Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Crawford

Byron Crawford
Vanity. Delete.-gadfium 19:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deletion, Really. Inter 19:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Is Byron Crawford a real, notable person? This seems to be a badly-written article, and not a vanity. Uninformative and not encyclopedic, but that may be a weakness suitable for better writing, and not deletion. Delete. It appears to be on the blogger, thanks Niteowl. Not notable, and still badly-written and non-NPOV. Khanartist 21:01, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * This article may be trying to describe the non-notable, vulgar, ex-con blogger ]. There is a local TV host by the same name, that doesn't seem sufficiently notable either. Niteowlneils 20:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, silly vandalism. Wyss 20:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Poorly written vanity? Poorly written hoax?  Equally irrelevant.  Delete.  Edeans 21:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMO a valid candidate for speedy deletion under case #3, pure vandalism. Alternatively it could be considered a test by the anon who contributed it (and has no other edits), but that's still a speedy, case #2. Obviously not everyone agrees, it was proposed for speedy before, but there is no record on the talk page as to why the speedy nomination was removed. Does anyone really think this is a good faith edit? Andrewa 21:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now completely rewritten by yet another anon, who also then blanked this page (please don't). New version appears related to the old only by the name. Not yet a good stub, no change of vote as yet. Andrewa 01:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the new version. Vanity. JoaoRicardo 05:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. - not vanity 14:22, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)Joe McPerson
 * Comment: That vote by IP 138.88.38.158, the IP who blanked this page before. Andrewa 18:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am sorry to have blanked the page, I was not aware of the procedure. The discussion I blanked I saw as irrelevent because the discussion focused on the article which was completely re-written. The votes wanted to delete an article which had been completely changed, so I figured they weren't relevent anymore. PS - your IP thing is messed up. I changed a lot of articles which don't show up in the articles my "contributions". And I can still see that those changes I've made are still on the pages I changed.
 * Keep. (He's real.) 68.50.166.16 05:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)(Jim)
 * Comment: That vote by the IP as stated, with no other contributions. Andrewa 18:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. - I'd like to bring to the fore a certainly relevant question: is it possible in any entry to retain a completely neutral point of view? Moreover, regardless of Byron Crawford's personal opinions, this entry, while certainly discussing Mr. Crawford, the Mindset Army, and his other pertinent dealings, does not necessarily espouse them.  This entry merely calls attention to the fact that Mr. Crawford is a prominent member of the African American community.  -- Johnny Whitewater
 * Comment: That vote by IP 65.29.191.214, who has one other contribution, an expansion to the Abraham Lincoln article. Andrewa 18:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Such issues have been discussed at length, and the discussion is not over, but here is not the place. Unless some verification can be provided, I'd still have to say delete. This verification can be provided in the article itself, or on its talk page. No change of vote. Andrewa 18:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 24.148.208.115 22:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)CMB
 * This user has 3 edits to the article and this VfD. Khanartist 22:13, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps even the author of the original article. Same IP, anyway. No verification yet, just BTW, and no change of vote. Andrewa 23:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, borderline notability, needs a major rewrite if kept. Megan1967 01:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete subtle vandalism, and the suspect votes by the various IP addresses lend weight to this vote. --Deathphoenix 03:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to be another little internet phenomenon. If it grows by a few orders of magnitude it may then earn an article, but meantime I'm afraid it will have to do it without our help. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: This has been dormant for three years. If no new sources/material have been added, then my vote is for deletion. Archer Drezelan (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Subject appears to be a significant social commentator. Two regional press features are referenced satisfying WP:BASIC. Article needs work. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)