Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cryer

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Cryer

Tom Cryer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I came upon this article via an RfC filed over its neutrality. There has been extensive debate over various issues regarding it, before and after the filing of its RfC, which filing has now been replaced by a filing with the Mediation Cabal. Regardless of that, my chief concern has been over its notability. While a popular figure recently with tax protestors (Cryer was acquitted on tax evasion charges in July), there remains the fact that this article is sourced by only one two secondary sources (though there are several primary sources, including court documents and Cryer's soapbox website). An acquittal on tax evasion is not enough to be notable. Being an attorney is not enough to be notable. There is only one relevant, reliable secondary news source for the article, which I believe fails WP:BIO. Before we continue with the Cabal case, I wanted to express my concerns over its notability here and seek community-consensus on the issue. I believe it should be deleted. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• keep I stumbled upon Cryer's case a few months while looking into the whole discussion concerning the legality of the income tax. Considering the importance of the issue in the upcoming election, mostly with Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul campaigning to abolish the IRS and the income tax with it, I believe there's no reason to delete the article (au contraire). -Bruce 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep I feel that editor Into The Fray has some good arguments, though. I am torn on this issue, but I would give it a "weak keep" -- with the fact that Tom Cryer is a tax protester pushing it just slightly over the top. It's very rare for a tax protester to be acquitted in a criminal tax case. The usual idiocy on the internet weblogs includes a repeat of the bizarre argument that when someone is acquitted of a crime, that this somehow means that the court found or ruled that the law itself does not exist (with the tax protester bloggers not realizing that the court in Cryer's own case specifically ruled against those very arguments, and with bloggers not realizing that there is a big difference between a jury "not guilty" verdict and a judge's ruling on a point of law). I think maybe we might be able to find more secondary sources later than could show more notability for Cryer. I won't cry if the article is deleted, though. Famspear 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep As one of the few tax protesters to be acquitted while still making tax protester arguments, I feel he has adequate notability. (The exact number is unclear, but I believe it to be 3.) As for secondary sources, he's named in the tax protester FAQ. There are few secondary sources specifically about him, but there are a number which mention him among other tax protesters. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete and merge (through redirect) into Tax protester history (specifically, add a paragraph mentioning him in the section Notable tax protesters). There is nothing inherently notable about Tom Cryer or his case. In my opinion, the fact that he is one of only a few tax protesters to be acquitted of tax evasion is not notable. His tax protester arguments had nothing to do with his acquittal. His acquittal may be unusual but it is not significant. The acquittal affects no one besides Cryer himself—it does not relieve anyone of the duty to pay taxes and it will not prevent anyone else from being convicted of tax evasion in the future. And the only effect on Cryer is that he stays out of jail—he must still pay his taxes, including interest and penalties for not filing. The only reason Cryer may be notable, in my opinion, is because of the amount of the discussion of this case in the tax protester community—i.e., he is notable because a significant fringe group is (incorrectly) claiming his case is notable or significant. For that reason, I think it would be a good idea to have a brief mention of him in the Tax protester history article—as a way of correcting mistaken beliefs about his or his case's importance. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep There are many secondary sources, but these are not currently in the article because it is a work in progress. Millions of Americans pay income taxes, and it is useful information to them to know why Tom Cryer has openly not filed a tax return or paid income taxes since 1993. It is unjust to differently tax individuals who are similarly situated merely because some understand the law and judiciary better than others. Wikipedia exists to eliminate information disparities. Mpublius 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge - Mateo SA's comment above seems a smart solution. Llajwa 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep I think this individual is notable in regard to tax protesting. I'm familiar with him and I barely keep up with this stuff. It has attracted enough editors to create dispute, which seems to be a sign of notability. Morphh ^(talk) 13:45, 08 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
• Keep I don't understand nom's point about primary and secondary sources; don't we usually prefer secondary to primary sources?--Bedivere 21:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the point, and I apologize if it was ambiguous, is that there are plenty of primary sources (Cryer's website, legal documents relating to Cryer, Cryer's Youtube videos, etc) but scarce few secondary sources. Yes, we do prefer secondary sources, which is rather the whole gist of my nomination. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep there are secondary sources and the court documents certainly count as sources, they are not earth shattering for notability so I can see that maybe a merge into a broader argument could be a solution. One of the frustrations with working on this article has been a lack of secondary news coverage. Still I thin kit squeaks by on notability. Tmtoulouse 23:35, 8 October 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.