For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- 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. It is admitted there are no sources yet; deleted but permit recreation when there are. Userification optional. DGG ( talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Metel el Helm
- Metel el Helm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Per WP:NF, unless the production is notable in itself, WP:CRYSTAL applies and this unreleased movie is not notable for Wikipedia yet. It may be once it is released, so rather than deletion, I actually propose moving this to userspace so it can be moved back when released and notability can be established. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Delete or userfy. There are no reliable sources covering this film. - Whpq ( talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do not delete I really think that the article mustn't be removed for the following reasons:
- 1-The movie is already very known locally (In Lebanon).
- 2-The movie is record-breaking ,the production team broke a world-wide record and is considered to enter the Guinness world Records(Still awaiting a reply)
- 3-As the movie isn't released yet,the media coverage is very minor (a couple of interviews). A press conference will be held before the movie is released and links to the interviews will be posted on the page.
- 4-The Wikipedia page is being consulted daily by visitors who have heard of the movie and want to know more about it and it's record-breaking fact.As Wikipedia's goal is to spread knowledge and information,I respectfully believe that the article must remain accessible to the public.I know some of the people who worked in this production so I can always add new categories to this article and already people are asking questions about the movie ,I will speak with the production team so we can redirect them to this Wikipedia article (along with the official movie site.)
Although the article lacks a (or some) picture(s),there are some posted on the movie's website and on the movie's fan group on Facebook.I will try to get one from the production and I will add it to the article.
Thank you for your understanding and support,
sincerely
Georges Halim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- — Lebnan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Given the information above, can you substantiate item #1 with reliable sources documenting this popularity? With respect to #2, the fact that you submitted something to Guiness does nto establish ntoability. With respect to #3, that is a reason in favour of deletion. As for item #4, wikipedia is not a web host. That's what your web site is for. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The movie is notableI appreciate your reply but I have some clarifications ,concerning Item #1:I can't add reliable sources now documenting the movie's popularity because there is no press coverage yet ,the popularity resides in mouth to mouth advertisement. The post-production has ended and the movie will be soon published.ABout Item #2:I am sure that Wikipedia must have articles about world records in the movie domains as it covers various other branches ,[Item #3 ]:As I have mentioned earlier, I will provide you with links to reliable sources as soon as possible.Concerning item #4 WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and one of an encyclopedia's goals is to provide readers with information ,I don't mean it being a web host but a source of knowledge.
I want to thank you again for your fast reply. Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I'm afraid that 'word of mouth' notability doesn't count for much at Wikipedia. Movies not yet released are only classed as notable when they are are by Spielberg or someone like that. Christopher Karkafi - I can only find here and Facebook. Metel el Helm - once again Facebook and a forum in Arabic which gives a mention in a list of Lebanese films (and possibly on a rather odd 'search' site that I haven't worked out yet). Not yet notable, sorry. When the film is released and getting audiences, try again. Wikipedia is for recording, not promoting. We can't help you onto the ladder. We can record you when you've gone up a few rungs. Peridon ( talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Userfy I respect your opinion for deletion and I am sure that the movie will have an article very soon that won't be deleted .As I noticed,you need enough proof that the movie is being made.
I wish you could move the article or something so it wouldn't have to be rewritten.-- Lebnan ( talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can. It can be moved to userspace, or simply copy-pasted by yourself. Moving maintains the edit history and is thus preferable. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you deleting the article?? what does the notabilty have to do with the movie.Everything on wikipedia is notable???-- Joe abiabed ( talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can't you track the number of visitors per day and judge then whether you delete the article or not.Then you can judge the notability,if you don't have an administrator living in Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Notability is not the same as popularity. General notability is established by coverage in independent, reliable sources. Per the analysis of the links in the article, there are currently no reliable sources cited in the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if they can or can't, but can't you see the potential for error? (To put it politely...) The number of clicks a site on the net gets can affect revenue from advertising - there are people sitting there ckicking sites to boost this. I'm not saying you would do this, but some well-meaning person might decide to boost the figures without asking you. An admin living in the Lebanon? Could be. But admins have to be neutral wherever they live. We judge notability by what we can find out. And once again, we are NOT here to help promote something or someone and we have policies that have been agreed. Everything on Wikipedia is notable? No. You may find an article consisting of "Shane is the MOST AWWWWWWSSSSSSOOOOMMMESTTTT person EVAHHHHH!". Normally these get deleted very quickly, but some clever ones get through - for a time. If you spot one - tag it, please. Peridon ( talk) 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that if you had an admin in Lebanon he would be not neutral ,I just meant that he would affirm that the movie is known locally , if not ,you must wait for the future references . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — PC78 ( talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice and allow return when sources toward notability can be shown. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion ,wait for a couple of weeks(3 weeks maximum),if some references were posted,leave the article ,if not userfy .We will give the article a chance till mid-april. It wouldn't do any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please, only one !vote per customer. As for waiting, please see WP:CRYSTAL. As for not doing any harm, please see WP:NOHARM. -- Whpq ( talk) 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am for not deleting the post. Lebnan,if they decided to delete it, they will surely be an article for the movie after a couple of weeks because I was told that it will be released soon and I guess Wikipedia keeps the article if the movie is genuine and notable.Several audio-visual students in the university worked for it and I asked jad about the movie yesterday ,he said that the post-production is in it's final stages so a bit of patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim malan ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- — Karim malan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete but allow userfication. The article fails to present any independent evidence that this unreleased film is notable. We can reconsider after the film is released. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Whpq ,I was on an edge,I just deleted my earlier post.Thanks for your understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Administrative comment. The deleted comment and related reply from User:Whpq were not discussing the merits of the article, and in my opinion, removal has no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the article it's 100% notable,I don't know why nobody added references,I will try to find some .-- TheGodMothers ( talk) 13:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- — TheGodMothers ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please find references...and indicate which notability (film) criteria it meets, since it doesn't appear to meet any of them. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:06, 14 March 2009 (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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Azeri genocide
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Azeri genocide ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
- Delete Poorly sourced, virulently anti-Armenian in tone article with absolutely no historical basis to it and one which is not even recognized by a single genocide scholar (the PACE source is inadequate and highly misleading as it is a non-binding resolution and one which the Council of Europe doesn't officially recognize in any capacity). -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Check the article again ,historical basis is well explaned. 85.105.157.122 ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Where to start? No real references. Croissant's book was never referenced, simply placed under references. The bibliography, which appeared to be what someone found after a 3 minute google search, had books not referenced in the article. My 17yr old son does a better job of historical research than this! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- No real references?You should check the article ,too.If you have time except deleting the citations or a section.
85.105.157.122 (
talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you read? You should learn how REAL historical research is done. Typing something doesn't make it a fact! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- No real references?You should check the article ,too.If you have time except deleting the citations or a section.
85.105.157.122 (
talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. politically motivated POV propagand. no reliable sources. Gazifikator ( talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia has a very low threshold on what genocide is. If there are articles like Greek genocide, Assyrian Genocide, or Dersim genocide, then why the article about Azeri genocide cannot exist? Grand master 08:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to propose the deletion of the
Dersim genocide article, then I would support that proposal as long as its contents, with the genocide allegation, were to be merged into the
Dersim rebellion article.
Meowy 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I won't bother. The word genocide has already lost any meaning, as it is used in wiki to describe any massacre. If that's the way they want it, so be it. To me, genocide is an extremely politicized term, and the existence of the above articles is a good demonstration of this fact.
Grand
master 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, maybe at some future date I will propose its deletion. It is precisely to stop the word "genocide" loosing its correct meaning that articles like this "Azeri genocide" article (or the deleted "Kurdish genocide" one) should not be allowed to remain. Meowy 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I won't bother. The word genocide has already lost any meaning, as it is used in wiki to describe any massacre. If that's the way they want it, so be it. To me, genocide is an extremely politicized term, and the existence of the above articles is a good demonstration of this fact.
Grand
master 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to propose the deletion of the
Dersim genocide article, then I would support that proposal as long as its contents, with the genocide allegation, were to be merged into the
Dersim rebellion article.
Meowy 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I tried prodding this article but that didn't work. I'm glad others noticed it's violation of NPOV. Themfromspace ( talk) 08:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Double Standards. What is your obsession with Turks? Greek genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and Dersim genocide already exist on Wikipedia even though Dersim genocide has no document or recognition.However Azeri Genocide was recognized by Council of Europe and Azerbaijani Government.It is ironic, Armenians allways complain about denial of Armenian Genocide by Turkey but they deny Azeri Genocide. Abbatai ( talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The concept is by no means "recognized by the Council of Europe", but only by 30 representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (that is less than 5% from the total of 636 representatives), and that on a personal basis only: the declaration states that "[it] commits only the members who have signed it". Of those 30 individuals, 20 happen to be either from Azerbaijan or Turkey. - Ev ( talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe this article does warrant inclusion. The all references given is reliable source in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice34 ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all material that doesn't come from reliable sources per WP:V. The "double-standards" thing is a fair comment, but see WP:OCE for Wikipedia's view on that.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Poorly sourced, no scholarly source agrees with the article claims.-- St. Hubert ( talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. This article, together with its talk page, is a piece of propaganda. This article should go the same way as the late, unlamented, "Kurdish Genocide" article ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish genocide (WWI)) (though even it had one source, unlike this particular article). Meowy 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- This one also has a source, the decree of Azerbaijani president, referring to the massacre in Khojaly as a genocide. Also a declaration of some members of PACE, who also believe that Khojaly was an act of genocide. It is exactly as many sources as the articles about other genocides have, but no one cares about those other articles, and this one is proposed for deletion. I understand that the existence of other poorly sourced articles does not justify the existence of another poorly sourced article, but a fair treatment would be nice. Otherwise this place turns into the mouthpiece of anti-Turkish propaganda. It is no good that some well organized ethnic communities managed to impose their POVs into wikiarticles. Something needs to be done to maintain objectivity. Grand master 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone those with a half a brain cell know that the claimed PACE document is trash which was an answer to this draft tabled on 24 April 2001 by Jirousova (Czech Republic) on the day of the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. That PACE document which you are referring to was tabled on 26 April 2001 by Mehmet Ali Irtemçelik (Turkey), who is known apologist and the voice of the Turkish government in Germany. 2/3 (20 out of 30) of those who have signed that draft were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan. Several of the remaining are also known propagandists pushing the inclusion of Turkey in the EU (and who oppose the recognition of the Armenian genocide). For example, Tadeusz Iwinski or Younal Said Loutfi. The content of that draft is so ridiculous (not to say, the surprise of the majority of PACE members when they saw anyone even supporting such a draft) that even Azeri lobbyist in the US only refer to the draft and don't dare raising it's content. (for instance that On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city.) As for well organized community if I were you I would not bring up the word well organized anywhere. If you want to oppose it's deletion, go ahead, otherwise stop WP:SOAPboxing. VartanM ( talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, you do have a point about double standards and the virtues of "fair treatment", and I appreciate that you raise awareness of those issues here. You're right: something needs to be done.
- Deleting this particular entry is a step in the right direction, by both removing sub-standard content (to say the least) and helping to raise the threshold for inclusion in this type of topics: such precedents can simplify the deletion of other similar entries.
- I would really, but really love to delete a substantial part of the entries on genocides, massacres, ethnic cleansings, attrocities, minor battles & skirmishes... all those "look how bad [radom ethnic group] are !!!" type of entries that plague Wikipedia. In my opinion, the tiny encyclopedic significance of a substantial portion of those claims of victimhood does not justify the amount of time they demand from non-partisan editors to make them compliant with our content policies.
- However, actually deleting those entries involves an unpaid volunteer willing to check all kind of sources and websites dealing with the worst of human nature... willing to read often depressing & exhasperating talk page discussions (and rants)... and willing to iniciate a discussion whose quality is much too often marked by the already standard accusations of [Ethnic-group]phobia.
- My apologies, but right now I really don't want to do those things to propose other similar entries for deletion. However, when someone actually starts the process, I will try to do my little part in eliminating a small portion of this poison from what is supposed to be a simple encyclopedia (not a free megaphone from which to claim victimhood). - Best,
Ev (
talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that a lot of the articles on that genocide list do not deserve to be there and some serious pruning is required. But I don't think it would be that difficult to remove most of the unsubstantiated ones - there will be editors around who will know enough about each specific subject to distinguish the fake from the real. I've already mentioned to Grandmaster that if he wants to propose the deletion of the Dersim genocide article, I would support him. But I wonder why he is taking part in this discussion. He is neither supporting the retention of the Azeri genocide article, or supporting its deletion. And when given support for the deletion of an article he does objects to, he rejects that support. Meowy 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies, but right now I really don't want to do those things to propose other similar entries for deletion. However, when someone actually starts the process, I will try to do my little part in eliminating a small portion of this poison from what is supposed to be a simple encyclopedia (not a free megaphone from which to claim victimhood). - Best,
Ev (
talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree: if someone does the necessary checking of / search for sources, and the subsequent corroborations, it won't be so difficult to remove those entries. I just tried to explain why, according to my perception, few people are actually doing that work.
As for Grandmaster's participation in this discussion, I think that by merely raising those issues his imput was productive & helpful, as a reminder of the bigger picture. :-) - Best, Ev ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree: if someone does the necessary checking of / search for sources, and the subsequent corroborations, it won't be so difficult to remove those entries. I just tried to explain why, according to my perception, few people are actually doing that work.
- Keep If the genocide didn't happen where is the Azeri population of Yerevan and Karabakh.Please keep the article.As some said denying is killing twice! 193.140.194.148 ( talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for that rambling trip to nowhere. And your comments on... anything relevant would be? Personal opinions and beliefs are not a valid rationale for deletion. If you believe it notable, improve the article yourself (mainly through neutral sourcing - which, no offence, I'd love to see you attempt). +
Hexagon1 (
t) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- And where is the Armenian population of Baku and Nakhichevan? Are you able to discern ethnic cleansing from genocide? -- Vacio ( talk) 09:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for that rambling trip to nowhere. And your comments on... anything relevant would be? Personal opinions and beliefs are not a valid rationale for deletion. If you believe it notable, improve the article yourself (mainly through neutral sourcing - which, no offence, I'd love to see you attempt). +
Hexagon1 (
t) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, this is a no-brainer. Hideously POV, and unsourced. Completely unsalvageable. + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand the double standard Wikipedia has when it comes to Armenians. Is it because of turcophobia, racism, religion or because considerable amount of moderators in this site are Armenians? Has any international court recognized Armenian Genocide? Not to my recollection. Yet, it is stated in this site as if the events of 1915 were indeed genocide when there is still a considerable amount of debate going on over the topic and many world renowned historians reject the thesis, I repeat it is merely a thesis at this stage. I would like to see some objectivity in this site with regards to history and historians and if you are going to be deleting Azeri Genocide then you should also be deleting Armenian Genocide and all other made up genocides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.115.14.179 ( talk) 07:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, purely for fairness and NPOV. It's interesting to see Armenian editors nominating or overwhelming voting to remove articles on other nation's genocides, or simply trying to remove facts, photos or references from articles like Khojaly massacre in past. Why? If not for POV pushing and OR, then for what? Atabəy ( talk) 08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Armenian?? Amazing! My apologies to Vartan for interrupting, but I couldn't resist.... -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:WAX doesn't mean we get to keep pages because other (inapropriate) pages exist, it means we should go ahead and delete any particular page if it doesn't fit in with the policies and guidelines. Themfromspace ( talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not much evidence is needed anymore to understand your true purpose here, but sometimes it helps when you reiterate your purpose for others to witness.
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- VartanM, you should have asked that question to yourself, and perhaps,
this ArbCom based on your false accusations against an editor, only due to his ethnic background, would help refresh the mind. The only thing that does not make sense to truly neutral mind is when someone extensively advocates recognition of genocides suddenly tries to hide, fight off, remove, rename some factual evidence from encyclopedic articles. Isn't that part of nationalistic battleground editing? Ask yourself, why would Armenian editors get involved in nominating every Azeri massacre articles or images for deletion or removal, but we would rarely ever see a reverse trend?
Atabəy (
talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- And by reverse trend do you mean when you were denying the Armenian Genocide [23] and have now voted to keep this trash? VartanM ( talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- VartanM, you should have asked that question to yourself, and perhaps,
this ArbCom based on your false accusations against an editor, only due to his ethnic background, would help refresh the mind. The only thing that does not make sense to truly neutral mind is when someone extensively advocates recognition of genocides suddenly tries to hide, fight off, remove, rename some factual evidence from encyclopedic articles. Isn't that part of nationalistic battleground editing? Ask yourself, why would Armenian editors get involved in nominating every Azeri massacre articles or images for deletion or removal, but we would rarely ever see a reverse trend?
Atabəy (
talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not much evidence is needed anymore to understand your true purpose here, but sometimes it helps when you reiterate your purpose for others to witness.
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, then go ahead delete the socalled genocides why the only matter is Azeri Genocide for those people? Abbatai ( talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to nominate other genocide articles for deletion. Otherwise you were already told about
WP:WAX
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- But this one did happen and has sources and recognition.
Abbatai (
talk) 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you think it happened, doesn't mean it did. It has no valid sources or recognition and is a fabrication.
Meowy 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The last phase of a genocide is denial as some of you are doing now. 85.105.157.122 ( talk) 14:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you think it happened, doesn't mean it did. It has no valid sources or recognition and is a fabrication.
Meowy 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- But this one did happen and has sources and recognition.
Abbatai (
talk) 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to nominate other genocide articles for deletion. Otherwise you were already told about
WP:WAX
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. As currently framed, the entry is a propaganda pamphlet infringing virtually every content policy we have. Maintainability issues make me skeptical of other possible alternatives: some entries are simply not worth the vast amounts of time they demand from non-partisan editors to assure compliance with our policies. – To avoid future problems, I recommend protecting both capitalizations from re-creation, to ensure re-creation through deletion review only. - Ev ( talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Atabay has a very good point up there about the Armenian editors here but noone including VartanM dares answer him other than indicating that what is provided here is trash or propaganda. It is really very sad and disturbing to see that this Turcophobia of some small minds is taking over Wikipedia.
So called Armenian Genocide is just a thesis but Wikipedia is reflecting it as a real and committed genocide through brainwashing young minds just because Armenian editors want it that way. Political acception because some countries have hidden agendas against Turkey does not mean international recognition. Historians decide that. Oh sorry according to some, it is just how things are done, I just forgot, my apologies. There are many world renowned historians disagreeing with the thesis and then accused or labelled of being pro-Turk and that is not propaganda? So sad. Just because the editors are Christians or Armenians allow them to reflect debateable issues as happened but when it comes to indicating a massacre with proof, it is propaganda. Go on then, make new genocides up like Greek or Assyrian and continue to publish them. Show to world how credible wikipedia information is.
Two wrongs do not add up to one right some say up there. Azeri Turks in certain regions did not vanish from earth's space just in one night. Whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. Historians are here to do that, not Armenian editors. Therefore I urge from those who think that just because there are other articles in this site in similar positions to be deleted does not mean that this one should be kept, to be that sensitive to those debateable articles as well. If there are other articles in similar positions about genocide thesis that you agree up there, then where is your critism to those articles. Please guys try to be a little bit objective at least. That is the least you can do. ECDS ( talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. I forgot to add one thing. Even the picture used in armenian genocide section in the site is not related to Armenians. It is a picture of Russian soldiers taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. Go ahead and delete my comments. That is just going to prove how right I am. ECDS ( talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- And your thoughts on the WP:OR nature of the article in question are? You know, that is why we're here... no-one cares about your nationalistic rant. Whether we agree or disagree is utterly irrelevant. All you're doing is hindering the process of finding out whether this article complies with policy or not and stirring idiotic nationalism. It's not the "other nation" that stirs nationalistic hatred when you post your opinions on irrelevant high-traffic pages, it's you. + Hexagon1 ( t) 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep i support a Keep of the article as it is supported by numerous sources. Just because it is about an issue some people perhaps doesnt recognize,doesnt mean it shouldnt have its own article. End of story.--
MarkusBJoke (
talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
But i however agree on that the article needs to be rewritten into a more neutral article. Just as the one of the Armenian genocide and sutch.-- MarkusBJoke ( talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- A problem with this discussion is that nobody has yet done a paragraph-by-paragraph dissection of the article to demonstrate that every allegation within it is falsified to the extent that they are nothing more that propaganda, and the article's existence is a gross misuse of the very serious word "genocide". I am not going to do this time-consuming thing, mostly because I hope it will be clear to every well-informed good-faith editor who just reads the article that the article is indeed propaganda and a misuse of the word genocide. I think the way the discussion is going will result in the article's deletion - but if it is retained it needs to be re-nominated for deletion, this time with a proper dissection of its contents. Meowy 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- MarkusBJoke, your comparaison with the Armenian Genocide disqualifies your comment. I can create an article about bicycles and source my claims with notes about potatoes and individuals like you will claim it is well sourced and keep-worthy. Here is a section by section analysis of the article.
- Russian Expansion of Caucasus. This section has nothing to do with the Armenians or the Azeri?
- Massacres in 1905-1907, he copied the entire text from the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907. See the beginning of the second paragraph. He did not even bother to place a link on the lead of that section to the main article. THe wording doesn't give anyone the chance to understand that it was a both sided clash.
- March Days, this has nothing to do with the prior events which was over a decade ago. Months later even a higher number of Armenians were killed. See September Days. Does this gives me the right to engage in OR and selectively take every massacres at the hands of the Azeri and create another Armenian genocide article?
- Khojaly Massacre, what is it's relation with events having happemed ¾ of a century ago?
- International Recognition, which one, the Council of Europe never recognized such a thing.
- Political, he copied that section word for word from here.
- The intro of the article does not even coincide with its content, it starts with: The Azeri Genocide refers the mass killing of Azeri people by Armenians during World War 1 and The Nagorno-Karabakh War. None of the events described in the text have happened in WWI. Obviously this inaccurate info was placed there as an apologetics rhetoric to claim that Armenians massacred too in WWI and paralleling it with the Armenian Genocide. As for NK war, only one event described here happened during the course of the NK war.
- Now go back to the Armenian Genocide article with its 181 notes and take a look at it and then come back with such a comparaison. VartanM ( talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Vartan M, the Armenian Genocide section of this website is so biased that I do not even know where to start with. First of all as I indicated before the picture used in the site has not any relation whatsoever to Armenians or Turks but was taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. The many commnunities of the Armenian Diaspora had been founded long before the events of 1915 in late 19th century to make Armenians seperate land from Ottoman Empire which indeed led to events of 1915. SD Hunchakian Party and ARF(Dashnaktsutiun) were founded late 19th century with differing ideologies but similar goals. They sided with Russians in WW1 to achieve their goal of Great Armenia and backstabbed Ottoman Army but they started their massacrings of Muslims and Turks long before that. A quick look at the Niles-Sutherland report is enough to prove the situation of Turks and Armenians after WW1. They were never suppressed under Ottoman ruling and they even had seats in the Parliament. Many were dealing with trade and they were managing silk factories (sourced from Jean Louis Mattei). The Malta Tribunals of the British proved Turks innocent as stated in many telegraphs sent at that time. Here are some of them:
- The letter sent by Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington to Lord Curzon:
- July 13th, 1921
- ‘I am sorry to say that nothing to be used against the Turks prosecuted in Malta as proof could be found.’
- Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8519
- The letter sent by British Attorney Generalship in Malta to British Foreign Office:
- July 29th, 1921
- ‘No proof against Turks prosecuted has been found.’
- Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8745
- Here is an extract from the report given to II. Socialist International by Mikael Varangian to specify some of those goals of Dashnaks:
- 'We organized in most parts of Anatolia.
- Our organizations are comprised of mobile and stationary units, groups responsible for funding and logistics, groups of women responsible for communication and dispatching and groups of intellectuals responsible for making propaganda.
- Our guerillas killed the Mayor of Van.
- We attempted to assassinate Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamit.
- Our bomb store was captured by Ottoman Security Forces.'
- The site does not even make reference to Manifesto of First Prime Minister of Armenia Katchaznouni where he technically admits that they killed many Muslims and Turks in the region to gain freedom from the Empire and that they sided with Russia and then when Russia failed them they lost everything.
- The section talks about international recognition where indeed it is no more than political recognition by 21 countries and indeed no international court has made any decision related to the dispute so far which they can not when there are so many contradicting views and opinions over the topic.
- There are not any references made to historians with counter-claims who spent their entire lives studying the subject matter on hand like Erich Feigl, Justin Mcarthy, Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw other than labelling them agents of the Turkish goverment. Should I continue?
- Comment I do not remember anywhere in my comment above I suggested that the article should be kept as it stands. It definitely needs modification and the use of word genocide should not be that easy. Am I repeating myself here or is it just me? Historians who spent their entire lives on history should not be overlooked and you can not just label an event genocide because your 'nationalistic rant' requires that way and unfortunately it works both ways. But you also can not ignore any massacre or wrongdoings done to any nation because they are not genocides. There is a historical fact here with proof. For objectivity's sake, the critisms should be on that basis and through out all other articles in Wikipedia not just this one. If that disturbs some people who indeed have real nationalistic rants but accuse others of having, that I can not do anything about. I repeat it for the last time, Azeri Turks did not vanish from Earth's space just in one night, whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. It is historians call. Just show some objectivity to other historical incidents or events as well and critise on that basis, that is all I ask. ECDS ( talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete – This article consists of little more than blatantly biased (statements such as "outrageous facts", "tragic history", and "clear sign of Armenian nationalism" speak for themselves) original research; though efforts have been made to improve it slightly, the very premise of the article is unsalvageable. It attempts to present a number of atrocities and repressions perpetrated over a period of more than a century and, indeed, separated by a period of more than 70 years, as "genocide". A genocide is a "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", and three distinct events in 1905, 1918, and 1992 do not a genocide make. And how is the Russian expansion into the Caucasus related to a claim of genocide by Armenians against Azeris? Perhaps a decent article could be written about the Azerbaijani day of observance ("day of genocide of Azerbaijanis", March 31), but this article is flawed at its core. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 01:22, 15 March 2009 (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.
- 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 keep. Issues are largely cleanup - consensus here is to keep - if you disagree, I suggest going straight to deletion review since I've read this several times already in my evaluation Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Aaron Klein
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Aaron Klein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
This article fails our policies on verifiability and on biographies of living people because it does not have adequate sourcing. Although there are citations, they don't provide the level of information we require for BLPs. There are articles written by Klein, but none written about Klein. There are discussions of controversies Klein has been involved in, but nothing at all about the man himself. Many of the sources (e.g. the New York Post reference) only mention Klein in passing. Under some circumstances this might all be harmless, but this article has been a continuous battleground and has been used to host BLP-violating attacks on Barack Obama and others. Best to just nuke it. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleteagree with nominator above. (S)he said it perfectly. TharsHammar ( talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)- Keep am going to recommend closing this discussion because it is slowly devolving into a bashing of Klein. TharsHammar ( talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, just another bloviator, whose noteworthiness seems limited to having been thrown out of somebody's office (rather minor, I'd have thought). -- Hoary ( talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete WP:AUTO concerns also. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleteinadequately referenced, full of non notable information. Mfield ( talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep if this was nominated a week ago, this would surely have resulted in a delete. As it is now the guy has managed to cement his notability, even if by doing so he has undermined his credibility as a journalist. Mfield ( talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of the Yeshiva University controversy as well as the later career. As for the later career, there's documentation from the Jerusalem Post [24] , [25] & UPI, in addition to the incessant publicity from the places he works for. DGG ( talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Both those articles you referenced are behind a paywall. Could you please provide some details as to how they discuss the subject? My cursory reading (including the Jerusalem Post abstract) is that there might be a case for a (marginal) article on Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans - to a Jew! (which could include a discussion of the JP article from which it apparently derived) - but not enough info for an article on Aaron Klein as a person. *** Crotalus *** 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
KeepWeak Keepper DGG, plus recent international publicity, plus a number of book cites. I agree that a lot of cites within the existing article are WP:LARD and it needs improvement. But this isn't a BLP1E. THF ( talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- NB that I've changed my !vote; upon further examination, many of the book cites are to Aaron J. Klein, who, confusingly enough, also writes about terrorism. THF ( talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Update. I have now cleaned out the WP:PUFF mentions of individual appearances on radio shows and added a couple of cites. THF ( talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- And, back to a full-fledged Keep with the latest 24 hours of stories, plus an op-ed in The Nation that was about Klein. THF ( talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. While it should be irrelevant to anyone's keep or delete suggestion, note that this deletion nomination is going to be perceived by and covered by the outside world as retaliation against a reporter who criticized Wikipedia. THF ( talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below)
Wikidemon (
talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a lot of that going around. THF ( talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia controversy should be discussed in the
Criticisms of Wikipedia article, not presented as a biography of a non-notable critic.
*** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- "[S]taged a phony scandal" - perhaps, but the same thing happened to me just recently, including on my talk page, and indeed I experienced the reported problem on the reported page many months back; it was so bad that I just quit editing that page -- so when I read Klein's article, I knew he nailed it. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below)
Wikidemon (
talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly notable given well-covered notoriety. Any BLP problems are of the subject's own making, and thus, not cognizable under BLP policy. We deal with problems here, rather than deleting them. There is enough encyclopedic material in the article to salvage, even if as a stub, and enough reliable coverage to write a proper article. Further, the lack of known details about the person's personal life is no reason he is not notable. Many articles about journalists, businesspeople, etc., cover only their professional lives. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, "keep to punish the article subject for hating on Wikipedia" has already been rejected with other subjects, such as Daniel Brandt. Secondly, the BLP problems are not limited to Klein - this page and its associated talk page have been used as a platform to launch BLP-violating attacks against Barack Obama. It's just not worth the trouble for a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- My argument goes strictly to notability. BLP problems are dealt with as BLP problems, not by nuking the forum where they occur. If he is truly non notable then his article should be deleted. I don't think he is - plenty of reliable sources report on his professional accomplishments, such as they are. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources found by DGG and THF. While the subject might have messed with Wikipedia entries like Barrack Obama, that is not a reason to delete the article of that person if they pass our guidelines. It's almost like editors are trying to "punish" the topic. Deal with the bothersome editor the standard ways like with warnings and blocks, not with an AfD. -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, was also profiled and interviewed on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor. [26] -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. to call the article's subject notable would be a stretch. as a side note, the fact that the article's subject might have written part of his own article, and another article, but then cried to fox news about wikipedia's bias, is just a testament to the fact that the editor in question should not be here. whether such speculation is true or false is irrelevant to this particular article, because the article's subject doesn't appear to be notable. Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's fascinating. What's your opinion of
Dcourtneyjohnson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote
this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post?
THF (
talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- sure, it's okay to cry to the huffington post, or fox news, or wherever. it's also equally ok to ban them from wikipedia forever for this exploitative and exponential degree of disruption. Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's no "stretch" to call someone notable when they're the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As a matter of fact, that's the core criteria of both
WP:NOTABILITY and
WP:BIO. The Fox News profile/interview referenced above had nothing to do with Wikipedia but about his journalist work in the Middle East .--
Oakshade (
talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TharsHammar (
talk •
contribs)
- you mean the link to the youtube video[
[27]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source.
Theserialcomma (
talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The source isn't youtube but it's Fox News which is a reliable secondary source. It's linked here to demonstrate he was profiled and interviewed on Fox News. Just because the piece was uploaded to youtube doesn't magically mean the piece doesn't or never existed.-- Oakshade ( talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- you mean the link to the youtube video[
[27]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source.
Theserialcomma (
talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's fascinating. What's your opinion of
Dcourtneyjohnson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote
this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post?
THF (
talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete An auto-biography that is far from notable even if it were to be cleaned up. I don't see any independent verification that he is a journalist or media personality of any significance whatsoever. Writing for a single fringe publication does not mean you inherit its notability. If it wasn't for the wiki drama this person has stirred up, there would be no question about deleting this. Steven Walling (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Being the subject of Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and UPI are indications of notability, even if we may have the opinion he's just some "fringe writer." -- Oakshade ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Important person because he is a controversial, publicly noted and critical reporter and Wikipedia editor. This means critical as in criticism and critical as in critical thinking. Don't delete people just because you have disagreements with their edits. If Wikipedia continues to censor unpopular views and persons in at the expense of objectivity then it will lose its credibility. 66.91.255.120 ( talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Note: I had an issue recalling my username/login yesterday. This is my comment. Ithkuil ( talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to have been notable for years until this controversy... Hill of Beans ( talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, he's unethical, not non-notable. Much of the puffery has been removed (thanks to THF and others) and more can be done (I favor a good bit of trimming but have not the time to do it.) KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Article now referenced by Wired. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikigate-1.html Seasoup ?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.32.130 ( talk)
- Being mentioned in a blog is NO reason to keep. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is the author of the article one of the Wired writers?-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- The original author of the article on wikipedia is Jerusalem21, who is mentioned in the wired article as an employee of Klein, for more info see this article from gawker [28]. For more info on the history of Klein's socks / meats with this article please see the SPI TharsHammar ( talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- We are not discussing the writer of the Wikipedia article, but the writer of the "blog" at Wired.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since you just joined this discussion I will point out who Aaron Klein is, he is a [World Net Daily] author who wrote an article yesterday about Obama's article on wikipedia being censored [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114] that got picked up by drudge. The wired article was a commentary on Klein's article, and the wired article contains an email from Klein about Jerusalem21, who created the article being discussed here, Aaron Klein. TharsHammar ( talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I might be confused, so if you are asking about the blog on wired, it was written by Kevin Poulsen a senior editor at Wired News. TharsHammar ( talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you were confused but I think you now get my point. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was that if it was written by one of the Wired columnists (now we see that it was), the fact that it is a "blog" should not take away from contributing to Klien's notability. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is written by Kevin Poulsen, one of Wired's editors. Manys ( talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable conspiracy theorist/journalist. Merely having your articles published doesn't make you notable. Delete for failing WP:Note and WP:BIO.-- Sloane ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and further source, as lack is no reason for deletion if they are available. Not liking a conspiracy theorist is no reason to delete. He passes WP:AUTHOR ( Google Books) and WP:BIO ( Jewish Press). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Also, delete - David Gerard ( talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to main Worldnetdaily article - I did some searching and found some articles criticizing Klein, but I don't think they're enough to establish notability for him as a person. Instead we could cover that within the context of the WND website. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree on the idea to merge into WND. WND is, for whatever reason, considered an unreliable source. So the suggestion to move Aaron Klein to the WND page is a clever way to say Aaron Klein is an unreliable source. You can try to prove that, but it should be on his own merits, not by attaching him to WND. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The effort to delete this article appears to me to have more to do with politics/propaganda than with Wikipedia policy adherence. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- By coincidence, Klein's story is being discussed THIS MINUTE on WOR 710 AM right now, the Michael Smerconish Show. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Notable before this Obama situation he orchestrated, moreso because of it. rootology ( C)( T) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as notable and subject does not object to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment- Not sure if Kos is considered a reliable source or not, but here's an article on him from them: [29]. With added bonus- it refers to the shenanigans he's pulled here. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Umbralcorax ( talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per KillerChihuahua. A journalist for a well known publication isn't inherently notable, but the controversies he's been involved in tip the scale to notability. AniMate talk 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- KeepIf he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now. Funny, the more some try to suppress information, the more I learn about the discussion than from the article.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge/Rename to something along the lines of Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy, or failing that, just into the main WND article.. This person is not notable on his own, but rather has become (in)famous for this apparently concocted faux controversy. We're in one event territory here, IMO. Tarc ( talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly is the "Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy"? The controversy created by his article? There's not enough for its own article, and besides, if that's the proposal, better it renamed to
WorldNetDaily Obama whitewashing allegations controversy.--
brew
crewer
(yada, yada) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- It helps to read what people actually write, y'know. Above, I said "failing that, just into the main WND article", meaning if this controversy is notable enough to stand on its own, and if it is not, then mention it in the article of the website that this person writes for, which was the source of this retarded mess. Tarc ( talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly is the "Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy"? The controversy created by his article? There's not enough for its own article, and besides, if that's the proposal, better it renamed to
WorldNetDaily Obama whitewashing allegations controversy.--
brew
crewer
(yada, yada) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not many references. The only thing well referenced is his criticism of wikipedia and if we had an article for all critics... -- Muhammad (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Strip away the puffery and weak sources, and nothing is left. The blatant conflict of interest doesn't even need to be invoked here, but is icing on the cake. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 08:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. WorldNetDaily, The Jewish Press and Ynetnews are borderline notable (but at least 10% of all websites is more notable). To have articles accepted by them, isn't worth a lot more than having an edit at wikipedia which isn't immediately reverted as vandalism. Erik Warmelink ( talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Just because you're a conservative, and claim to be railroaded by the liberal "drive by" MSM call it what you will doesn't mean you're notable. If all it takes to be notable is to be thrown out of a politicians office and making controversial edits on wikipedia, give me a half hour and I'll be back, and we can make a page for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.189.4 ( talk) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Per KillerChihuahua. Subject seems like a bad person yes; and part of his notability is certainly his destructive efforts against Wikipedia. But as much as I don't like him, Klein seems to have received at least enough media attention (and written enough articles) to merit an article. LotLE× talk 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The sources are pretty good. He is "the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and they are reliable, in particular The Jewish Daily, which is independent and professionally written and edited. I despise Fox News, but they have legitimated lots of idiots. My only concern is that we don't want to publicize a flat-earther. Bearian ( talk) 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- keep Meets WP:BIO. That's what matters. DGG and others have provided more than enough sourcing. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete lacks notability. X MarX the Spot ( talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- delete after much thought. There are no articles about him, any temporary interest in him seems to be his little wikipedia stunt (which has not achieved wide interest) and in the end he's just a columnist for for a fringe publication. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to his role as reporter and commentator, he has been involved in various notable controversies, and his book is noted in mainstream news coverage such as from the Boston Globe here
[30], the New York Post "MIDDLE East terrorist leaders are dishing American celebrities. A book, published by WND Books, out Sept. 11, has the longest title in captivity: "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans - to a Jew!" Our sworn enemies tell Mideast-based, 20-something U.S. journalist Aaron Klein who they'd like in the White House, kvetch over showbiz types like Madonna, Britney, Spielberg, Mel Gibson, bigmouths Jane Fonda and Sean Penn and conservative talkers Limbaugh and Hannity, plus Richard Gere, who did a commercial urging Palestinians to vote. Well, they did. And elected Hamas."
[31], Jerusalem's National Post "Aaron Klein, an American journalist who now lives in Israel, last year released a fascinating book, Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans -- To a Jew!. In it, he recounts how in hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of terrorists their declared hatred of the West was nearly as great as their hatred of Israel. They were not motivated by poverty or political oppression as much as by faith and ideology, and nearly all spoke of establishing a worldwide caliphate once they had dispatched the Jewish state. They were especially enraged by our equal treatment of women and our tolerance of gays and lesbians."
[32]. That's just a sampling of the citations.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- None of those three links are actual reviews of the book, they are mentioned in passing within larger stories of other events. The NY Post one is bizarre though, in that this appears as a blurb amongst gossip about Desperate Housewives and Conan O'Brien. So no, I don't believe any of that passes WP:CREATIVE. There may be a case for the novel itself according to WP:BK, but it'd be a bit tenuous. Tarc ( talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The origins of this article are suspicious see [33]. The creator's username contains the name of the subject's home base, and the subject wrote an article in regards to the edits of the creator[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114]. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- While there's no contention with the dubious original versions of this article (it's been very publicly vetted), that does not negate the fact this person passes the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Besides, the current version has generally been written by established Wikipedia editors rendering the "origins" argument moot.-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Total self-promotion. Just because this article existed a few months ago doesn't mean it needs to stay. It was written under dubious terms, and now it's only under such scrutiny because of something he did himself. I don't really get the feeling of any true notability here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per sourcing added. Who cares how the article got here, it's now sourced so the rest remains regular editing. -- Banjeboi 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Our judgemnt should not be influenced by the recent contreversy. Dy yol ( talk) 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, notability is well enough established. Since when do we delete articles about people who criticise Wikipedia? That would be censorship. --Avant-garde a clue-
hexa
Chord
2 07:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- We've deleted them from the start, if the people are insufficiently notable. (One such was
this fellow.) If I criticized Wikipedia, and my criticism were taken up in the blogosphere and so on, that wouldn't entitle me to an article, just as my praise of Wikipedia wouldn't entitle me to an article. If Richard Dawkins criticized (or praised) Wikipedia, he'd get an article -- uh, no, he's already got one, on the strength of actual achievements and/or of more than "fifteen minutes" of fame. --
Hoary (
talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think he's more notable for other things than his Wikipedia criticism. The latter is just the reason for all this bias. --Avant-garde a clue-
hexa
Chord
2 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to presuppose a bias. OK, I'll admit to having a bias: I'm biased against write-ups of self-promoters who have achieved very little. (For all I care, they can ridicule Wikipedia, they can suck up to it, or, like the huge majority of people worth an article, they can ignore it.) --
Hoary (
talk) 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a bias too, a bias against this person. But he still passes our notability guidelines and we need to remain consistent with our standards of deleting articles. Otherwise we are only helping prove criticism of Wikipedia correct.-- Oakshade ( talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to presuppose a bias. OK, I'll admit to having a bias: I'm biased against write-ups of self-promoters who have achieved very little. (For all I care, they can ridicule Wikipedia, they can suck up to it, or, like the huge majority of people worth an article, they can ignore it.) --
Hoary (
talk) 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think he's more notable for other things than his Wikipedia criticism. The latter is just the reason for all this bias. --Avant-garde a clue-
hexa
Chord
2 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- We've deleted them from the start, if the people are insufficiently notable. (One such was
this fellow.) If I criticized Wikipedia, and my criticism were taken up in the blogosphere and so on, that wouldn't entitle me to an article, just as my praise of Wikipedia wouldn't entitle me to an article. If Richard Dawkins criticized (or praised) Wikipedia, he'd get an article -- uh, no, he's already got one, on the strength of actual achievements and/or of more than "fifteen minutes" of fame. --
Hoary (
talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy ( robe and wizard hat) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Notability established by his mention in third party media sources.
Dream Focus 13:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep per sourcing and notability demonstrated.-- Banjeboi 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)- Apologies, I accidental double !voted. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unnotable partisan hack. -- WatchingWhales ( talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. With the NY Times, Telegraph and CBS, notability is adequately demonstrated. Additionally, most of the newer delete votes are either WP:IDONTLIKEHIM and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which have never been valid reasons to delete. Most of the older delete votes were posted before the sourcing was added. McJeff ( talk) 03:19, 16 March 2009 (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.
- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Erik9 ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Alex Jones (radio host)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
AfDs for this article:
- Alex Jones (radio_host) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Unnotable conspiracy theorist. While people have made attempts in his wiki page to make him look notable, when you check the sources used, they just mention him as someone involved in whatever conspiracy theory they are writing about, Jones is never or rarely the subject of an article himself, unless it's on some vanity press or local non reliable rag. All of his works are self published, apart from the radio show which is only available on the internet, or a couple of low power Christian shortwave stations and maybe a small local station or two, thats no better than self published in my opinion. I think it's time this page was removed, or perhaps as an alternative, just merged into some other article on 9/11 conspiracy theories or the like. Jones himself is not notable, he is at best a sideline in some other story. Please read the sources linked to on his page, and you will see what I mean. In the internet echo chamber he appears almost notable, due to a few active meatpuppets who he calls upon to spread his word (ie spam), but in the real world, he just really isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BimboBaggins ( talk • contribs) — BimboBaggins ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Heh, "Bimbo Baggins" really. Anyways, I'll bite. This looks like a low class
WP:BLP1E otherwise not notable and should be cast out from the bowels of Wikipedia as soon as possible.
JBsupreme (
talk) 07:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's not one-event notable. In addition to 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, he's also received reliable coverage for leading the construction of the current Branch Davidian church, ranting about the Bohemian Club, and opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger's political campaigns. WillOakland ( talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep, almost speedy keep. At first glance I thought this nomination was a hoax. Sources in the article include major newspapers, such as the Washington Post, as well as BBC News. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Addition: This book also refers to Jones as one of the "most prominent" conspiracy-related radio hosts, along with the likes of Art Bell. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Hah, come on... Art Bell had over 10 million listeners and was on hundreds of stations at his peak, Jones can't even be compared. BimboBaggins ( talk) 08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe so, but it's a WP:RS, not I, that is making the comparison. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that reliable coverage of Jones is much less than you'd expect from his blog influence, but it's enough to keep the article. [44] WillOakland ( talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I reviewed a number of pages of results from your search, there were only a few results that actually dealt with the same Alex Jones, and apart from a couple of side mentions in some reasonable media, the vast bulk are from such notable news organisations as "thespoof.com" and "Bizjournals.com" BimboBaggins ( talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I encourage you (and others) to look through a few pages. Unfortunately many of the articles are not free, but the title and snippet can give some idea of Jones's role in the story. It's not my fault that Jones's parents gave him a common name, or that Google News processes comments along with the stories. WillOakland ( talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable media personality and fringe-theory promoter. I notice that his article doesn't (yet) cite Secret Rulers of the World and its accompanying book, Them: Adventures with Extremists as sources; they played a major role in bringing Jones to public attention here in the UK. AlexTiefling ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As has been said, while there may not be as many RS's as one would think, there are quite a few that tak about subject, more than enough to justify the article. Found thisand this after just a little searching. Personally, I think this deletion discussion is some sort of conspiracy... :) Vulture19 ( talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup - While the nominator is correct that some of the sources seem to be completely wrong or to web pages that don't exists (see ref #3), I did my own fact checking and found that he is syndicated nationally which proves notability. The references need cleaned up but that's all I could find with a quick look. OlYeller Talktome 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reluctant Keep - the nominator has a point about the internet echo chamber, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. However, Jones gets more than passing mention in, for example, Fenster, Mark (2008). Conspiracy Theories. ISBN 9780816654932., Barkun, Michael (2006). A Culture of Conspiracy. ISBN 9780520248120., and the aptly named Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008). Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. ISBN 9780470184080.. These are the kinds of sources that should be used for our articles, so we avoid the too common unmaintainable mess of self-promotion, original synthesis, and BLP violations. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because the article won't be written and maintained by giving due weight to the reliable secondary sources, well intended suggestions to "keep and clean up" notwithstanding. It will be written by the people who care most. "Responsible" journalists will look at our article for background even if they avoid paraphrasing it directly. They'll think Jones is a bigger fish than he is, and so write about him at greater length. Presto; there's another "reliable" source supporting Jones' notability. It is an echo chamber, just like the nominator says, and it's working. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup He's pretty well known as a conspiracy theorist. There's a lot of other conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia however who don't deserve inclusion. Best to direct some AfD attention to those.-- Sloane ( talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reluctant Keep. If we had a policy not to include people who talk without checking their facts, the biography section would be halved, at least. But this redacted person is a notable conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. His Prison Planet/Infowars site is pretty notable in the alternative media. Google News has been indexing Prison Planet as a source for years. Article is necessary to anyone studying the alternative media, whether you agree with their commentary on world events or not. The whole nom, which isn't even signed, smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- The deletion proposal is preposterous. He has been mentioned specifically in major publications such as the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 ( talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's better that there is the possibility of realistic reporting on Tin Foil Hatters like Alex Jones in Wiki than in places where things are leaning towards the "lizards ate my grandmother" type of editing. Plus, putting it up for deletion will only encourage him and his listeners to suggest WIKI is "run" by evil Jews, - sorry meant "Zionists" and I am not at all, of course, suggesting that "evil Zionists" is Alex Jones and his listeners code for their alleged Antisemitism. Plus, it only provides him with more free publicity and makes his listeners even more paranoid that everyone that edits wiki works for the CIA. The7thdr ( talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
- Delete. Though various YouTube users have attempted to convince me otherwise, I have never found a reason to believe that anything this man espouses or has achieved is notable. – Merqurial ( talk) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP Alex Jones is one of the most notable alternative media news persons of all time. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large Internet-based audience. I let the popularity speak for itself, but their are many people who feel the same way. Rbpolsen ♦☺♦ Talk to me! 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand why this is even being considered, there's a page about the "Tron Guy" for god's sake. Do people really think Jones has accomplished less than some youtube personality.
Grateguy11 (
talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. WillOakland ( talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- keep. Deleting this page would certainly look like censorship to me. Alex Jones has to be fairly notable. Otherwise I would most likely never had heard of him - Stian, Norway 18:51, 12 March 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.110.67 ( talk)
- Keep Well known radio personality. And anyway, if they know him in Norway, with so much snow... You know what I mean. Dr.K. logos 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I can't believe this.! Really. Are running out of space here? I can recommend a hundred articles that have less significance than this one. What is going on? Someone got hurt and no we going to sensor things? Haters of GOD, Homos, UNITE..! Ridicolous. Do not delete. People need to know about Alex Jones. Like it or not he is speaking for a lot of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.12.65 ( talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- KEEP DON'T CENSOR Why is this article up for deletion? Regardless of your views on Jone's, the fact that this is even being considered for deletion is ridiculous, especially now when major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Time magazine, and Glenn Beck have all just published stories about the New World Order. Once again, regardless of your personal views on Jones or his theories about world government/New World Order, this information, on both sides of the fence, is more and more relevant NOW than BEFORE. Please do not delete this article on these flawed merits. Also, as someone mentioned above, Jones is NATIONALLY SYNDICATED on 60 shortwave stations, has a large internet audience, has guests like Charlie Sheen, Joe Rogan, Jesse Venture, Ron Paul, etc. He's a very prominent figure in talk radio any way you look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I first learned of him from Richard Linklater's movie Waking Life. A quick look at Alex Jones at the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093953/, shows quite a bit of film work. So he has a presence beyond radio and internet blogging/broadcasting. Perhaps the nominator is confusing Wikipedia criteria for 'notable' with his own measures of notability or celebrity. Cuvtixo ( talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP Alex Jones has millions of listeners, readers and viewers. The controversial subjects he covers have obviously provoked the originator of of the 'delete' suggestions. The delete suggestion should be removed immediately. The inclusion of 'to be deleted' at the top of the Alex Jones page is obviously an example of vandalism. And, yes, if you delete it we millions of Alex Jones fans will consider it a conspiracy.
Netizen x (
talk) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Five days to consider deletion is not long in the scheme of things. WillOakland ( talk) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Alex is a prominent alternative media radio host, with large listener base through syndicated radio, shortwave and RSS feeds. -- Zaphood ( talk) 08:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Very prominent figure with impressive numbers of external links and references. Has produced high quality two-hour documentaries, something completely out of scope of a 'minor conspiracy theorist'. Deletion is entirely unwarranted. Flying hazard ( talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Suggest WP:SNOW keep at this point. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is a reporter of unpopular topics, a true journalist. The person who started this is clearly just hatefull. Any review of the accountability of alex jones will produce awe and shock at the real danger facing america. User: Brother of Liberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.143.3 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep Unnoteworthy? Are you kidding me? This guy is very well known. He's also a true revolutionary, but that's beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.85.14 ( talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Unnotable? You must be kidding! Last time I checked there were over 3 million hits for "Alex Jones" on Google plus 224 on current news according to Google News. Most of that regarding Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, author of known and popular movies on the subject. For many he is the embodiment of conspiracy theories - no matter if you believe him or are against him he is one of the most prominent figures in this movement/stream of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBrandt ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep : this should be a non-brainer folks. You don't have to agree with him, but you should agree he is notable. If you think the article has POV issues, discuss on the talk page. Danski14 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep : this should be fast-tracked. Having the deletion banner at the top of the page is vandalism timed with the release of his latest documentary, The Obama Deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.115.63 ( talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's what they want you to think... Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep He's a nutjob, but a notable nutjob. His videos are everywhere, so people need a place to find out the story behind him and his crazy ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabalong ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Sources in this article from mainstream and other media prove he is notable-- Noppalsch ( talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Is this nomination in good faith? I find it hard to believe that it is not a joke. Man It's So Loud In Here ( talk) 15:09, 14 March 2009 (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.
Please note that eight of these editors who !voted for this AfD: EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns, TheClashFan, HelenWatt, Marvin Ceee, Iam are socks of the same person, see:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive
Ikip (
talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- 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. It is admitted there are no sources yet; deleted but permit recreation when there are. Userification optional. DGG ( talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Metel el Helm
- Metel el Helm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Per WP:NF, unless the production is notable in itself, WP:CRYSTAL applies and this unreleased movie is not notable for Wikipedia yet. It may be once it is released, so rather than deletion, I actually propose moving this to userspace so it can be moved back when released and notability can be established. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Delete or userfy. There are no reliable sources covering this film. - Whpq ( talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do not delete I really think that the article mustn't be removed for the following reasons:
- 1-The movie is already very known locally (In Lebanon).
- 2-The movie is record-breaking ,the production team broke a world-wide record and is considered to enter the Guinness world Records(Still awaiting a reply)
- 3-As the movie isn't released yet,the media coverage is very minor (a couple of interviews). A press conference will be held before the movie is released and links to the interviews will be posted on the page.
- 4-The Wikipedia page is being consulted daily by visitors who have heard of the movie and want to know more about it and it's record-breaking fact.As Wikipedia's goal is to spread knowledge and information,I respectfully believe that the article must remain accessible to the public.I know some of the people who worked in this production so I can always add new categories to this article and already people are asking questions about the movie ,I will speak with the production team so we can redirect them to this Wikipedia article (along with the official movie site.)
Although the article lacks a (or some) picture(s),there are some posted on the movie's website and on the movie's fan group on Facebook.I will try to get one from the production and I will add it to the article.
Thank you for your understanding and support,
sincerely
Georges Halim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- — Lebnan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Given the information above, can you substantiate item #1 with reliable sources documenting this popularity? With respect to #2, the fact that you submitted something to Guiness does nto establish ntoability. With respect to #3, that is a reason in favour of deletion. As for item #4, wikipedia is not a web host. That's what your web site is for. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The movie is notableI appreciate your reply but I have some clarifications ,concerning Item #1:I can't add reliable sources now documenting the movie's popularity because there is no press coverage yet ,the popularity resides in mouth to mouth advertisement. The post-production has ended and the movie will be soon published.ABout Item #2:I am sure that Wikipedia must have articles about world records in the movie domains as it covers various other branches ,[Item #3 ]:As I have mentioned earlier, I will provide you with links to reliable sources as soon as possible.Concerning item #4 WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and one of an encyclopedia's goals is to provide readers with information ,I don't mean it being a web host but a source of knowledge.
I want to thank you again for your fast reply. Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I'm afraid that 'word of mouth' notability doesn't count for much at Wikipedia. Movies not yet released are only classed as notable when they are are by Spielberg or someone like that. Christopher Karkafi - I can only find here and Facebook. Metel el Helm - once again Facebook and a forum in Arabic which gives a mention in a list of Lebanese films (and possibly on a rather odd 'search' site that I haven't worked out yet). Not yet notable, sorry. When the film is released and getting audiences, try again. Wikipedia is for recording, not promoting. We can't help you onto the ladder. We can record you when you've gone up a few rungs. Peridon ( talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Userfy I respect your opinion for deletion and I am sure that the movie will have an article very soon that won't be deleted .As I noticed,you need enough proof that the movie is being made.
I wish you could move the article or something so it wouldn't have to be rewritten.-- Lebnan ( talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can. It can be moved to userspace, or simply copy-pasted by yourself. Moving maintains the edit history and is thus preferable. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why are you deleting the article?? what does the notabilty have to do with the movie.Everything on wikipedia is notable???-- Joe abiabed ( talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can't you track the number of visitors per day and judge then whether you delete the article or not.Then you can judge the notability,if you don't have an administrator living in Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Notability is not the same as popularity. General notability is established by coverage in independent, reliable sources. Per the analysis of the links in the article, there are currently no reliable sources cited in the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if they can or can't, but can't you see the potential for error? (To put it politely...) The number of clicks a site on the net gets can affect revenue from advertising - there are people sitting there ckicking sites to boost this. I'm not saying you would do this, but some well-meaning person might decide to boost the figures without asking you. An admin living in the Lebanon? Could be. But admins have to be neutral wherever they live. We judge notability by what we can find out. And once again, we are NOT here to help promote something or someone and we have policies that have been agreed. Everything on Wikipedia is notable? No. You may find an article consisting of "Shane is the MOST AWWWWWWSSSSSSOOOOMMMESTTTT person EVAHHHHH!". Normally these get deleted very quickly, but some clever ones get through - for a time. If you spot one - tag it, please. Peridon ( talk) 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that if you had an admin in Lebanon he would be not neutral ,I just meant that he would affirm that the movie is known locally , if not ,you must wait for the future references . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — PC78 ( talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice and allow return when sources toward notability can be shown. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion ,wait for a couple of weeks(3 weeks maximum),if some references were posted,leave the article ,if not userfy .We will give the article a chance till mid-april. It wouldn't do any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please, only one !vote per customer. As for waiting, please see WP:CRYSTAL. As for not doing any harm, please see WP:NOHARM. -- Whpq ( talk) 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am for not deleting the post. Lebnan,if they decided to delete it, they will surely be an article for the movie after a couple of weeks because I was told that it will be released soon and I guess Wikipedia keeps the article if the movie is genuine and notable.Several audio-visual students in the university worked for it and I asked jad about the movie yesterday ,he said that the post-production is in it's final stages so a bit of patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim malan ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- — Karim malan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete but allow userfication. The article fails to present any independent evidence that this unreleased film is notable. We can reconsider after the film is released. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Whpq ,I was on an edge,I just deleted my earlier post.Thanks for your understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan ( talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Administrative comment. The deleted comment and related reply from User:Whpq were not discussing the merits of the article, and in my opinion, removal has no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the article it's 100% notable,I don't know why nobody added references,I will try to find some .-- TheGodMothers ( talk) 13:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- — TheGodMothers ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please find references...and indicate which notability (film) criteria it meets, since it doesn't appear to meet any of them. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:06, 14 March 2009 (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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Azeri genocide
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Azeri genocide ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
- Delete Poorly sourced, virulently anti-Armenian in tone article with absolutely no historical basis to it and one which is not even recognized by a single genocide scholar (the PACE source is inadequate and highly misleading as it is a non-binding resolution and one which the Council of Europe doesn't officially recognize in any capacity). -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Check the article again ,historical basis is well explaned. 85.105.157.122 ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Where to start? No real references. Croissant's book was never referenced, simply placed under references. The bibliography, which appeared to be what someone found after a 3 minute google search, had books not referenced in the article. My 17yr old son does a better job of historical research than this! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- No real references?You should check the article ,too.If you have time except deleting the citations or a section.
85.105.157.122 (
talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you read? You should learn how REAL historical research is done. Typing something doesn't make it a fact! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- No real references?You should check the article ,too.If you have time except deleting the citations or a section.
85.105.157.122 (
talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. politically motivated POV propagand. no reliable sources. Gazifikator ( talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia has a very low threshold on what genocide is. If there are articles like Greek genocide, Assyrian Genocide, or Dersim genocide, then why the article about Azeri genocide cannot exist? Grand master 08:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to propose the deletion of the
Dersim genocide article, then I would support that proposal as long as its contents, with the genocide allegation, were to be merged into the
Dersim rebellion article.
Meowy 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I won't bother. The word genocide has already lost any meaning, as it is used in wiki to describe any massacre. If that's the way they want it, so be it. To me, genocide is an extremely politicized term, and the existence of the above articles is a good demonstration of this fact.
Grand
master 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, maybe at some future date I will propose its deletion. It is precisely to stop the word "genocide" loosing its correct meaning that articles like this "Azeri genocide" article (or the deleted "Kurdish genocide" one) should not be allowed to remain. Meowy 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I won't bother. The word genocide has already lost any meaning, as it is used in wiki to describe any massacre. If that's the way they want it, so be it. To me, genocide is an extremely politicized term, and the existence of the above articles is a good demonstration of this fact.
Grand
master 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to propose the deletion of the
Dersim genocide article, then I would support that proposal as long as its contents, with the genocide allegation, were to be merged into the
Dersim rebellion article.
Meowy 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I tried prodding this article but that didn't work. I'm glad others noticed it's violation of NPOV. Themfromspace ( talk) 08:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Double Standards. What is your obsession with Turks? Greek genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and Dersim genocide already exist on Wikipedia even though Dersim genocide has no document or recognition.However Azeri Genocide was recognized by Council of Europe and Azerbaijani Government.It is ironic, Armenians allways complain about denial of Armenian Genocide by Turkey but they deny Azeri Genocide. Abbatai ( talk) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The concept is by no means "recognized by the Council of Europe", but only by 30 representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (that is less than 5% from the total of 636 representatives), and that on a personal basis only: the declaration states that "[it] commits only the members who have signed it". Of those 30 individuals, 20 happen to be either from Azerbaijan or Turkey. - Ev ( talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I believe this article does warrant inclusion. The all references given is reliable source in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice34 ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all material that doesn't come from reliable sources per WP:V. The "double-standards" thing is a fair comment, but see WP:OCE for Wikipedia's view on that.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Poorly sourced, no scholarly source agrees with the article claims.-- St. Hubert ( talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. This article, together with its talk page, is a piece of propaganda. This article should go the same way as the late, unlamented, "Kurdish Genocide" article ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish genocide (WWI)) (though even it had one source, unlike this particular article). Meowy 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- This one also has a source, the decree of Azerbaijani president, referring to the massacre in Khojaly as a genocide. Also a declaration of some members of PACE, who also believe that Khojaly was an act of genocide. It is exactly as many sources as the articles about other genocides have, but no one cares about those other articles, and this one is proposed for deletion. I understand that the existence of other poorly sourced articles does not justify the existence of another poorly sourced article, but a fair treatment would be nice. Otherwise this place turns into the mouthpiece of anti-Turkish propaganda. It is no good that some well organized ethnic communities managed to impose their POVs into wikiarticles. Something needs to be done to maintain objectivity. Grand master 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone those with a half a brain cell know that the claimed PACE document is trash which was an answer to this draft tabled on 24 April 2001 by Jirousova (Czech Republic) on the day of the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. That PACE document which you are referring to was tabled on 26 April 2001 by Mehmet Ali Irtemçelik (Turkey), who is known apologist and the voice of the Turkish government in Germany. 2/3 (20 out of 30) of those who have signed that draft were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan. Several of the remaining are also known propagandists pushing the inclusion of Turkey in the EU (and who oppose the recognition of the Armenian genocide). For example, Tadeusz Iwinski or Younal Said Loutfi. The content of that draft is so ridiculous (not to say, the surprise of the majority of PACE members when they saw anyone even supporting such a draft) that even Azeri lobbyist in the US only refer to the draft and don't dare raising it's content. (for instance that On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city.) As for well organized community if I were you I would not bring up the word well organized anywhere. If you want to oppose it's deletion, go ahead, otherwise stop WP:SOAPboxing. VartanM ( talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, you do have a point about double standards and the virtues of "fair treatment", and I appreciate that you raise awareness of those issues here. You're right: something needs to be done.
- Deleting this particular entry is a step in the right direction, by both removing sub-standard content (to say the least) and helping to raise the threshold for inclusion in this type of topics: such precedents can simplify the deletion of other similar entries.
- I would really, but really love to delete a substantial part of the entries on genocides, massacres, ethnic cleansings, attrocities, minor battles & skirmishes... all those "look how bad [radom ethnic group] are !!!" type of entries that plague Wikipedia. In my opinion, the tiny encyclopedic significance of a substantial portion of those claims of victimhood does not justify the amount of time they demand from non-partisan editors to make them compliant with our content policies.
- However, actually deleting those entries involves an unpaid volunteer willing to check all kind of sources and websites dealing with the worst of human nature... willing to read often depressing & exhasperating talk page discussions (and rants)... and willing to iniciate a discussion whose quality is much too often marked by the already standard accusations of [Ethnic-group]phobia.
- My apologies, but right now I really don't want to do those things to propose other similar entries for deletion. However, when someone actually starts the process, I will try to do my little part in eliminating a small portion of this poison from what is supposed to be a simple encyclopedia (not a free megaphone from which to claim victimhood). - Best,
Ev (
talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that a lot of the articles on that genocide list do not deserve to be there and some serious pruning is required. But I don't think it would be that difficult to remove most of the unsubstantiated ones - there will be editors around who will know enough about each specific subject to distinguish the fake from the real. I've already mentioned to Grandmaster that if he wants to propose the deletion of the Dersim genocide article, I would support him. But I wonder why he is taking part in this discussion. He is neither supporting the retention of the Azeri genocide article, or supporting its deletion. And when given support for the deletion of an article he does objects to, he rejects that support. Meowy 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies, but right now I really don't want to do those things to propose other similar entries for deletion. However, when someone actually starts the process, I will try to do my little part in eliminating a small portion of this poison from what is supposed to be a simple encyclopedia (not a free megaphone from which to claim victimhood). - Best,
Ev (
talk) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree: if someone does the necessary checking of / search for sources, and the subsequent corroborations, it won't be so difficult to remove those entries. I just tried to explain why, according to my perception, few people are actually doing that work.
As for Grandmaster's participation in this discussion, I think that by merely raising those issues his imput was productive & helpful, as a reminder of the bigger picture. :-) - Best, Ev ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree: if someone does the necessary checking of / search for sources, and the subsequent corroborations, it won't be so difficult to remove those entries. I just tried to explain why, according to my perception, few people are actually doing that work.
- Keep If the genocide didn't happen where is the Azeri population of Yerevan and Karabakh.Please keep the article.As some said denying is killing twice! 193.140.194.148 ( talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for that rambling trip to nowhere. And your comments on... anything relevant would be? Personal opinions and beliefs are not a valid rationale for deletion. If you believe it notable, improve the article yourself (mainly through neutral sourcing - which, no offence, I'd love to see you attempt). +
Hexagon1 (
t) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- And where is the Armenian population of Baku and Nakhichevan? Are you able to discern ethnic cleansing from genocide? -- Vacio ( talk) 09:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for that rambling trip to nowhere. And your comments on... anything relevant would be? Personal opinions and beliefs are not a valid rationale for deletion. If you believe it notable, improve the article yourself (mainly through neutral sourcing - which, no offence, I'd love to see you attempt). +
Hexagon1 (
t) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, this is a no-brainer. Hideously POV, and unsourced. Completely unsalvageable. + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand the double standard Wikipedia has when it comes to Armenians. Is it because of turcophobia, racism, religion or because considerable amount of moderators in this site are Armenians? Has any international court recognized Armenian Genocide? Not to my recollection. Yet, it is stated in this site as if the events of 1915 were indeed genocide when there is still a considerable amount of debate going on over the topic and many world renowned historians reject the thesis, I repeat it is merely a thesis at this stage. I would like to see some objectivity in this site with regards to history and historians and if you are going to be deleting Azeri Genocide then you should also be deleting Armenian Genocide and all other made up genocides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.115.14.179 ( talk) 07:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, purely for fairness and NPOV. It's interesting to see Armenian editors nominating or overwhelming voting to remove articles on other nation's genocides, or simply trying to remove facts, photos or references from articles like Khojaly massacre in past. Why? If not for POV pushing and OR, then for what? Atabəy ( talk) 08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Armenian?? Amazing! My apologies to Vartan for interrupting, but I couldn't resist.... -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:WAX doesn't mean we get to keep pages because other (inapropriate) pages exist, it means we should go ahead and delete any particular page if it doesn't fit in with the policies and guidelines. Themfromspace ( talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not much evidence is needed anymore to understand your true purpose here, but sometimes it helps when you reiterate your purpose for others to witness.
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- VartanM, you should have asked that question to yourself, and perhaps,
this ArbCom based on your false accusations against an editor, only due to his ethnic background, would help refresh the mind. The only thing that does not make sense to truly neutral mind is when someone extensively advocates recognition of genocides suddenly tries to hide, fight off, remove, rename some factual evidence from encyclopedic articles. Isn't that part of nationalistic battleground editing? Ask yourself, why would Armenian editors get involved in nominating every Azeri massacre articles or images for deletion or removal, but we would rarely ever see a reverse trend?
Atabəy (
talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- And by reverse trend do you mean when you were denying the Armenian Genocide [23] and have now voted to keep this trash? VartanM ( talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- VartanM, you should have asked that question to yourself, and perhaps,
this ArbCom based on your false accusations against an editor, only due to his ethnic background, would help refresh the mind. The only thing that does not make sense to truly neutral mind is when someone extensively advocates recognition of genocides suddenly tries to hide, fight off, remove, rename some factual evidence from encyclopedic articles. Isn't that part of nationalistic battleground editing? Ask yourself, why would Armenian editors get involved in nominating every Azeri massacre articles or images for deletion or removal, but we would rarely ever see a reverse trend?
Atabəy (
talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not much evidence is needed anymore to understand your true purpose here, but sometimes it helps when you reiterate your purpose for others to witness.
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, then go ahead delete the socalled genocides why the only matter is Azeri Genocide for those people? Abbatai ( talk) 17:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to nominate other genocide articles for deletion. Otherwise you were already told about
WP:WAX
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- But this one did happen and has sources and recognition.
Abbatai (
talk) 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you think it happened, doesn't mean it did. It has no valid sources or recognition and is a fabrication.
Meowy 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The last phase of a genocide is denial as some of you are doing now. 85.105.157.122 ( talk) 14:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you think it happened, doesn't mean it did. It has no valid sources or recognition and is a fabrication.
Meowy 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- But this one did happen and has sources and recognition.
Abbatai (
talk) 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to nominate other genocide articles for deletion. Otherwise you were already told about
WP:WAX
VartanM (
talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. As currently framed, the entry is a propaganda pamphlet infringing virtually every content policy we have. Maintainability issues make me skeptical of other possible alternatives: some entries are simply not worth the vast amounts of time they demand from non-partisan editors to assure compliance with our policies. – To avoid future problems, I recommend protecting both capitalizations from re-creation, to ensure re-creation through deletion review only. - Ev ( talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Atabay has a very good point up there about the Armenian editors here but noone including VartanM dares answer him other than indicating that what is provided here is trash or propaganda. It is really very sad and disturbing to see that this Turcophobia of some small minds is taking over Wikipedia.
So called Armenian Genocide is just a thesis but Wikipedia is reflecting it as a real and committed genocide through brainwashing young minds just because Armenian editors want it that way. Political acception because some countries have hidden agendas against Turkey does not mean international recognition. Historians decide that. Oh sorry according to some, it is just how things are done, I just forgot, my apologies. There are many world renowned historians disagreeing with the thesis and then accused or labelled of being pro-Turk and that is not propaganda? So sad. Just because the editors are Christians or Armenians allow them to reflect debateable issues as happened but when it comes to indicating a massacre with proof, it is propaganda. Go on then, make new genocides up like Greek or Assyrian and continue to publish them. Show to world how credible wikipedia information is.
Two wrongs do not add up to one right some say up there. Azeri Turks in certain regions did not vanish from earth's space just in one night. Whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. Historians are here to do that, not Armenian editors. Therefore I urge from those who think that just because there are other articles in this site in similar positions to be deleted does not mean that this one should be kept, to be that sensitive to those debateable articles as well. If there are other articles in similar positions about genocide thesis that you agree up there, then where is your critism to those articles. Please guys try to be a little bit objective at least. That is the least you can do. ECDS ( talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. I forgot to add one thing. Even the picture used in armenian genocide section in the site is not related to Armenians. It is a picture of Russian soldiers taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. Go ahead and delete my comments. That is just going to prove how right I am. ECDS ( talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- And your thoughts on the WP:OR nature of the article in question are? You know, that is why we're here... no-one cares about your nationalistic rant. Whether we agree or disagree is utterly irrelevant. All you're doing is hindering the process of finding out whether this article complies with policy or not and stirring idiotic nationalism. It's not the "other nation" that stirs nationalistic hatred when you post your opinions on irrelevant high-traffic pages, it's you. + Hexagon1 ( t) 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep i support a Keep of the article as it is supported by numerous sources. Just because it is about an issue some people perhaps doesnt recognize,doesnt mean it shouldnt have its own article. End of story.--
MarkusBJoke (
talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
But i however agree on that the article needs to be rewritten into a more neutral article. Just as the one of the Armenian genocide and sutch.-- MarkusBJoke ( talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- A problem with this discussion is that nobody has yet done a paragraph-by-paragraph dissection of the article to demonstrate that every allegation within it is falsified to the extent that they are nothing more that propaganda, and the article's existence is a gross misuse of the very serious word "genocide". I am not going to do this time-consuming thing, mostly because I hope it will be clear to every well-informed good-faith editor who just reads the article that the article is indeed propaganda and a misuse of the word genocide. I think the way the discussion is going will result in the article's deletion - but if it is retained it needs to be re-nominated for deletion, this time with a proper dissection of its contents. Meowy 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- MarkusBJoke, your comparaison with the Armenian Genocide disqualifies your comment. I can create an article about bicycles and source my claims with notes about potatoes and individuals like you will claim it is well sourced and keep-worthy. Here is a section by section analysis of the article.
- Russian Expansion of Caucasus. This section has nothing to do with the Armenians or the Azeri?
- Massacres in 1905-1907, he copied the entire text from the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907. See the beginning of the second paragraph. He did not even bother to place a link on the lead of that section to the main article. THe wording doesn't give anyone the chance to understand that it was a both sided clash.
- March Days, this has nothing to do with the prior events which was over a decade ago. Months later even a higher number of Armenians were killed. See September Days. Does this gives me the right to engage in OR and selectively take every massacres at the hands of the Azeri and create another Armenian genocide article?
- Khojaly Massacre, what is it's relation with events having happemed ¾ of a century ago?
- International Recognition, which one, the Council of Europe never recognized such a thing.
- Political, he copied that section word for word from here.
- The intro of the article does not even coincide with its content, it starts with: The Azeri Genocide refers the mass killing of Azeri people by Armenians during World War 1 and The Nagorno-Karabakh War. None of the events described in the text have happened in WWI. Obviously this inaccurate info was placed there as an apologetics rhetoric to claim that Armenians massacred too in WWI and paralleling it with the Armenian Genocide. As for NK war, only one event described here happened during the course of the NK war.
- Now go back to the Armenian Genocide article with its 181 notes and take a look at it and then come back with such a comparaison. VartanM ( talk) 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Vartan M, the Armenian Genocide section of this website is so biased that I do not even know where to start with. First of all as I indicated before the picture used in the site has not any relation whatsoever to Armenians or Turks but was taken in Russian Civil War after WW1. The many commnunities of the Armenian Diaspora had been founded long before the events of 1915 in late 19th century to make Armenians seperate land from Ottoman Empire which indeed led to events of 1915. SD Hunchakian Party and ARF(Dashnaktsutiun) were founded late 19th century with differing ideologies but similar goals. They sided with Russians in WW1 to achieve their goal of Great Armenia and backstabbed Ottoman Army but they started their massacrings of Muslims and Turks long before that. A quick look at the Niles-Sutherland report is enough to prove the situation of Turks and Armenians after WW1. They were never suppressed under Ottoman ruling and they even had seats in the Parliament. Many were dealing with trade and they were managing silk factories (sourced from Jean Louis Mattei). The Malta Tribunals of the British proved Turks innocent as stated in many telegraphs sent at that time. Here are some of them:
- The letter sent by Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington to Lord Curzon:
- July 13th, 1921
- ‘I am sorry to say that nothing to be used against the Turks prosecuted in Malta as proof could be found.’
- Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8519
- The letter sent by British Attorney Generalship in Malta to British Foreign Office:
- July 29th, 1921
- ‘No proof against Turks prosecuted has been found.’
- Foreign Office Archives F.O. 371/6504/E. 8745
- Here is an extract from the report given to II. Socialist International by Mikael Varangian to specify some of those goals of Dashnaks:
- 'We organized in most parts of Anatolia.
- Our organizations are comprised of mobile and stationary units, groups responsible for funding and logistics, groups of women responsible for communication and dispatching and groups of intellectuals responsible for making propaganda.
- Our guerillas killed the Mayor of Van.
- We attempted to assassinate Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamit.
- Our bomb store was captured by Ottoman Security Forces.'
- The site does not even make reference to Manifesto of First Prime Minister of Armenia Katchaznouni where he technically admits that they killed many Muslims and Turks in the region to gain freedom from the Empire and that they sided with Russia and then when Russia failed them they lost everything.
- The section talks about international recognition where indeed it is no more than political recognition by 21 countries and indeed no international court has made any decision related to the dispute so far which they can not when there are so many contradicting views and opinions over the topic.
- There are not any references made to historians with counter-claims who spent their entire lives studying the subject matter on hand like Erich Feigl, Justin Mcarthy, Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw other than labelling them agents of the Turkish goverment. Should I continue?
- Comment I do not remember anywhere in my comment above I suggested that the article should be kept as it stands. It definitely needs modification and the use of word genocide should not be that easy. Am I repeating myself here or is it just me? Historians who spent their entire lives on history should not be overlooked and you can not just label an event genocide because your 'nationalistic rant' requires that way and unfortunately it works both ways. But you also can not ignore any massacre or wrongdoings done to any nation because they are not genocides. There is a historical fact here with proof. For objectivity's sake, the critisms should be on that basis and through out all other articles in Wikipedia not just this one. If that disturbs some people who indeed have real nationalistic rants but accuse others of having, that I can not do anything about. I repeat it for the last time, Azeri Turks did not vanish from Earth's space just in one night, whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. It is historians call. Just show some objectivity to other historical incidents or events as well and critise on that basis, that is all I ask. ECDS ( talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete – This article consists of little more than blatantly biased (statements such as "outrageous facts", "tragic history", and "clear sign of Armenian nationalism" speak for themselves) original research; though efforts have been made to improve it slightly, the very premise of the article is unsalvageable. It attempts to present a number of atrocities and repressions perpetrated over a period of more than a century and, indeed, separated by a period of more than 70 years, as "genocide". A genocide is a "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", and three distinct events in 1905, 1918, and 1992 do not a genocide make. And how is the Russian expansion into the Caucasus related to a claim of genocide by Armenians against Azeris? Perhaps a decent article could be written about the Azerbaijani day of observance ("day of genocide of Azerbaijanis", March 31), but this article is flawed at its core. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 01:22, 15 March 2009 (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.
- 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 keep. Issues are largely cleanup - consensus here is to keep - if you disagree, I suggest going straight to deletion review since I've read this several times already in my evaluation Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Aaron Klein
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Aaron Klein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
This article fails our policies on verifiability and on biographies of living people because it does not have adequate sourcing. Although there are citations, they don't provide the level of information we require for BLPs. There are articles written by Klein, but none written about Klein. There are discussions of controversies Klein has been involved in, but nothing at all about the man himself. Many of the sources (e.g. the New York Post reference) only mention Klein in passing. Under some circumstances this might all be harmless, but this article has been a continuous battleground and has been used to host BLP-violating attacks on Barack Obama and others. Best to just nuke it. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleteagree with nominator above. (S)he said it perfectly. TharsHammar ( talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)- Keep am going to recommend closing this discussion because it is slowly devolving into a bashing of Klein. TharsHammar ( talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, just another bloviator, whose noteworthiness seems limited to having been thrown out of somebody's office (rather minor, I'd have thought). -- Hoary ( talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete WP:AUTO concerns also. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleteinadequately referenced, full of non notable information. Mfield ( talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep if this was nominated a week ago, this would surely have resulted in a delete. As it is now the guy has managed to cement his notability, even if by doing so he has undermined his credibility as a journalist. Mfield ( talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of the Yeshiva University controversy as well as the later career. As for the later career, there's documentation from the Jerusalem Post [24] , [25] & UPI, in addition to the incessant publicity from the places he works for. DGG ( talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Both those articles you referenced are behind a paywall. Could you please provide some details as to how they discuss the subject? My cursory reading (including the Jerusalem Post abstract) is that there might be a case for a (marginal) article on Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans - to a Jew! (which could include a discussion of the JP article from which it apparently derived) - but not enough info for an article on Aaron Klein as a person. *** Crotalus *** 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
KeepWeak Keepper DGG, plus recent international publicity, plus a number of book cites. I agree that a lot of cites within the existing article are WP:LARD and it needs improvement. But this isn't a BLP1E. THF ( talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- NB that I've changed my !vote; upon further examination, many of the book cites are to Aaron J. Klein, who, confusingly enough, also writes about terrorism. THF ( talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Update. I have now cleaned out the WP:PUFF mentions of individual appearances on radio shows and added a couple of cites. THF ( talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- And, back to a full-fledged Keep with the latest 24 hours of stories, plus an op-ed in The Nation that was about Klein. THF ( talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. While it should be irrelevant to anyone's keep or delete suggestion, note that this deletion nomination is going to be perceived by and covered by the outside world as retaliation against a reporter who criticized Wikipedia. THF ( talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below)
Wikidemon (
talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a lot of that going around. THF ( talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia controversy should be discussed in the
Criticisms of Wikipedia article, not presented as a biography of a non-notable critic.
*** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- "[S]taged a phony scandal" - perhaps, but the same thing happened to me just recently, including on my talk page, and indeed I experienced the reported problem on the reported page many months back; it was so bad that I just quit editing that page -- so when I read Klein's article, I knew he nailed it. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below)
Wikidemon (
talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly notable given well-covered notoriety. Any BLP problems are of the subject's own making, and thus, not cognizable under BLP policy. We deal with problems here, rather than deleting them. There is enough encyclopedic material in the article to salvage, even if as a stub, and enough reliable coverage to write a proper article. Further, the lack of known details about the person's personal life is no reason he is not notable. Many articles about journalists, businesspeople, etc., cover only their professional lives. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, "keep to punish the article subject for hating on Wikipedia" has already been rejected with other subjects, such as Daniel Brandt. Secondly, the BLP problems are not limited to Klein - this page and its associated talk page have been used as a platform to launch BLP-violating attacks against Barack Obama. It's just not worth the trouble for a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- My argument goes strictly to notability. BLP problems are dealt with as BLP problems, not by nuking the forum where they occur. If he is truly non notable then his article should be deleted. I don't think he is - plenty of reliable sources report on his professional accomplishments, such as they are. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources found by DGG and THF. While the subject might have messed with Wikipedia entries like Barrack Obama, that is not a reason to delete the article of that person if they pass our guidelines. It's almost like editors are trying to "punish" the topic. Deal with the bothersome editor the standard ways like with warnings and blocks, not with an AfD. -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, was also profiled and interviewed on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor. [26] -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. to call the article's subject notable would be a stretch. as a side note, the fact that the article's subject might have written part of his own article, and another article, but then cried to fox news about wikipedia's bias, is just a testament to the fact that the editor in question should not be here. whether such speculation is true or false is irrelevant to this particular article, because the article's subject doesn't appear to be notable. Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's fascinating. What's your opinion of
Dcourtneyjohnson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote
this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post?
THF (
talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- sure, it's okay to cry to the huffington post, or fox news, or wherever. it's also equally ok to ban them from wikipedia forever for this exploitative and exponential degree of disruption. Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's no "stretch" to call someone notable when they're the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As a matter of fact, that's the core criteria of both
WP:NOTABILITY and
WP:BIO. The Fox News profile/interview referenced above had nothing to do with Wikipedia but about his journalist work in the Middle East .--
Oakshade (
talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TharsHammar (
talk •
contribs)
- you mean the link to the youtube video[
[27]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source.
Theserialcomma (
talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- The source isn't youtube but it's Fox News which is a reliable secondary source. It's linked here to demonstrate he was profiled and interviewed on Fox News. Just because the piece was uploaded to youtube doesn't magically mean the piece doesn't or never existed.-- Oakshade ( talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- you mean the link to the youtube video[
[27]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source.
Theserialcomma (
talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's fascinating. What's your opinion of
Dcourtneyjohnson (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote
this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post?
THF (
talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete An auto-biography that is far from notable even if it were to be cleaned up. I don't see any independent verification that he is a journalist or media personality of any significance whatsoever. Writing for a single fringe publication does not mean you inherit its notability. If it wasn't for the wiki drama this person has stirred up, there would be no question about deleting this. Steven Walling (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Being the subject of Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and UPI are indications of notability, even if we may have the opinion he's just some "fringe writer." -- Oakshade ( talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Important person because he is a controversial, publicly noted and critical reporter and Wikipedia editor. This means critical as in criticism and critical as in critical thinking. Don't delete people just because you have disagreements with their edits. If Wikipedia continues to censor unpopular views and persons in at the expense of objectivity then it will lose its credibility. 66.91.255.120 ( talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Note: I had an issue recalling my username/login yesterday. This is my comment. Ithkuil ( talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to have been notable for years until this controversy... Hill of Beans ( talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, he's unethical, not non-notable. Much of the puffery has been removed (thanks to THF and others) and more can be done (I favor a good bit of trimming but have not the time to do it.) KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Article now referenced by Wired. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikigate-1.html Seasoup ?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.32.130 ( talk)
- Being mentioned in a blog is NO reason to keep. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is the author of the article one of the Wired writers?-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- The original author of the article on wikipedia is Jerusalem21, who is mentioned in the wired article as an employee of Klein, for more info see this article from gawker [28]. For more info on the history of Klein's socks / meats with this article please see the SPI TharsHammar ( talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- We are not discussing the writer of the Wikipedia article, but the writer of the "blog" at Wired.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since you just joined this discussion I will point out who Aaron Klein is, he is a [World Net Daily] author who wrote an article yesterday about Obama's article on wikipedia being censored [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114] that got picked up by drudge. The wired article was a commentary on Klein's article, and the wired article contains an email from Klein about Jerusalem21, who created the article being discussed here, Aaron Klein. TharsHammar ( talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I might be confused, so if you are asking about the blog on wired, it was written by Kevin Poulsen a senior editor at Wired News. TharsHammar ( talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you were confused but I think you now get my point. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was that if it was written by one of the Wired columnists (now we see that it was), the fact that it is a "blog" should not take away from contributing to Klien's notability. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is written by Kevin Poulsen, one of Wired's editors. Manys ( talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable conspiracy theorist/journalist. Merely having your articles published doesn't make you notable. Delete for failing WP:Note and WP:BIO.-- Sloane ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and further source, as lack is no reason for deletion if they are available. Not liking a conspiracy theorist is no reason to delete. He passes WP:AUTHOR ( Google Books) and WP:BIO ( Jewish Press). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Also, delete - David Gerard ( talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to main Worldnetdaily article - I did some searching and found some articles criticizing Klein, but I don't think they're enough to establish notability for him as a person. Instead we could cover that within the context of the WND website. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree on the idea to merge into WND. WND is, for whatever reason, considered an unreliable source. So the suggestion to move Aaron Klein to the WND page is a clever way to say Aaron Klein is an unreliable source. You can try to prove that, but it should be on his own merits, not by attaching him to WND. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The effort to delete this article appears to me to have more to do with politics/propaganda than with Wikipedia policy adherence. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- By coincidence, Klein's story is being discussed THIS MINUTE on WOR 710 AM right now, the Michael Smerconish Show. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Notable before this Obama situation he orchestrated, moreso because of it. rootology ( C)( T) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as notable and subject does not object to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment- Not sure if Kos is considered a reliable source or not, but here's an article on him from them: [29]. With added bonus- it refers to the shenanigans he's pulled here. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Umbralcorax ( talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per KillerChihuahua. A journalist for a well known publication isn't inherently notable, but the controversies he's been involved in tip the scale to notability. AniMate talk 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- KeepIf he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now. Funny, the more some try to suppress information, the more I learn about the discussion than from the article.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge/Rename to something along the lines of Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy, or failing that, just into the main WND article.. This person is not notable on his own, but rather has become (in)famous for this apparently concocted faux controversy. We're in one event territory here, IMO. Tarc ( talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly is the "Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy"? The controversy created by his article? There's not enough for its own article, and besides, if that's the proposal, better it renamed to
WorldNetDaily Obama whitewashing allegations controversy.--
brew
crewer
(yada, yada) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- It helps to read what people actually write, y'know. Above, I said "failing that, just into the main WND article", meaning if this controversy is notable enough to stand on its own, and if it is not, then mention it in the article of the website that this person writes for, which was the source of this retarded mess. Tarc ( talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly is the "Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy"? The controversy created by his article? There's not enough for its own article, and besides, if that's the proposal, better it renamed to
WorldNetDaily Obama whitewashing allegations controversy.--
brew
crewer
(yada, yada) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not many references. The only thing well referenced is his criticism of wikipedia and if we had an article for all critics... -- Muhammad (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Strip away the puffery and weak sources, and nothing is left. The blatant conflict of interest doesn't even need to be invoked here, but is icing on the cake. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 08:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. WorldNetDaily, The Jewish Press and Ynetnews are borderline notable (but at least 10% of all websites is more notable). To have articles accepted by them, isn't worth a lot more than having an edit at wikipedia which isn't immediately reverted as vandalism. Erik Warmelink ( talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Just because you're a conservative, and claim to be railroaded by the liberal "drive by" MSM call it what you will doesn't mean you're notable. If all it takes to be notable is to be thrown out of a politicians office and making controversial edits on wikipedia, give me a half hour and I'll be back, and we can make a page for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.189.4 ( talk) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Per KillerChihuahua. Subject seems like a bad person yes; and part of his notability is certainly his destructive efforts against Wikipedia. But as much as I don't like him, Klein seems to have received at least enough media attention (and written enough articles) to merit an article. LotLE× talk 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The sources are pretty good. He is "the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and they are reliable, in particular The Jewish Daily, which is independent and professionally written and edited. I despise Fox News, but they have legitimated lots of idiots. My only concern is that we don't want to publicize a flat-earther. Bearian ( talk) 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- keep Meets WP:BIO. That's what matters. DGG and others have provided more than enough sourcing. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete lacks notability. X MarX the Spot ( talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- delete after much thought. There are no articles about him, any temporary interest in him seems to be his little wikipedia stunt (which has not achieved wide interest) and in the end he's just a columnist for for a fringe publication. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to his role as reporter and commentator, he has been involved in various notable controversies, and his book is noted in mainstream news coverage such as from the Boston Globe here
[30], the New York Post "MIDDLE East terrorist leaders are dishing American celebrities. A book, published by WND Books, out Sept. 11, has the longest title in captivity: "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans - to a Jew!" Our sworn enemies tell Mideast-based, 20-something U.S. journalist Aaron Klein who they'd like in the White House, kvetch over showbiz types like Madonna, Britney, Spielberg, Mel Gibson, bigmouths Jane Fonda and Sean Penn and conservative talkers Limbaugh and Hannity, plus Richard Gere, who did a commercial urging Palestinians to vote. Well, they did. And elected Hamas."
[31], Jerusalem's National Post "Aaron Klein, an American journalist who now lives in Israel, last year released a fascinating book, Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans -- To a Jew!. In it, he recounts how in hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of terrorists their declared hatred of the West was nearly as great as their hatred of Israel. They were not motivated by poverty or political oppression as much as by faith and ideology, and nearly all spoke of establishing a worldwide caliphate once they had dispatched the Jewish state. They were especially enraged by our equal treatment of women and our tolerance of gays and lesbians."
[32]. That's just a sampling of the citations.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- None of those three links are actual reviews of the book, they are mentioned in passing within larger stories of other events. The NY Post one is bizarre though, in that this appears as a blurb amongst gossip about Desperate Housewives and Conan O'Brien. So no, I don't believe any of that passes WP:CREATIVE. There may be a case for the novel itself according to WP:BK, but it'd be a bit tenuous. Tarc ( talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The origins of this article are suspicious see [33]. The creator's username contains the name of the subject's home base, and the subject wrote an article in regards to the edits of the creator[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114]. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- While there's no contention with the dubious original versions of this article (it's been very publicly vetted), that does not negate the fact this person passes the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Besides, the current version has generally been written by established Wikipedia editors rendering the "origins" argument moot.-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Total self-promotion. Just because this article existed a few months ago doesn't mean it needs to stay. It was written under dubious terms, and now it's only under such scrutiny because of something he did himself. I don't really get the feeling of any true notability here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per sourcing added. Who cares how the article got here, it's now sourced so the rest remains regular editing. -- Banjeboi 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Our judgemnt should not be influenced by the recent contreversy. Dy yol ( talk) 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, notability is well enough established. Since when do we delete articles about people who criticise Wikipedia? That would be censorship. --Avant-garde a clue-
hexa
Chord
2 07:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- We've deleted them from the start, if the people are insufficiently notable. (One such was
this fellow.) If I criticized Wikipedia, and my criticism were taken up in the blogosphere and so on, that wouldn't entitle me to an article, just as my praise of Wikipedia wouldn't entitle me to an article. If Richard Dawkins criticized (or praised) Wikipedia, he'd get an article -- uh, no, he's already got one, on the strength of actual achievements and/or of more than "fifteen minutes" of fame. --
Hoary (
talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think he's more notable for other things than his Wikipedia criticism. The latter is just the reason for all this bias. --Avant-garde a clue-
hexa
Chord
2 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to presuppose a bias. OK, I'll admit to having a bias: I'm biased against write-ups of self-promoters who have achieved very little. (For all I care, they can ridicule Wikipedia, they can suck up to it, or, like the huge majority of people worth an article, they can ignore it.) --
Hoary (
talk) 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a bias too, a bias against this person. But he still passes our notability guidelines and we need to remain consistent with our standards of deleting articles. Otherwise we are only helping prove criticism of Wikipedia correct.-- Oakshade ( talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to presuppose a bias. OK, I'll admit to having a bias: I'm biased against write-ups of self-promoters who have achieved very little. (For all I care, they can ridicule Wikipedia, they can suck up to it, or, like the huge majority of people worth an article, they can ignore it.) --
Hoary (
talk) 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think he's more notable for other things than his Wikipedia criticism. The latter is just the reason for all this bias. --Avant-garde a clue-
hexa
Chord
2 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- We've deleted them from the start, if the people are insufficiently notable. (One such was
this fellow.) If I criticized Wikipedia, and my criticism were taken up in the blogosphere and so on, that wouldn't entitle me to an article, just as my praise of Wikipedia wouldn't entitle me to an article. If Richard Dawkins criticized (or praised) Wikipedia, he'd get an article -- uh, no, he's already got one, on the strength of actual achievements and/or of more than "fifteen minutes" of fame. --
Hoary (
talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy ( robe and wizard hat) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Notability established by his mention in third party media sources.
Dream Focus 13:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep per sourcing and notability demonstrated.-- Banjeboi 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)- Apologies, I accidental double !voted. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unnotable partisan hack. -- WatchingWhales ( talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. With the NY Times, Telegraph and CBS, notability is adequately demonstrated. Additionally, most of the newer delete votes are either WP:IDONTLIKEHIM and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which have never been valid reasons to delete. Most of the older delete votes were posted before the sourcing was added. McJeff ( talk) 03:19, 16 March 2009 (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.
- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Erik9 ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Alex Jones (radio host)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
AfDs for this article:
- Alex Jones (radio_host) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
Unnotable conspiracy theorist. While people have made attempts in his wiki page to make him look notable, when you check the sources used, they just mention him as someone involved in whatever conspiracy theory they are writing about, Jones is never or rarely the subject of an article himself, unless it's on some vanity press or local non reliable rag. All of his works are self published, apart from the radio show which is only available on the internet, or a couple of low power Christian shortwave stations and maybe a small local station or two, thats no better than self published in my opinion. I think it's time this page was removed, or perhaps as an alternative, just merged into some other article on 9/11 conspiracy theories or the like. Jones himself is not notable, he is at best a sideline in some other story. Please read the sources linked to on his page, and you will see what I mean. In the internet echo chamber he appears almost notable, due to a few active meatpuppets who he calls upon to spread his word (ie spam), but in the real world, he just really isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BimboBaggins ( talk • contribs) — BimboBaggins ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Heh, "Bimbo Baggins" really. Anyways, I'll bite. This looks like a low class
WP:BLP1E otherwise not notable and should be cast out from the bowels of Wikipedia as soon as possible.
JBsupreme (
talk) 07:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's not one-event notable. In addition to 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, he's also received reliable coverage for leading the construction of the current Branch Davidian church, ranting about the Bohemian Club, and opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger's political campaigns. WillOakland ( talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep, almost speedy keep. At first glance I thought this nomination was a hoax. Sources in the article include major newspapers, such as the Washington Post, as well as BBC News. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Addition: This book also refers to Jones as one of the "most prominent" conspiracy-related radio hosts, along with the likes of Art Bell. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Hah, come on... Art Bell had over 10 million listeners and was on hundreds of stations at his peak, Jones can't even be compared. BimboBaggins ( talk) 08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe so, but it's a WP:RS, not I, that is making the comparison. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that reliable coverage of Jones is much less than you'd expect from his blog influence, but it's enough to keep the article. [44] WillOakland ( talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I reviewed a number of pages of results from your search, there were only a few results that actually dealt with the same Alex Jones, and apart from a couple of side mentions in some reasonable media, the vast bulk are from such notable news organisations as "thespoof.com" and "Bizjournals.com" BimboBaggins ( talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I encourage you (and others) to look through a few pages. Unfortunately many of the articles are not free, but the title and snippet can give some idea of Jones's role in the story. It's not my fault that Jones's parents gave him a common name, or that Google News processes comments along with the stories. WillOakland ( talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable media personality and fringe-theory promoter. I notice that his article doesn't (yet) cite Secret Rulers of the World and its accompanying book, Them: Adventures with Extremists as sources; they played a major role in bringing Jones to public attention here in the UK. AlexTiefling ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As has been said, while there may not be as many RS's as one would think, there are quite a few that tak about subject, more than enough to justify the article. Found thisand this after just a little searching. Personally, I think this deletion discussion is some sort of conspiracy... :) Vulture19 ( talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup - While the nominator is correct that some of the sources seem to be completely wrong or to web pages that don't exists (see ref #3), I did my own fact checking and found that he is syndicated nationally which proves notability. The references need cleaned up but that's all I could find with a quick look. OlYeller Talktome 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reluctant Keep - the nominator has a point about the internet echo chamber, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. However, Jones gets more than passing mention in, for example, Fenster, Mark (2008). Conspiracy Theories. ISBN 9780816654932., Barkun, Michael (2006). A Culture of Conspiracy. ISBN 9780520248120., and the aptly named Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008). Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. ISBN 9780470184080.. These are the kinds of sources that should be used for our articles, so we avoid the too common unmaintainable mess of self-promotion, original synthesis, and BLP violations. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because the article won't be written and maintained by giving due weight to the reliable secondary sources, well intended suggestions to "keep and clean up" notwithstanding. It will be written by the people who care most. "Responsible" journalists will look at our article for background even if they avoid paraphrasing it directly. They'll think Jones is a bigger fish than he is, and so write about him at greater length. Presto; there's another "reliable" source supporting Jones' notability. It is an echo chamber, just like the nominator says, and it's working. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup He's pretty well known as a conspiracy theorist. There's a lot of other conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia however who don't deserve inclusion. Best to direct some AfD attention to those.-- Sloane ( talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reluctant Keep. If we had a policy not to include people who talk without checking their facts, the biography section would be halved, at least. But this redacted person is a notable conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. His Prison Planet/Infowars site is pretty notable in the alternative media. Google News has been indexing Prison Planet as a source for years. Article is necessary to anyone studying the alternative media, whether you agree with their commentary on world events or not. The whole nom, which isn't even signed, smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- The deletion proposal is preposterous. He has been mentioned specifically in major publications such as the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 ( talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's better that there is the possibility of realistic reporting on Tin Foil Hatters like Alex Jones in Wiki than in places where things are leaning towards the "lizards ate my grandmother" type of editing. Plus, putting it up for deletion will only encourage him and his listeners to suggest WIKI is "run" by evil Jews, - sorry meant "Zionists" and I am not at all, of course, suggesting that "evil Zionists" is Alex Jones and his listeners code for their alleged Antisemitism. Plus, it only provides him with more free publicity and makes his listeners even more paranoid that everyone that edits wiki works for the CIA. The7thdr ( talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
- Delete. Though various YouTube users have attempted to convince me otherwise, I have never found a reason to believe that anything this man espouses or has achieved is notable. – Merqurial ( talk) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP Alex Jones is one of the most notable alternative media news persons of all time. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large Internet-based audience. I let the popularity speak for itself, but their are many people who feel the same way. Rbpolsen ♦☺♦ Talk to me! 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand why this is even being considered, there's a page about the "Tron Guy" for god's sake. Do people really think Jones has accomplished less than some youtube personality.
Grateguy11 (
talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. WillOakland ( talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- keep. Deleting this page would certainly look like censorship to me. Alex Jones has to be fairly notable. Otherwise I would most likely never had heard of him - Stian, Norway 18:51, 12 March 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.110.67 ( talk)
- Keep Well known radio personality. And anyway, if they know him in Norway, with so much snow... You know what I mean. Dr.K. logos 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I can't believe this.! Really. Are running out of space here? I can recommend a hundred articles that have less significance than this one. What is going on? Someone got hurt and no we going to sensor things? Haters of GOD, Homos, UNITE..! Ridicolous. Do not delete. People need to know about Alex Jones. Like it or not he is speaking for a lot of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.12.65 ( talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- KEEP DON'T CENSOR Why is this article up for deletion? Regardless of your views on Jone's, the fact that this is even being considered for deletion is ridiculous, especially now when major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Time magazine, and Glenn Beck have all just published stories about the New World Order. Once again, regardless of your personal views on Jones or his theories about world government/New World Order, this information, on both sides of the fence, is more and more relevant NOW than BEFORE. Please do not delete this article on these flawed merits. Also, as someone mentioned above, Jones is NATIONALLY SYNDICATED on 60 shortwave stations, has a large internet audience, has guests like Charlie Sheen, Joe Rogan, Jesse Venture, Ron Paul, etc. He's a very prominent figure in talk radio any way you look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I first learned of him from Richard Linklater's movie Waking Life. A quick look at Alex Jones at the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093953/, shows quite a bit of film work. So he has a presence beyond radio and internet blogging/broadcasting. Perhaps the nominator is confusing Wikipedia criteria for 'notable' with his own measures of notability or celebrity. Cuvtixo ( talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP Alex Jones has millions of listeners, readers and viewers. The controversial subjects he covers have obviously provoked the originator of of the 'delete' suggestions. The delete suggestion should be removed immediately. The inclusion of 'to be deleted' at the top of the Alex Jones page is obviously an example of vandalism. And, yes, if you delete it we millions of Alex Jones fans will consider it a conspiracy.
Netizen x (
talk) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Five days to consider deletion is not long in the scheme of things. WillOakland ( talk) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Alex is a prominent alternative media radio host, with large listener base through syndicated radio, shortwave and RSS feeds. -- Zaphood ( talk) 08:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Very prominent figure with impressive numbers of external links and references. Has produced high quality two-hour documentaries, something completely out of scope of a 'minor conspiracy theorist'. Deletion is entirely unwarranted. Flying hazard ( talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Suggest WP:SNOW keep at this point. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is a reporter of unpopular topics, a true journalist. The person who started this is clearly just hatefull. Any review of the accountability of alex jones will produce awe and shock at the real danger facing america. User: Brother of Liberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.143.3 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep Unnoteworthy? Are you kidding me? This guy is very well known. He's also a true revolutionary, but that's beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.85.14 ( talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Unnotable? You must be kidding! Last time I checked there were over 3 million hits for "Alex Jones" on Google plus 224 on current news according to Google News. Most of that regarding Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, author of known and popular movies on the subject. For many he is the embodiment of conspiracy theories - no matter if you believe him or are against him he is one of the most prominent figures in this movement/stream of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBrandt ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep : this should be a non-brainer folks. You don't have to agree with him, but you should agree he is notable. If you think the article has POV issues, discuss on the talk page. Danski14 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep : this should be fast-tracked. Having the deletion banner at the top of the page is vandalism timed with the release of his latest documentary, The Obama Deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.115.63 ( talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's what they want you to think... Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep He's a nutjob, but a notable nutjob. His videos are everywhere, so people need a place to find out the story behind him and his crazy ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabalong ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Sources in this article from mainstream and other media prove he is notable-- Noppalsch ( talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Is this nomination in good faith? I find it hard to believe that it is not a joke. Man It's So Loud In Here ( talk) 15:09, 14 March 2009 (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.
Please note that eight of these editors who !voted for this AfD: EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns, TheClashFan, HelenWatt, Marvin Ceee, Iam are socks of the same person, see:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive
Ikip (
talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.