Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey


 * 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&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonathon Sharkey

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The notability of this individual is borderline at best; he is a self-proclaimed satanist and vampire who's claim to fame was announcing a bid for the 2006 Minnesota gubernatorial election on Friday 13 January 2006. Starting in the beginning of October, the individual himself,, began editting the article and editwarring over the course of several months. I had reverted the article in its present state to a point prior to either Mr. Sharkey and the WP:SPA that goes by. The Impaler has since been indefblocked for threatening legal actions, but as previously stated, this article is a bare WP:BIO passing, and based on both his withdrawal from the Minnesota election, and stating prior to my reversion that he's running in his own third party for the 2008 presidential election, that this guy is simply not notable for entry in Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, notablity is very borderline Jaranda wat's sup 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are news articles about him and featured on CSB. He farily well known for being a crazy vampire guy. --155.144.251.120 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Self-evidently notable: significant amounts of media coverage, subject of a film --Stlemur 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have spent a bit of time upgrading (I hope) since the article was listed here. IMHO, the subject is notable (if not fascinating) in several respects.  He's run for president twice and congress at least three times.  He is the subject of a documentary shot by independent filmmakers who have stated that the subject will have no input into or control over their film.  His story has been reported in major television and print media across the US, including a report on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update.  He has been involved in dozens of lawsuits, some of which have resulted in reported opinions.  If the consensus is delete, that's fine, but please review the most recent version. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC), revised by Butseriouslyfolks 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, with a condition that the article be cleaned up. I personally find the article to be an eye-roller as it exists right now, but the one problem I have of it is that it feels like it's autobiographical in such a way as to spin shock value.  In short, POV issues.  --Dennisthe2 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Stelmur. Killroy4 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The guy seems to have a moderate amount of infamy for being a raving loony. It might benefit from a lock to stop him sodding about with it though.--Hikari 00:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several articles on Wikipedia about people like him who are mostly famous for being mad in public. He probably shouldn't be able to edit his own article though. We're operating under the assumption that 'Butseriouslyfolks' is him, right? --Apeloverage 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (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.