Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser


 * 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. See comment below. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniele Ganser
Three sentence article about a non-notable academic. She wrote two monographs/books, one is in 84 libraries, the other in 35. Google scholar lists almost no publications citing her. The reason she has a stub? User:Striver has created stubs for a very large number of non-notable people associated with the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement. Many of these stubs have been deleted or are in AfD. GabrielF 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Minor Comment: Daniele Ganser is a man!Self-Described Seabhcán 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Delete. Article practically nominates itself. According to the article, Daniele Ganser's claim to fame is writing a PhD thesis that got turned into a book last year and is currently ranked 554,113th on amazon. Per google scholar, this book has been cited once in a publication called Online Journal. Here's where the cite occurs. My Alt Account 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better documentation can be given of this person's relevance.UberCryxic 04:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just more Striver-cruft 9/11 CT nonsense.--MONGO 09:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is his biography and works: --Striver 11:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He has writen at least eight books. And the two mentioned above easly fullfill Notability (books). So we have a scholar with several books passing notability for books. That should making him notable himself.--Striver 11:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Read it again Striver, five of the eight are not separate books but translations of the books he wrote. GabrielF 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, thanks for pointing it out, ill fix it. How about the articles and interview he has made?--Striver 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like cia.gov thinks he is notable. --Striver 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom— ( Kepin ) RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Noam Chomsky has thinks he is notable --Striver 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I care what he thinks?--— ( Kepin ) RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously not... --Striver 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If Noam Chomsky comes here and convinces us that this guy deserves an encyclopedia article, more power to him. Meanwhile, you haven't convinced me to change my vote. My Alt Account 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. not notable. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN academic. --Mmx1 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Chapline R Vine ( talk ¦  ✉  )  17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above--Peephole 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and close this one earily per WP:SNOW Æon  Insanity Now! EA!  02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per MONGO and Snowball it --Tbeatty 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are only so many articles on Afd becuae GabrielF nominated them, then created a page specifically for the tracking of the deletion of articles which he doesn't like at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GabrielF/911TMCruft.
 * Comment That's hardly a valid argument though. I, for one, am grateful for editors who take the time to dig out the cruft and bring it to AfD. If something is worth keeping or if some nominations are made in bad faith then I trust that other editors will recognize it and fight for it in the AfD debates. Pascal.Tesson 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Coment If that's not a valid argument, then the original nominators argument that there are a lot of them in AfD isn't a valid reason for deletion either.--Pussy Galore 11:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't why the nominator said it should be deleted. He said she was NN, gave some reasons, and then pointed out that striver creates huge numbers of stubs of NN people, books, and movies. BTW, it still stands that you haven't explained exactly what notability criteria this academic passes. My Alt Account 11:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Ganser has written books and been interviewed in numberous major newspapers, recently Le Monde Diplomatique . There are many far less notable people with wikipedia articles. Self-Described Seabhcán 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Crockspot 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per My Alt Account -- G e n e b 1 9 5 5 Talk/ CVU 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Ganser has done important work in progressing a very important and underexamined area of 20th century history. His work is being cited increasingly on this controversial topic, including on the U. S. State Department website where he is accused of misinformation. If this entry is deleted it will be back as the importance of this writer, and the topics he has covered, becomes more evident. Wouldn't it be better to have something to build on, as in this entry. Or, perhaps, we need to make more room for C list porn stars on Wikipedia, in which case this should be deleted. "She" (Ganser) is a he, by the way. SoftBulletin 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: SoftBulletin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Closing comment: As I said yesterday in another AfD (don't remember which), an article which needs so many sources just to prove notability and fails in view of most AfD voters is surely not notable enough. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2006 (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.