Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook

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. -Splash^talk 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Crook

This article was never created in the interest of accuracy, but of of vengance. This article has numerous glaring inaccuracies. When involved parties have attempted to correct this information, it has been "reversed", thereby proving the lack of interest in accuracy.

This person has no relevance, and is certainly not interesting enough to warrant a Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the continuance of this article holds this person up to public ridicule, and therefore could result in civil implications. Other articles do the same thing, completely disrespecting people's privacy. I cite the article on Natalie Portman. She chooses not to use her family name out of safety for her family..her homeland is a lot different than America. Yet, in a total disregard for her wishes and family's safety, her name is listed. It has no relevance.

So it is with this article. There is simply no need to have it. Its purpose is not news, but malice and humiluation. Oneforthetruth 22:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. --InShaneee 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- not uber-notable, but notable enough. Article needs to be beaten severely with a cleanup stick, though. — Adrian Lamo ·· 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs to be cleaned up to conform to NPOV-status. It is hard to see why the subject is notable when one has to wade through reams of POV hatecruft to get at any issue that pertains to the man.  (aeropagitica)  22:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It looks like a NPOV magnet, but that's not a reason to delete. Fan1967 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he got a lot of coverage for some of his antics. I wouldn't call it "POV hatecruft" - this article is a factual account of Crook's various websites and publicity stunts, which cites many sources. Rhobite 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My view is that a guy that works for a year straight to get on Fox news, to get on the radio, to get into the newspapers, and when you Google his name is all over the place, deserves a spot on Wiki. I am not sure what the contention is here... Crook himself is the one that tries to make the most changes,as is evident from his IP#'s based either out of Syracuse, or a nearby suburb. I think it could use some cleaning up by someone that is really experienced at writing wiki, but the guy is a public figure, He gets to live with the fame.. I am not sure what is in here that is so terrible. He is concerned about his families safety???(the question begs to be asked why he started all his stuffin the first place) but he regularly posts the contact information for police, his detractors, and other public figures if he can find it... why does it not apply to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.116 (talk • contribs)

Well, did you ever stop to think, with your lack of courage to even sign your entry, that maybe there would be no need for him to post his detractors' info if this entry didn't exist? Misery loves company..at least that's my view. Despite what you think, I am not him, nor does he live in New York. If you bothered to do even five minutes of kindergarten-level research, you'd know that. But again, you're after blood and vengence. If that's the way you want to live life, that's fine, but I see this as a vicious circle. There's no need for this article, and it can certainly be considered a threat, a civil implication for Wikipedia, and just plain stupid. And again, if it were to go away, the detractor's information likely would as well. Who knows? It's a crazy mixed up world, but there are lots of people who have lots of Google hits, who don't have an entry. Actress Blaze Berdahal has many hits, but no Wikipedia entry. Why? Oh yes, whoever created this entry did it out of spite and moral outrage. Oneforthetruth 12:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an account, but as you can see my IP is plainly logged. Explain how it is a threat, and how there are civil implications for Wikipedia? And if in fact the article was created out of spite and Moral outrage, why has Michael Crook edited and added to his own Wiki... I think you are outvoted at this point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.96.116 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Delete. I don't feel that this article bears relevance any longer, and is bordering on tabloid methods. Ratgirl056 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nowhere near the bounds of speedy deletion criteria, you must be joking. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article is not relevant. This subject is nothing more than a blogger who doesn't publically display his opinions. He doesn't back them up at protests like Cindy Sheehan or Ann Coulter. He's a waste of air. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.157.29.128 (talk • contribs) .

• do not delete The article is absolutely relevant, The subject not only has a blog, but anti- troop, anti-police, other actual websites, as apposed to blogs. He did back them up by going on national television, radio, and was featured in News stories. This article is not about an opinion of whether he is a waste of air or not, but whther the things listed happened or not, and they did. (and continue to.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.96.116 (talk • contribs) .

Well, as "apposed" to doing your research, you slander the subject. He does not HAVE anti-trop, anti-police websites. He HAD them. No blog, either. So, if you can't get those facts right, you've proven this article is full of inaccuracies, and therefore I stand by a delete vote. You've proven that you have no interest in facts, but revenge, and moral outrage.

Ratgirl056 14:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's no justification for this article unless Wikimedia wants to get into the tabloid business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.156.3.213 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete because:
  1. Does this guy even exist? First few pages of Google brings up a bunch of Michael Cooks who are not him. Not a good sign for notability.
  2. What the hey is this article about, and what exactly has he done? None of this is very clear. I gather that he found a guy's camera, OK. After this it gets kind of fuzzy. BTW I found a camera once! I gather from the pic that he was on Fox News? Who hasn't been on Fox News?
  3. I gather the guy doesn't want the article to exist? Hey, based on Jimbo's appear for reasonable respect for living people, why give some guy pain over a worthless article.
  4. The hair. I'm sorry, but... no. These are not the kind of images we want our children to see. Herostratus 21:28, 9 March 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.