Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Corley

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. Sorry, just zis Guy, you know?, but you're in a clear minority here. — JIP | Talk 17:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Mike Corley

Trouble seeing that this person comes close to meeting WP:BIO, his main claim to notability appears to be active on Usenet, but there are few or no actual achievements. A Google check on "Mike Corley" produced about 11,200 hits but none of it seems to infer much notability and is most likely due to his internet activity. In contrast, a Google check on "Sjakkalle" gives 57,900 hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in fact this would be a Speedy candidate in my opinion. Schitzophrenic usenet poster who may or may not even be a real person, according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline speedy. Being a Usenet poster isn't notable nor is thinking that MI5, ASIO or the CIA are watching your every move if you are mentally ill. Distinct verifiability problems as well. Capitalistroadster 18:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Whining Author Section

Oh dear, now I'm going to sound like all those whiners trying to keep their favourite band/website/comic/evangelist. I'm not going to vote (bad form voting on your own page: of course you want it kept!).

WP:V is not a problem (check the Google Groups Usenet archive going back as long as you want).

And I'm not claiming he's not notable for being mad, either. What I'm saying is that the particular form his mania has taken - which has involved making public complaints against public figures (Martyn Lewis, Jon Snow, John Major, Kenneth Clarke, the BBC in general), the fact that he has issued at least one plaint against the British Government (how many poeple actually do that?), and especially the way in which he has documented all his alleged persecution on the website ([1]) is quite singular, and has also resulted in him getting much wider notice than your average nutter. Now, that level of notice may not be enough - so be it - but much of it is a matter of public record via the Usenet archives and even court records. So, notability problems, yes, I'll accept that, but if it was unverifiable I would not have put the page up in the first place (and the editors of h2g2 would not have passed this - yes, the same Just zis Guy, you know?).

Also, just Googling for Mike Corley will miss a lot of references. Most of the threads he starts use munged addresses (and titles) to avoid the many spam filters people use to try to get rid of him. A google on MI5 +persecution yields 36,500 hits and all the top ones are Corley, the archive shows plenty more as well. He has sued the British Government (plaint struck out), complained to the Broadcasting Standards Council and so on. His profile is considerably higher than you'd expect, due in part to a relentless 15-year campaign of spamming by email, fax and Usenet.

I freely admit that I find the case as interesting as I find the person infuriating :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:53, 18 November 2005 (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.