Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Crow

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Crow

This article was tagged for deletion without a rationale a few months ago. I removed it after a few days of silence. The creator, a newbie, took that as an opportunity to remove the maintenance tags. That brought the nominator back, this time with a short comment on the article's talk page and a reinstatement of the AfD and maintenance tags. The creator thinks the tagging is vandalism, the nominator is uncommunicative, the creator has a CoI, the article is borderline A7 for want of an assertion... so the community needs to think about this, not a lone admin. As such, I have no opinion either way. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually found the article kinda interesting (which isn't a reason to keep) but also found it good information to know and sourced. Be nice to the newbies... newbies, please cooperate. Cleanup. Fixit. Have some cookies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one of the references listed on the page is actually about Snow; the rest are incidental mentions in stories about other subjects (which does not rise to the level required for verifiability). The one story about him is from a blog (which doesn't count as a reliable source. I couldn't find anything more substantive in a Google search, but wonder if anyone else has found more. Given what the article says about him, it seems the appropriate criteria would be in WP:POLITICIAN; the article fails that. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 18:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noble and fascinating an operation as the Austin Holistic Dance Collective (or wherever Mr Crow works from) maybe, it doesn't render him notable and worthy of inclusion in teh 'pedia. Delete as failing WP:N amongst other things y'all. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And clean-up. Anarchy hippie freaks can be notable too. I find no reason to disput what is written and each bit expanded a skosh would suss out a better article that weaves the threads of Crows life together. Another non-mainstream character whose sources are likely to be found in ... non-mainstream places. Start adding those and with a bit of polish this could be a good article. -- Banjeboi 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not convinced the encyclopaedia would be improved by the removal of this article. The information contained therein is uncontroversial and useful to the reader and there are currently six sources that have yet to be integrated into the text to expand and verify the article. As far as notability qua importance is concerned, someone whose writings are regularly syndicated on Infoshop.org, the premier online anarchist portal, is on par with otherwise notable scholars and activists. the skomorokh 17:30, 13 November 2008 (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.