Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry M. King


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Barry M. King

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

Appears to be an obscure UFO conspiracy theorist. Some mention of him on discussion boards and fringe websites, but nothing much elsewhere in decent WP:RS which would demonstrate notability, even as a noted crackpot. No reason why Wikipedia should be giving him free publicity. See also Articles for deletion/James Casbolt --Nickhh (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep better to hve the information than not--the widespread interviews show some notability, though based on less than customarily reliable sources. DGG (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: not sure I see any "widespread interviews". Where did you see those? The trusted Google search brings up 36 results. Most of those are not about this Barry King. Those that are include mirrors or extracts of his WP entry, his own Amazon profile, a couple of self-made online videos and a couple of mentions on message boards. Come on, that's not notability by WP standards, however interesting his somewhat left-field views might be to some people. --Nickhh (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - can't seem to find sources that are both independent and reliable.--Boffob (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He is an extremely notable Ufologist of the 1970's and 1980's. Referred to as Barry King, Barry M. King and BMK. He was a leading investigator for 'Flying Saucer Review', a leading UGO group in Britain. He has featured in the majority of their publications and features as a source of investigations in over 40 rather notable ufologist books. A couple a linked in the article. And, based on his credentials as a ufologist noe works for Dr. Steven M. Greer and his Disclosure Project. Notable enough for that and also for Jenny Randles, Andy Collins, Timothy Good, Nick Redfern and even UFO Reality editor Jon King to write about. Also Carl Nagaitis and Philip Mantle and Dr. Helmut Lammer. Those youtube videos oare snippets from the infamous 90's 'British Bases 2' videos of whch there were two and sold by leading UFO magazines here in Britain. He also worked with Larry Warren and Bill Uhouse on these videos and other projects. He is referenced heavily in UFO Casebook throught he 70/80's. Speak to Mr. King himself on Wikipedia,  or ValucaAWT (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, none of these are serious for WP:RS purposes or significant enough. For genuine notability, we would need broader coverage in the mainstream - for example features in The Daily Telegraph and elsewhere about UFO conspiracy theorists which identified him as a key figure in the movement (not simply a mention buried in that article) - or evidence that he was a successful published author or whatever. That's why David Icke correctly has a page here, but 1000s of others do not. --Nickhh (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A BLP that contains no reliable sources, an utter disgrace. RMHED (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Every source that mentions hims does so tangentially. He doesn't appear to have any real notability of his own. Everything I have been able to find out about him so far as been by the mode of message boards and blogs. Trusilver  23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete disgraceful article which violations BLP policy. JBsupreme (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2008 (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.