Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Stoll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Glen Stoll
This person seems to be just an ordinary criminal. From the article there does not seem to be anything notable or remarkable about him more than the hundreds of others who are found guilty by the courts every day. Steve Dufour 05:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. He is already mentioned in Kent Hovind, which is his only potential link to notability. -Jmh123 06:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is a "weak" and somewhat reluctant "delete". Ironically, I disagree with fellow editor Steve Dufour on his rationale -- but I agree with Steve on his conclusion. As far as I know, Glen Stoll has never actually been charged with or convicted of a Federal tax crime. The references in the article are to civil tax cases (albeit serious ones). I edit heavily here in Wikipedia in tax law articles, especially articles involving tax protesters like Glen Stoll. I would argue that if Glen Stoll HAD been convicted of a tax crime, that could very well be a possible ground for a Wikipedia article, as convictions for U.S. Federal tax crimes are rare (compared to, say, convictions for murder). Ironically, had Stoll been charged with and ACQUITTED of a Federal tax crime, that might make him even MORE notable, as acquittals in Federal tax cases are extremely rare. Anyway, I would incline slightly toward a "delete" at this time, with the obvious proviso that Mr. Stoll might properly be the subject of a Wikipedia article at a later time if he gets into any more tax trouble. Yours, Famspear 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. The whole subject of Federal tax crimes and the process by which the government decides who is going to be prosecuted is actually quite interesting (uh, at least, it is if you're tax law geek like I am). A discussion of why and under what circumstances being charged with, convicted of, or acquitted of a Federal tax crime could make an individual "notable" for purposes of Wikipedia is of course beyond the scope of this page. Yours, Famspear 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (or perhaps redirect) and move relevant well-sourced info to Kent Hovind. This is not a biography but Stoll's doings mentioned here seem notable enough in the context of Hovind's endeavors. Avb 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep only if there are more 3rd party sources to show that this particular man and his schemes are notable. It is not necessary to be convicted to get a WP article; the article is careful about its language and so should have been the nomination. DGG (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as he is mentioned in the press and in federal court cases. People looking for information about him and his "Remedies at Law" scheme would be interested in this article. This Seattle article explains why he is notable and this US Department of Justice press release adds further detail. The article needs a rewrite, not deletion. There are over 30 mentions in the google news archive's search over the last few years that can help with a rewrite. Plantocal 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting scheme, certainly. I tend to view such arguments as reasons to move/redirect/transform to an article about the subject's scheme(s). Avb 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the individual is not remarkable; when does common crime become notable? Why would we want to make it notable? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2007 (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.
