike Jack the Ripper, there wasn't a trail of bodies and consequent huge manhunt, so there wasn't that much attempt to find the person behind the events. What documentation remains is of some historical interest, but it's fading away steadily and is mostly concentrated in places like this, and is simply going to be lost if the article is deleted. I see preserving that type of hard-to-collect documentation as part of why Wikipedia is here. Wikipedia shouldn't be entirely about video game characters. Phr (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Also see: No true Scotsman) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep and cleanup, he's notable enough, with some of his activities cited and his death also fairly notable in the online community, though the "some... while others..." chaff really has to go. I think it's safe to remove any text flagged with the {{fact}} tags if they haven't been fixed by the conclusion of this AfD (assuming this article is kept). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Some more cites are now added. Phr (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-I am a bit concerned at the path this AfD is starting to take, in particular with the isolating of users who favor delete for an examination of their "good faith". An AfD is never meant to be a vote and frankly, the three word "keep/delete per nom" reply is rather useless unless there is persuasive reasoning behind the view. Hence, there is not a need to "swift boat" the other side to try and cancel out their "vote". I do believe it is in the best interest of all to simply WP:AGF and state your reason for keep or deletion and leave it at that. There is no need to comment on each and every user's possible vote motivation. Agne 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article also hardly expands. It seems a lot of the sites he used to go to deleted a lot of the things he's said. The suicide thing is also questionable to the lack of information. Markendust
    • Comment some people (myself included) believe his whole "suicide" was just an elaborate troll. --Yunipo 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agne, it is part of AFD policy that new accounts are supposed to weigh less in determining consensus; I made notes of all the ones I noticed, not just the "delete" supporters, to assist the closing admin and to alert those who might find themselves "piling on". I also believe there is sockpuppeting going on given the number of WP:SPA's participating here, a couple of whom have already been blocked. I even see possible issues of censorship on the part of the original apparently-GNAA-connected bad-faith speedy nominator and his/her possible associates or socks trying to suppress this article and now the similar one Brandon Vedas (AfD by another brand new user). (That issue emphatically does not apply to the legitimate supporters of deletion on good-faith editorial grounds). Per Agne's request, I will stop adding such notes, but the closing admin and others should check the contributions of every participant. And, I only made such notes for the SPA's, not regular editors who favored deletion (though I responded to some of their arguments).

    Yunipo, on my first contact with the article, I also suspected the death (including the published obituary linked from the article) might be a hoax and I thought of AfD'ing it myself, but I checked it out off-web and confirmed it to my satisfaction, and that's how I started watching the article.

    Re the WP:BIO complaints: I agree that Klerck's personal notability per se is marginal per the guidelines, but I think the biographical info is important as background and context for his widely-reported activities (the article currently cites newspapers of 3 or 4 different countries). As a web user who has to deal with trolls, I'm interested in their biographies, just as people concerned with terrorism might study the biography of Mohammed Atta, to know what they're dealing with. Just about anyone (as Sam Blanning remarks) could do what Klerck did; and any airline pilot could do what Atta did--so why didn't they? One has to look for answers to "why do these guys do what they do?" and it's not enough to say "Atta attacked the WTC because he was a terrorist, end of story". So the biographies and their documentation are relevant in the search for understanding. That's why I find merging the petition stuff to the Two Towers movie and trashing the rest to be unsatisfactory. Phr (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I am not closing this AfD, but I do not think this is notable, and agree it should be deleted -- Avi 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP. I don't care if he is notable or not but the article is helpful for people who study cybersociology. I hadn't expected to read such a thing when I was looking for the word "troll". I ask you: WHAT WOULD YOU GAIN IN DELETING THIS WELL-WRITTEN PAGE? There are trillions or articles topped with unadulterated BS. Why do you not delete them? And some arrogant people are not paying attention to people who didn't contribute much with their usernames. EVERYONE is equal here.

WHY HAS SOME LOSER APPLIED FOR DELETION FOR THE SECOND TIME WHEN THIS ARTICLE HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED FOR A "KEEP" (No, I didn't mean concubine) IN THE FIRST AfD DEBATE? BADMINton 09:14, 31 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.