Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Jennings


 * 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. Consensus is that he does not meet the notability guideline.. Davewild (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Barry Jennings

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I've just declined the speedy on this, as there's clearly enough for A7. However, it feels very BLP1E, is he notable enough for his own article, or should it be redirected to something 9/11 related, or just deleted? Ged UK  14:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to infringe a little on MEMORIAL and with the sources given there seems little to indicate he would meet the standard Notability guidelines. Someone can be part of an event of the highest notability (as the 9/11 attack must be classed) but that does not make everyone who was involved and made a statement suitable for their own encyclopaedic article. Sources would have to be found demonstrating that Jennings was notable beyond this one event, and that does not seem likely. Fæ (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is only a little over one day old. It is still under development, and it may be premature to be passing judgment on it at this time.  Arguments exist against applying BLP1E to individuals who are not living.(ref)  BLP1E states, "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."  Jennings was discussed by the BBC as recently as July 2008.(ref); in recent independent documentation such as Loose Change, and discussion remains very much alive among the public at large.  There are BLP articles on Wikipedia for other individuals who have less notability outside of 9/11 than Barry Jennings, and less sourcing for their text; are these articles going to be deleted as well?  Examples:  Amber Amundson, Welles Crowther, Pavel Hlava, Dave Karnes, Steven O'Brien, Jason Thomas, and Delmart Vreeland. Wildbear (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete...notability extremely marginal...now deceased subject has had his name smeared by conspiracy theory proponents by their allegation that his wording "explosion" meant some kind of controlled demolition when he never alluded to anything of the sort. NOT a BLP violation as he is deceased but the impact is the same.--MONGO 20:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the controlled demolition issue is frequently brought up at the same time as Jennings' "explosion" account. However, probably few, if any, would argue that the "explosion" to which he referred was a CD in itself. (Jennings likely wouldn't have lived to tell about it if that were the case).  Jennings evidently meant exactly what he stated: an explosion, or what he perceived to be an explosion, occurred while he was in the building.  Controversy arises because this is in contradiction to NIST's assertion that "blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event."(ref).  This puts the account of a government agency (which was not in the building) in conflict with a witness who was there.  Until unanswered questions are answered and the matter is satisfactorily resolved, articles and videos about Jennings will likely continue to appear in the media, keeping the issue notable.  And notability is the criteria for Wikipedia, regardless of its accuracy; at least in a non-living-person issue. Wildbear (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, onevent applies here, at least thus far. Is there is some other reason why the subject can be considered to meet notability guidelines? (forgot to sign) --Nuujinn (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about oneevent yet. There is more to Jennings' story than just the events in WTC 7.  His death (the cause of which was not released to the public) and subsequent attempts by individuals to investigate his death or to have it investigated, and to push for media investigation and coverage, is a story in itself.  Most famous in this issue is Dylan Avery, who claims to have hired a private investigator, who subsequently backed out, stating that it was a job for the police.  I'm digging for reliably sourced information on the death investigation topic at this time.  Only finding bits and pieces so far... not quite adequate for encyclopedic referencing.  The latest mainstream coverage I'm seeing on Jennings is MSNBC from March 9, 2010; more of the WTC 7 issue.(ref) Wildbear (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dylan Avery "claims" a lot...states his passing as already reffed at the article but doesn't say what from...maybe his family didn't want to discuss it...who knows. 9/11 truthers have nothing but gile...in his BBC interview on their show Conspiracy Files: 9/11 The Third Tower which can be viewed here in this now several year old program (released before NIST published their final WTC 7 report) Jennings appears briefly at 00:48, again at 09:49 and off and on for several minutes after that then again he clearly states (at 47:06) he did not appreciate The Loose Change take on his comments, and that he does not believe that the government had anything to do with 9/11.--MONGO 05:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an instance where I agree (to some extent) with most of what you have written, MONGO. Issues like these are the sorts of things that I want to see written into the Barry Jennings article, to help establish, to the best of our ability based upon reliable sources, what the known facts are concerning Barry Jennings.  It is my desire to see the controversy about Jennings reduced, rather than augmented.  The article is already receiving a lot of traffic, so I think it is potentially useful and worthwhile in that regard.  It just needs more time and more work.  Wildbear (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I read that the cause of his death was known, despite the allegations of rhe so-called "9/11 truth movement." I just wish I could remember what it was(I keep thinking it was diabetes-related). DanTD (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In my extensive reading on the topic, I don't recall ever seeing a documented statement as to the cause of Jennings' death. If you can find one, I would love to see it.  It would be especially good if it comes from a "reliable source".  If the family doesn't want it to be known, then that would be good to know.  I think that most people would be content to respect the wishes of the family of someone deceased.  However, I haven't seen anything from Jennings' family in this regard.  Silence leaves it an unresolved (and arguably controversial) issue. Wildbear (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He stated in his interview with the BBC that he DID NOT think there was a government involvement with 9/11 (building implosions)...so if he did come to an end from some kind of maliciousness, its not very plausible that the feds (or the supposedly clandestine ops that supposedly imploded the buildings) had anything to do with it if he was a "believer" of the mainstream (and factual) truth. It never ceases to amaze me how CTers draw at straws and make a controversy where their aren't any. Maybe the CTers were upset that he rejected their rendition of his words and actions....they've been well known to harass people at their homes, at ground zero and elsewhere...they have even been harassing Jennings family for the "truth". Let the man rest in peace and do him a favor and lets delete this abomination of an article.--MONGO 23:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, no one would be curious about the manner of his death were it not for his involvement in 9/11. That's what he's known for, and fringe claims of something amiss simply because cause of death has not been reported do not add to his nobability as WP understands it. Looks like one event to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here we diverge again, MONGO. You appear to be making speculations and drawing conclusions based on your own point of view.  If you can provide reliable sourcing for these assertions, great.  It should go into the article.  Also, you seem quite passionate in your position.  The more heated the debate over a topic, the more it illustrates the need for cool, dispassionate documentation to answer questions for those who are seeking answers.  Wildbear (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever, he is not notable anyway, and his one event is only a big deal to conspiracy theorists that misused his own comments, for which he showed his dismay in his BBC interview.--MONGO 11:27, 1 November 2010 (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.