Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin (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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a procedural deletion request based on. Excerpts from the request are as follows:

There is more content, mostly of the "fix this" nature and concerns about BLP violations on the talk page, but these are not entirely relevant to this AFD and will be have been posted on the talk page only if this deletion nomination fails. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Get for real. Just hit the GNews link above to see that this guy is beyond notable.  If there are BLP considerations they can be solved by editing, but TBH, I don't see any in the article, which is extraordinarily well-sourced. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG by a long long mile. Although a quick scan of the article does seem like it may have an over-reliance of primary docs (including court records) that should probably be aggressively pruned, this article is no where near WP:NUKEIT. FWIW, I think he is materially misrepresenting the outcome of some of those court cases above.  ResultingConstant (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * keep Meets basic WP:BIO criterion. Most of the subjects reasons for deletion either are both false and irrelevant (e.g. the claim that the marijuana is legal now). Individual is also not BLP1E since there are a whole bunch of things they've done that have gotten attention. There's a substantial argument that the article has weight issues, and much more emphasis should be placed on Kimberlin's current work. I will note that the previous AFD was closed as keep by SNOW Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Kimberlin. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:GNG. and basic WP:BIO.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable with in-depth coverage spanning 40 years. Deletion is not cleanup and nor does it seem that the article is in such a sorry state - it seems fairly decent and well sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, but it was this or continue a non-productive discussion at OTRS. I have posted the full range of concerns on the talk page, and hopefully this will spur some folk to make some inroads on the more egregious of the concerns. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So you admit that you started this AfD to get a discussion going at the talk page. AfD is not a clean-up service.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I admit that I started this AFD because the subject of the article was unable to do it themselves. I posted the full request at the talk page because it is clear that the nomination will result in a "keep" result, and I don't want to forget to post the full thing when it closes. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It clearly says: This is a procedural deletion request based on OTRS ticket... Therefore this is procedural, and Primefac really can't be accused of using AfD as a cleanup service. This had to happen, however obvious the outcome. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No fault to procedural nom. And it is ok for the BLP (or someone saying they are) to request this - it won't be the first AfD to SNOW - and it will be the issue and request to bed, for a time.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

and his reputation inherently reflects that fact. I think you should also avoid the parroting his terms of insult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Just piling on now. The subject seems to be a serial litigator but that problem is something for the WMF to worry about. The article is well sourced and there are numerous additional sources to support it if needed, dead links are routinely archived by archive.org and we can use their copies as sources if needed (unless they are removed by court order of course). I suggest Kimberlin gets back to suing the Breitbots if they are damaging his reputation, because other than improving the article to have a better balance, there isn't much that we can do here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to damage the reputation of a conspiracy nut like this guy. Ditto for the reputation of a murderer. He is a criminal,
 * Keep Just his tone of attack on other people makes me want to keep this article. It is well sourced and shows his long standing role as a disruptive litigator. Assuming the claims of forcing bloggers to remove content on him are ture, it shows that current civil procedures are not as protective of the First Admendment as they should be, and also the success of lawfare, the waging of war through civil litigation, where the process become the punishment, and the fact that most people would rather save money than stand for principals leads to victory. I am leery of over-coverage of conspiracy nuts like Kimberlin, but his involvent in highly publicized murders alone is grounds for coverage. The rest of his activities amount to noise, and Tottenburg does not suprise me as the one who broke his bizarre story, considering the hateful things she spewed on the airwaves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep We shouldn't even being discussing this. The idea that someone can campaign to have their own article deleted because it contains defamatory, i.e. accurate, information about them is absurd. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Following comment moved from talk page with minor c/e. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. See definition "chutzpah". Kimberlin is a convicted bomber, a convicted drug smuggler, and a convicted perjurer - all acceptably sourced.  He is also a vexious litigant who has filed pro se scores of federal and state lawsuits to suppress reporting of his history and activities - see multiple entries patterico.com by assistant district attorney P. Frey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ln1965 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems self-evidently notable. Subject's concern seems principally to be that people won't give him money if they read the article and learn he is a sociopathic criminal.  Oh dear.Kremlintroll (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A reminder that the subject is a living person and subject to WP:BLP. Your own negative opinions on the subject are not terribly relevant to whether we should keep the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Best solution to the awkward fact that when everyone can edit, awkward situations will arise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that personal opinions of Kimberlin aren't particularly relevant to this discussion. For example, describing Bret's psychological condition-which is unattainable to people who aren't currently treating him in a professional capacity, is immaterial. Other facts, e.g. that he is a convicted criminal, are part of the public record, and I don't see a problem with pointing them out during this discussion. A bigger problem, from my perspective, is the ability of someone to absorb the time of Wikipedians with a pointless debate over whether we should remove accurate-but highly unflattering-information about the complainant. Much less, delete an entire article about that person because he feels it might encroach upon his ability to raise money for himself. This seems like a flagrant abuse of this process. If we didn't acquiesce to Jimmy Wales when he wanted to delete information that he felt was unflattering to his public persona-information that was much less critical to the article in question-I don't see why we should accommodate someone who has contributed nothing of value to this website, other than to consume the time of volunteers in a pointless debate whose outcome is foreordained. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2018 (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.