Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser (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. Discussion about the potential to convert the article to focus upon the subject's book can be discussed further on the article's talk page, if desired. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Daniele Ganser
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser (2nd nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete As nominator. This article does not meet General Notability Requirements. It does not meet the specific requirements for Academics. It is substantially (entirely) the same article that has been already deleted. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I was inspired to re-create the article after it had been deleted because Ganser's book is widely cited throughout Wikipedia and because there are already articles about him on many foreign language Wikipedias. However, I only spent a portion of one day gathering information on him so there's probably more good information on him out there which can be used to expand the article in time. My view is that Ganser is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography because of his widely-reviewed academic book, his activism with groups like the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, and his bringing to attention of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Note from the article that Ganser's research has occasionally garnered the attention of not just other academics, but also the CIA and State Department. Even if we might say that Ganser possibly does not meet the specific notability criteria of an academic, there seems little doubt that we can at least pass the article on general notability criteria.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This was previoulsy discussed and rejected. Please review WP:PROF for the notability criteria under discussion.  The Association of Peak Oil and Gas is likewise non-notable, so his activism within it and the conspiracy theory community does not add to notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never read the previously deleted article, but according to the deletion review, it was only a "three sentence article". This is not a three-sentence article so presumably it is not "the same article that has been already deleted".CurtisNaito (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The article caught my attention because it was so obviously a vanity project. But after this has been fixed, I can see CurtisNaito's argument for retention. Still I would consider turning the article into one about the book instead, as there isn't really too much "biography" material. For better or worse, the man's notability is his notability as a conspiracy nut, and it is really debatable whether his contributions there wouldn't better be delegated to the pages on the relevant consipracy theories. --dab (𒁳) 07:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was after reading your comment questioning whether this article met notability requirements that led me to propose it here for deletion. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I have noticed an extensive amount of edits and other inputs to wikipedia articles that (like the suggestion here to remove the Daniel Ganser article) seem to be sourced from paid monitors from the Western, probably primarily U.S., intelligence agencies, and also from other corporate and 'nonprofit' sources that are heavily dependent upon the international Western aristocracy, or oligarchs within the Western industrialized countries, billionaires and their agents who possess inordinate influence especially at influential academic institutions (and who might, as a result, possess more influence over decisions at wikipedia than they warrant). Collectively, this is often called "The Establishment," and, to some people, that "elite" is automatically respected as to its objectivity or lack of bias; but, unfortunately, it and its predominant viewpoints are largely self-perpetuating and are also considered by Thomas Piketty and others to be a contributing cause toward the grossly and increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth.
 * I say this as a warning to wikipedia: you are being used.
 * The proposal to remove this article needs to be viewed with a very jaundiced eye; and serious consideration should be given toward establishing at wikipedia greatly improved systems for blocking, and for rooting out the existing, propagandistic abuses of wikipedia by that "Establishment_ -- a collective entity that represents the interests of aristocrats against the interests of the public.
 * If the growing trend toward fascism is to be reversed, then wikipedia must be actively on the side of reversing it, and must do everything within its means to thwart what I increasingly have come to recognize to be an organized and perfidious attempt to subvert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.126.21 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)  — 67.217.126.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I see a little coverage of his book, much less of the person. Online all I see him recognized for is conspiracy theory peddling. what are the two best, most reliable sources you have found that provide independent, significant coverage of Ganser himself? VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the book at least has received a fair amount of coverage. It already has five reviews in academic papers listed, and there are others but I didn't have access to every review that I knew existed. Note that apart from academic journals, the CIA and State Department were also interested in his research. The article may focus on his book rather than the man himself, but I think it's natural that scholars are more well known for their scholarship than their personal lives. Apart from book reviews though, the article does cite a brief biographical outline available in the book "Switzerland and the European Union", and news stories referring to him in Voltaire Network, Worldcrunch, and News & Politics Examiner. I think Ganser's biography here, as it is written so far, is comparable to that of other scholars like J. Arch Getty and Robert Gellately whose articles mostly deal with their scholarship and don't cite nearly as many secondary sources as this one.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Ganser is a coauthor of Switzerland and the European Union. My !vote is delete since no sources meeting WP:BASIC have been presented, and my good faith searches have likewise turned up none. No objection to using some of the content in this biography to create a article on the book (which effectively is all the article is, anyways). VQuakr (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems his pages in Finnish, Spanish or German are out of question. I was just wondering why we hear about him by simply citating authors one-sided primarily criticising him (Hansen, Davies, Riste, Nuti, Kaplan, Heuser) instead of providing content or more of his studies. This is a question of quality standards. The request for deletion seems ideologically motivated, so I understand the unknown contributor above here. Calling someone "Conspiracy Theorist" is a conscious pejorative knockout argument for any objective discussion while there is an inflation of arguments. Besides sometimes official conspiracy theories are the most weird at all: Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iraqi Uranium in Niger... just to name a few. Gansers expertise is demanded by several mainly german speaking media: http://www.basellandschaftlichezeitung.ch/basel/baselbiet/attentat-auf-charlie-hebdo-ist-meiner-meinung-nach-ungeklaert-128789007 http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/26797630 https://www.freitag.de/autoren/kunstschnee/wir-haetten-eine-friedliche-welt http://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/dossiers/9-11/historiker-daniele-ganser-fordert-911-neu-zu-untersuchen-112899879 http://derstandard.at/1315005504773/911-Bundesstaaten-koennten-Neuuntersuchung-einleiten http://www.deutschlandradiokultur.de/man-toetet-um-erdoel-zu-kontrollieren.1008.de.html?dram:article_id=207351 Spearmind (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If those sources are reputable could you add them to the article? I don't speak German so I myself can't do anything with them. I think it's okay to call him a conspiracy theorist because some reliable secondary sources describe him as such, however, I do agree that it would be worthwhile to look for more sources on his life and work in search of some positive commentary to balance out the negative.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or delete Was able to find some good info but its borderline Cec2020 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (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.