Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Sibrel (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. We're coming just shy of a month now and I don't think that relisting a third time is actually going to help. There's debate over how much notability is given by coverage and while there may be a difference of opinions AfD is based on consensus of which there is none. You're certainly more than welcome to ask me to revert and have a sysop close this if you wish - I have no problem reverting myself but I believe the decision would remain the same. No qualms with speedy renomination. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Dus</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel
AfDs for this article: </ul>
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, 1BLP - vanity article written by some cab driver who made 4 utterly non-notable "documentaries" and was documented in an altercation with Buzz Aldrin. Half of the citations come from primary source material published to promote his productions a decade back. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete - he is notable for only one event and all his films are self published. Alligators1974 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;Found these WP:RS without too much effort.
 * 3 paragraphs.
 * 5+ paragraphs.
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned as a member of a notable movement in an article on the movement itself is insufficient grounds for establishing notability. The available sources, while they do mention the article's subject by name, do not constitute significant coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned as a member of a notable movement in an article on the movement itself is insufficient grounds for establishing notability. The available sources, while they do mention the article's subject by name, do not constitute significant coverage. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹   15:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep per my !vote in the last AfD. If reliable sources such as NYT and The Washington Times are giving the person significant coverage 7 years after the one event, then either the person is notable for other reasons, or WP:BLP1E criterion 3 does not apply: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A paragraph is not significant coverage, moreover the articles all concern the fringe movement, of which he is a part, but not the "lead" story. His exploits are always brought up as an example punctuated by the aforementioned 1BLP Buzz Aldrin incident. The incident itself could be a blurb in Aldrin's biography due to his notability, but it's hardly true that everyone ever decked in public by a celebrity deserves an article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times article is focused solely on him and is a fairly substantial piece. The Buzz Aldrin incident is mentioned in two sentences in the middle of a 1100-word article on him. Lesser Cartographies' second source is a large article almost entirely about him which mentions the Aldrin incident only briefly, these seem to contradict the idea that this one event is his sole claim to notability. I also disagree that a paragraph or three in the NYT does not count towards significant coverage. In my opinion, small but not merely passing coverage in a highly significant newspaper is worth more as far as WP:GNG is concerned than a full-page article in a tabloid. There is nothing that I know of in the notability guidelines that says that a subject needs to be the "lead" story for an article to be considered significant coverage of them. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Punching Aldrin makes him notable for one event only - based on that we might as well create a page for the guy who had a fight with John Prescott.Alligators1974 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) delete he's a deluded, self-importance non-entity. Alligators1974 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

delete He is a non-entity and infamous for one event only. (Is there a page of other conspiracy nutters he could be merged with?)Alligators1974 (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹   12:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories, where he is already covered. LaMona (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2014 (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.