"Based on a true story that unfolded on Usenet bulletin boards, this new opera is a gripping portrayal of a paranoid mind that raises unsettling questions about a society under surveillance"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corley_Conspiracy

And most probably self-written by the self same victim of MI5 'persecution'. Some Usenet nutter and former Private Eye mag advertiser ...

Wikipedia verification - USENET !!! GOOD GRIEF !!!

Used to like his stuff in NME, turned me onto the Manics but he failed to convince me about the musical merits of Bis. Though they did do the theme to the Powerpuff Girls.

As a Sonic Youth loving NME reader during the 80s I'm sad to here of Swells' passing as he used to simultaneously give me a laugh and leave me infuriated on a pretty regular basis.

I can hardly see why he doesn't deserve his entry in Wikipedia given some of the inane and only very very minimally important information it deems worthy of chronicling.

RIP.

They he doesn't need a page on Wikipedia and as for NME that was read by space cadets so maybe there is a connection there.....

a bit tenuous thought

So long SWELLS. You can take your complaints up directly with management now.

icon: I'll enjoy this for you

Then can we mark the George W Bush entry for deletion since he's not President any more and therefore irrelevant ?

i've heard the name Perez Hilton, probably Paris's sister no doubt! No idea who Tanya is.

...but is your worthyness not worth something to wikipedia ?

to quote a comment after his last ever column ...

“Goddamnit this sucks. Why you? Why not Perez Hilton or some other twat ?”

... quite !

Thank you for showing me this. He was a truly great person.

This quote killed me:

".. for about a week I sport a huge, fluid-filled fringe under the head of my penis, making it look like some weird skinhead Gila-lizard from hell."

how can he be notable?

PS - like the new icons!

He is on record as having asked for an open coffin in which he is sitting upright, with a mechanised arm moving his hand up and down gripping his artificially engorged deceased todger. I really, really hope he gets this.

Ha, in the space of time it took me to write my comment, Swells' article has been saved per WP:SNOWBALL. Sounds disgusting, I'm sure he'd love the sentiment!

Let me get this right....

The difference between being not worthy of a wikipedia page, and becoming worthy, is to be mentioned on El Reg.

As I am now mentioned (by virtue of this comment) can I have my own Wikipedia page now please?

Or shall I just go an make my own?

Class. Pure class.

Are they running so low on disk space that a few k of text makes a difference? Why the f*** would you delete anything that isn't wholly inaccurate? Sounds like some wikigit had an axe to grind.

I'm off to recommend all the articles relating to "peyton" for deletion simply on the whim that one "peyton" is more than enough.

El Reg has made a difference in the world!

Well, on Wikipedia.

Kinda.

methinks someone is jealous.

@Version 1.0

irrelevant then, irrelevant now. no change that i can see.

Didn't know him, but if his writing pissed off some folks, more power.... and a hoisted one!

Can be toss, and is for a great deal of the time. Its major problem is that it has a very pronounced Amrican bias, and that means if the subject isn't recognised by 'Merkins it doesn't truly exist

there can be no justification for deleting any article on grounds of notability.

Wikipedia rules are the most bizarre and bizarrely implemented set of rules/guidelines that I've ever encountered. I have seem, for example, individuals refusing to accept that in a description of a book that a reference to the book is adequate evidence that the content referenced exists in the book. A link to a web site that any loon could have knocked up in five minutes is taken as hard evidence.

In a recent dispute over notable Usenet personalities, individuals were judged not to be notable if their posting history lay almost exclusively in the UK hierarchy. A touch of cross-pondian NIH syndrome creeping in there, I suspect. Probably this is why Swells is considered not to be notable, after all he only worked in "Yoorp" or more properly "Yoo-Kay" so he can't have been notable, ever.

Why would dying suddenly render the information invalid?

I thought it was an encyclopedia?

Surely one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that *does* give detailed coverage to things that many people would consider trivial or unimportant? For all of Wikipedia's failings, I know that I can pretty much always find information on some snippet of pop culture that's passed me by. So why delete articles about the insufficiently grand?

I'm not really for respect for the dead, unless they actually deserve it. But I digress, since this shouldn't have anything to do with respect.

I had never heard of the dead bloke in question, but surely "AuntFlo" is quite right. And even if there weren't much less relevant people than him on Wikipedia anyway, it seems Swells still had enough accomplishments in cultural life to be deserving of reference, from what was written in this article here on El Reg.

I hope his family is coping well with the loss.

First, RIP Swells.

To continue: come on, Sarah, to paraphrase Goose from Top Gun, do some of that journalism shit. The user Mikerichi's first act on Wikipedia was to rock up to the Sons of Ben (MLS supporters association) article (they're a supporters club for Philadelphia's MLS football team) and submit it for deletion. Now the same guy tries the same thing with Philly resident Swells' article, which at that time happened to claim Swells was a "staunch proponent" of the Sons of Ben. Two edits after that, Richardrj removes that claim as being "unsourced and irrelevant".

This all feels like an idiot with a grudge against the Sons of Ben, rather than against Swells himself. Nor does it feel like Wikipedia as an entity is responsible.

As for the deletion notice, it's back: SOP on Wikipedia is to let the discussion run its course, but as you say, the resounding response of "Keep" should ensure the article will be around for a long time to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikerichi (Mikerichi's contribs)

http://tinyurl.com/mrbgbf (Richardrj's edit removing mention of Sons of Ben)

http://tinyurl.com/lf9azt (Wikipedia article on Sons of Ben, citing Swells Grauniad article)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/jun/06/sport.comment (Swells article on Sons of Ben)

Fail, because ... well, you know, do that journalism stuff!

What a silly non-story. Some random idiot nominates an obviously notable article for deletion and you blame the entire project? Do you see a single person in that discussion who agreed with the nomination? A single 'delete' vote? The guy who suggested deletion was already being accused of trying to stir up trouble before this article was even brought up. But here I see people responding to your article as if 'Wikipedia' as an entity wanted to get rid of the article.

There was never any chance that Swells's article would be deleted. Is the fact that one moron suggested it should be and was quickly shouted down really news?