Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Crabtree

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 DELETE. Obviously, I'm ignoring all the forgeries by the anon, after which things are pretty clear. -Splash^talk 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article said he gained fame regarding his writings about Iraq, but the Google test seems to say otherwise. [1] (Note - there are quite a few hts for just "James Crabtree," but I think that refers to a number of people with that name.) I can't seen to discern anything at all noteworthy about this guy - he's a Marine captian who's posted on a few political blogs... I discovered this article when I was checking the user contributions of Algore2008, who had been making some blatantly orginal-research and potentially slanderous edits to the Alex Jones (journalist) article. But at any rate, since this person doesn't seem in any way notable, I say Delete. Blackcats 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - it's a tough bordeline case. I am voting keep because the article is quite clean. Renata3 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it's borderline. 618 Google hits is pitifully low for a blogger! I get more than that for my own name and I don't even have a blog. Blackcats 04:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - relisting for more feedback. Blackcats 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC) and Blackcats 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the more significant content into Politics1.com, the web site where his writings were posted. --Metropolitan90 08:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable blogger, Guardian contributor [2]. -- JJay 21:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to weak delete. Blackcats makes some good points about the Guardian article + the guy's blog is lame. However, I do think his dispatches from Iraq got some attention at the time, although the radio coverage is impossible to assess. -- JJay 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • How do you know that the Guardian author is even the same guy??? The Guardian article was about bloggers, but nowhere do I see the author identify himself as a blogger. Crabtree is a very common last name, and James is one of the most common first names. His supposed claim to fame is that he's written about Iraq, so the relevant Google hits should mention "Iraq" along with his name - but only around 600 do. Hmmm...well maybe some list his writing about "anbar" provence but not "Iraq," (Only 2 do [3]) or perhaps the city of "Fallujah" (Only 7 do [4]) or even his home town of "Austin" Texas (Only a little over 300 do [5], and I'm not even sure all of these are about the same guy). (Note - I excluded "Iraq" for all of those searches to avoid duplicates of hits from the original search.) But at any rate, even a non-noteworthy blogger would be likely to have a whole lot more relevant Google hits than this Crabtree guy does - given the nature of blogs and their ability to create a lot of redundant Google hits. So I have yet to see anyone give any evidence that this blogger's inclusion here is anything but vanity! Blackcats 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - A few more links here - This is his blog. This is his blog profile (it matches with his Wikipedia article), and it doesn't say anything about writing for the Guardian. Here are the sites which link to his supposedly noteworthy blog [6]. I hope this will clear up any ambiguity and confusion. Blackcats 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "James Crabtree" iraq gets fewer Google hits than "Guy Chapman" cyclist. The guy is apparently less notable in his chosen sphere than I am in mine. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• deleteNon notable.Obina 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.--nixie 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like lots of good info. Heard him on the radio a lot here in TX.--Creelcreal 11:10, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)

• I've been on the radio, too. Not just local radio, BBC Radio 4. And I score more Google hits than he does. And if anyone created an article about me I will laugh heartily before AfDing it :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• And I might be the Pope. Since we can't verify your statement above, can you create an article on yourself and then nominate it please? We need to debate this...although if your statement is true, I might very well vote Keep. -- JJay 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I work on Capitol Hill and his updates via politics1 were well read. Lots of folks, and not just the damn GOPers. I work for a very liberal CA Dem, and we read it a lot. --TeresaC 13:49, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
• Keep I have taken the libo to merge this piece into the politics1 piece. Still, I rather think it should remain. It seems clean enough. Not sure if that blog was one he used or not. The poli1 link is good though. Lots of writing and photos. Fitzmaurice 13:52, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep Not bad. Some good info. Maybe a re-write? This is no place for grudge matches or whatever is going on here. Not sure. I'm open to debate. --figgy4fight 15:54, 28 December 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.209.254 (talk • contribs)
• Strong delete, non-notable blogger. Was inclined to vote weak delete or weak keep, but this obvious, blatant sock puppetry by an anonymous user reaks of vanity bio and is extremely bad faith. (Is it even called sock puppetry if the comments are all made by the same account, or just lying?) --Quarl 02:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, of 204.65.209.254 (talk · contribs)'s contributions that I looked at (there are many), I classify all of them as simple vandalism, sneaky vandalism, or blatant POV (example: [7] - repeated 3 times). I suggest something be done about this user and all articles he edited be checked for vandalism and POV. --Quarl 02:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good job catching that. The IP's vandalism to the Karan English page is much the same as this edit by User:Algore2008 (contributions), the same editor who started the James Crabtree article, so it looks like they're probably the same person. Blackcats 05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.