Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Flocco

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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Flocco

Non notable conspiracy theorist. Fails WP:BIO. Peephole 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. No, unfortunately, he's quite notoriously well-known in the same way that Alex Jones and Richard Hoagland are, and has a devoted fan base. He gets 52,000 Google hits. How does he fail WP:BIO? wikipediatrix 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Blogs and personal websites don't count -- see WP:RS and WP:Verify. Morton devonshire 02:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Alexa ranking for tomflocco.com is 295,671. I can't seem to find any major mainstream mentions of the guy. As the article points out, there's plenty of fringe and minor media coverage, but I doubt this qualifies. Overall I could see this going either way but I probably lean toward delete. Could one of the Keepists maybe provide evidence that he's been featured in a less obscure venue than the ones currently listed in the article? The low Alexa ranking makes me wonder if maybe there are a large number of readers who read his material on other sites. Can we have some evidence of such traffic? My Alt Account 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep: Flocco has a generated a considerable amount of controversy, and along the way has established himself as a recognized figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has clearly achieved notability, in part for being among the first reporters to have the temerity to question the 'official' hijacked plane theory, about the undersized hole in the Pentagon, proffered by government officials. Ombudsman 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Show me more of this controversy and I'll add my keep vote. Your vote amounts to saying "I like this guy and I like what he says," which is never going to convince me. My Alt Account 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Even nutcases can be notable, and googling him supports both assertions. The article needs cleaning up though. Seaphoto 04:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Might be a nut, but notable--MONGO 09:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and particularly My Alt Account. Vizjim 12:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep has over 50,000 google results which makes me think he['s notable. Plus, many of the places he contributed to have their own wiki pages. --mathewguiver 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I've looked through google (albeit not all 50,000 links), and haven't turned up any reliable sources that can be used in this article. I'm only finding sources such as "illuminati-news.com". I'm not sure that he meets WP:BIO criteria: "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" and "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Unless better, reliable sourcing is provided, I have to say delete on this. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--ChaplineRVine(talk ¦ ✉) 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I changed my mind.--MONGO 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per AudeVivere Marcus22 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per wikipediatrix. Out of curiosity, in what way does this fail WP:BIO? RFerreira 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep well known quack theorist/journalist.  ALKIVAR™ 21:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:If he's well known, can you provide us with some reliable sources about his persona? --Peephole 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ditto above. Coverage seems to be limited to blogs and fringe sites. Where's the controversy? My Alt Account 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and My Alt Account. --Aaron 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Appears to be a lack of reliable sources. Resolute 00:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete piece fails two of the three WP:BLP key requirements (WP:V and WP:NOR) and no likelihood that it ever could meet them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 50000 google hits is enough. Q0 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Tbeatty 17:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just another of many non-notable theorists. I don't see mention in mainstream sources. Tom Harrison Talk 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Tremendously well known person--Pussy Galore 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete once again, it's important to be careful with the Google numbers. 50K+ hits indeed but in fact 690 unique hits. Among the top hits are articles exposing him as a lunatic [1] [2] (albeit from not so reliable sources) and almost all the references to him are from conspiracy theory blogs. Where are the reliable references on this guy? I think keeping such an article is a mistake for the credibility of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 06:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aude--Mmx1 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Crockspot 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pascal.Tesson --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- he is notable journalist— Possible single purpose account: J henry waugh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Delete per Aude. Usually, I will give articles the benefit of the doubt. But with all of the "stuff" going around, delete. First, never heard of Flocco. Second,(as Pascal points out) some numbers can be misleading. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:02, 13 September 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.