Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein


 * 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

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

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)


 * Delete agree 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)
 * Delete inadequately 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 , & 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)


 *  Keep Weak Keep  per 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)


 * 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.  --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, 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[]? 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)


 * 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 . 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: . 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)
 * Yes, and he seems to be getting increasingly notable, which might make the deletion premature.Manys (talk) 19:02, 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)


 * 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)


 * Delete selfpromoting puffery by a conservative nonentity. Rd232 talk 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While perhaps not an entirely unwarranted expression of opinion, let's please try to restrain ourselves to the highest standards of civil discourse in this matter. henrik  • talk  19:02, 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, 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." , 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." . 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 . 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. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (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. -- Banj e  b oi   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)
 * 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.  D r e a m Focus  13:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing and notability demonstrated. -- Banj e  b oi   17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I accidental double !voted. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   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.