Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Metzger


 * 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 Keep. Tawker 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Metzger
see belowTom 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy is OLD news and VERY un notable at this point. He isn't worth the 15 15mb of storage, IMO. Also, I wouldn't have to revert the vandalism everyday :) Tom 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above Tom 15:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Clean up and Keep. Historically notable just because of the Dees litigation, and Wikipedia has many listings for far less prominent Nazis.  The vandalism should be addressed by banning the "van down by the river" poster, who hasn't contributed anything else other than autobiography.  Wikipedia is far too tolerant of disruptive posters.  Why did you add the inaccuracy tag? -- FRCP11 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Man, I am adding ANY tag I can get my hands on at this point :) Seriously, I have drawn a line in the sand on this one and the BEST part is this guy appears to be SCUM (Metzger). Anyways, I have spent WAY too much time on this but its more of a learning process on Wikipedia procedures than anything else. Can't an admin just drop a NUKE on the TheKingofDixie (just kidding) :) I know that this is the FIRST of many battles to come if I am serious about this project so I am trying to learn the procedurial ropes and play by the rules. Thanks!! Tom 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * NB Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary, which I've added, and Requests for comment/TheKingOfDixie, which Tom started. -- FRCP11 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This guy made a big splash in California around the time I graduated high school; I recognized the name instantly. While on the one hand it's a pity to do anything to slow his slide into richly deserved obscurity, he definitely meets the Pokemon standard, and the resource should be available for people doing research on that moment in history. --Trovatore 16:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per FRCP. I agree that Wikipedia has means to handle pervasive vandalism other than deleting articles, and they should be employed.  RGTraynor 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't see a basis for delete here. Gamaliel 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Entry needs significant NPOV & formatting work, but WP:NN doesn't apply here. -- MarcoTolo 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The person appears to have been notable. If this is a vandal magnet, it should get protected instead of deleted. Jamoche 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote here as I'm pretty sure I was the first to create this page. At the very least, the work of other members should be checked and revised. It's a shame that some people have put up questionable information. --RobbieFal 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. This should be kept.  If reverting is burning someone out... well, i don't know.  But this is good and important info.  I'm just some random 'net user, and came here looking for info after following the fascinating (and sometimes revolting) imagery at http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default_graphics.asp -- This unsigned remark was left by 69.19.14.27
 * Keep. This is a relatively long and interesting article.  It would be a shame to delete it.  MikeWren 18:07, 3 May 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.