User talk:5minutes/Steven Crowder

The biography data on this page comes from the original page that was deleted previously due to lack of secondary sources. I've added several sources and references. If the bio data is copied from another site, it's news to me. 5minutes (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because I have edited it to remove the potential copyright issues. Also, the article at Monsters and Critics is copying data from Wikipedia, not vice-versa. 5minutes (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because as indicated elsewhere, I have updated the references and cleaned up the article.5minutes (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --RileyHudson (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC) there is one person who is a self admitted "deltionist" who is lobbying to have this page removed. I and many others have given several secondary sources and citations and yet he continues to ignore these facts. I have suggested that this is a politically motivated action, as other political commentators who are not conservative have not been put up for deletion in similar circumstances, for example Cenk Uhger. Deletion at this point seems entirely motivated and pushed by one person refusing to accept facts; Rogerthat84. I would urge the administrators to look into his past deletions for other abuses.

For the record, it's still important for us to assume good faith on the part of editors here at Wikipedia. As such, I have attempted to provide numerous secondary sources for this article (as I would have done for the last one had my suggestion to add improvement tags would have stood had I not been busy defending against its deletion). However, as political issues and opinions can cloud the discussion on both sides, I would like to suggest that any review be done by 2 administrators - one a self-identified conservative, and if there is not agreement between them for deletion, the page stays. Obviously, this is just a suggestion, but I think that's a fair way to approach this. 5minutes (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support 5minutes position that this subject deserves an entry and does no harm by offering information and should not be deleted, especially based purely on someone's dislike of the subject.JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Opinion of this version of Crowder's entry

• • This is by far the best, most accurate version. I don't think because some disagree with his point of view that he should be "disappeared" in Orwellian fashion, unless all on all sides are. He has a career that goes back decades in various media and is becoming more and more relevant as he becomes more prevalent on the internet, TV, and ultimately, radio.

Regarding this version:

My only two remaining quibbles are is why there is a constant request for citations about where he grew up; I've provided numerous, unrelated sources, which are discarded with no "consensus" as to why they are not sufficient.

The other is that I think his releasing of the unedited video ought to be given equal weight to the false allegation of manipulating the footage initially. Just a few words like "He later released an unedited version in response to (or to counter) claims he had misrepresented the events." I still think his tweet is an extraneous fact, that of course all rough footage is edited for running time and relevancy, and since he did release the whole video, I think it makes the tweet moot. Of course editing means selectively choosing what is relevant and what is rough "B roll" footage. Forced to explain that in 140 characters and just stating a fact, to me it would be like "That day the sky was cloudy." Yes...just a statement of fact, but not relevant to the event.

Everything else looks great! Thanks to 5minutes for patient and prudent discussion and fair consideration of all points of view, even when we disagreed.

Please consider my two points, other than that, I join the "consensus" that this is by far the most accurate, well-organised, non-biased version and a good place to build on and add to as his career and experiences warrant.

Thanks, JohnKAndersen (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen