Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Yeagley


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

David A. Yeagley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Several reasons. First of all, this is an autobiography, created and frequently edited by (presumably) Yeagley himself under the usernames BadEagle and David Yeagley, as well as by the single-purpose accounts Buttonpusher and Trailboss49. Second of all, the article relies almost entirely on primary sources, which are not sufficient to establish notability. Third, the article may not be accurate; numerous users on the talk page have questioned whether this article accurately portrays Yeagley's background and views or not, and Yeagley's own credibility as a source has been called into question numerous times. The article tries to portray Yeagley as a typical American conservative, although there is evidence indicating that his views are far more extreme than this:. Even going to BadEagle.com and looking around a little will make it clear that this guy is not just a "conservative political commentator". Fourth, I'm not sure Yeagley passes the standard for notability; being a columnist for a FRINGE blog like FrontPageMag is not enough to establish notability in and of itself, and most of his music, art, etc., doesn't appear to be particularly notable either. Fifth, the claims about Yeagley being descended from Bad Eagle, etc., are practically unverifiable (the only source for them is Yeagley's own articles, which are not reliable sources). Because of these reasons, I think this article is better off not existing at all. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough to warrant inclusion. Clean up might be needed though. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For a recent example of Yeagley's style of writing, check out this racist screed he wrote in response to the resignation of Shirley Sherrod. To describe such comments as "conservative" is insulting to conservatives, in my opinion. . Stonemason89 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not post the truth about him? His racism and white supremacy, his ties to the far right, his hatemongering. If you list him, list him alongside David Duke and Tom Metzger where he belongs. Also note you don't have entries on actual Native American composers much better known than him. This is basically a puff promotional piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.138.30 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand how you feel; I would like to "post the truth about him", too. But BLP standards apply on Wikipedia, and the only way we could "post the truth about him" would be if there were reliable sources indicating his racism, hatemongering, etc. Is he a racist and a hatemonger? He most certainly is, but so far the only sources available for this statement are blogs, which generally are not allowed as sources. You might want to read: Verifiability, not truth. I find it telling that neither the Southern Poverty Law Center nor the Anti-Defamation League have covered him in any detail. If he were a "notable" racist, at least one of those organizations would have covered him by now, since they have files on all the notable racists, anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists, etc. The fact that neither the SPLC or the ADL (let alone the news media) have covered him in detail indicates to me that he, unlike Duke or Metzger, isn't notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Yeagley doesn't pass ANY standard for notability. The only attention he gets as a composer is derived from his claim at "Indianness", and as a pundit he is virtually nonexistent. Even the fringe publication FrontPage has kicked him out long ago. The article is pure self-promotion. If Yeagley is included, any blogger in the Internet ought to be included. Yeagley's views in his own words.

-- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading those quotes from Yeagley, I thought wow. Just wow; and not in a good way, either. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article obviously needs a good makeover to ensure neutrality, as most of the editing appears to be from people with strong opinions about Yeagley rather than from people taking an objective view of what has been published in independent reliable sources, but there has clearly been significant coverage in such sources, meaning that he is notable: . The nominator and others have brought up lots of other issues apart from notability, but they are reasons to edit the article rather than to delete it, and, most certainly, distaste for Yeagley's opinions is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we might as well delete Adolf Hitler (please don't quote Godwin's law at me) and Osama bin Laden. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The main source for posting "the truth" about him would be HIS OWN WORDS. That's a pretty darned reliable indicator of what he believes and promotes. Also, Media Matters is one of those sources. And as far as the blogs, one of them is written by a history professor, and he supplies lots of documentation, again including YEAGLEY'S OWN WORDS more than anything else. So it's accurate. Professors get fired if they misrepresent things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.219.67 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What more "independent reliable sources" are there than his own words? This man is not notable, but notorious. However, that distaste for Yeagley's opinions is not a reason for deletion and that one otherwise we might as well delete Adolf Hitler is a good point. But I wonder whether it would make sense having Hitler listed under "Austrian painters" and "Austrian painters" only. So IF the Yeagley article remains it ought to be listed under American white nationalists | Ethnocentrism | Politics and race and Racism in the United States at the very least. His views are in fact not a bit better (arguably worse) than David Duke's.

-- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as "his own words" go, please read WP: PRIMARY. In fact, the reason I nominated this article for deletion in the first place was because it relied almost entirely on primary sources, which are not suf--David Yeagley (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)ficient to determine notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Notabene that my latest point wasn't about notability anymore. The Adolf Hitler argument had me convinced that notability is not the issue here. It was about the category listing of this article. I repeat: This article ought to be listed under categories like "American white nationalists", "Ethnocentrism", "Politics and race" or "Racism in the United States" as well as under the categories under which it is listed now, and I think you'll agree that for THAT primary sources are needed.

-- Skowronek The Lark (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. As per Stonemason's arguments. Verifiability can't be achieved. The sources Phil Bridger gives speak to subject's existence, but don't corroborate the essential facts needed for a BLP. --Whoosit (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how to work the Wikipedia pages. I apologize if I am doing something out of place by making a statement here on a pre-existing page. I do not know how to start a separate comment on this "Discussion" page. I don't know the difference between a "talk" page and a "discussion" page, etc., etc. I want to say that this recent wave of protest and objection to all things concerning "David A. Yeagley" is the work of a small cadre of internet activists who have opposed me for a a few years now. It is the same people who have shown adroit political manoeuvers, perhaps, but also excessive ignorance of fact. There is nothing new in any of their objections. I must say, I am in litigation presently, in Oklahoma District Court, for the libel that this anti-Yeagley cadre has created. What they want to do is to express their personal political interpretations and opinions--as fact. The "David A. Yeagley" page is a brief, abstract, objective BIOGRAPHICAL page, and meets every Wikipedia requirement with exactitude. There is not a false statement or error of fact on that page. What my opponents wish to do is simply to make their personal, opposing opinions into facts, and have them stated along with the real facts. There is no debate about any of the facts on the "David A. Yeagley" page. If they want a different page, under a different topic or category, that is another issue. I certainly cannot dictate anything to Wikipedia. I only take the time here to state that I am in litigation over the matter of libel. Already, in these recent opposition statements, some of that same libel is re-stated, here, on Wikipedia. I can only say, BEWARE, to the Wikipedia Staff. I know Wikipedia is a huge enterprise, and it is a brilliant concept, at the base; but, there is an inevitable invitation to libel and rancor. Of this, we must all BEWARE. I am not naming names here, but I know who the detractors are. Best wishes to Wikipedia.--David Yeagley (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Potential legal threat referred to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here as per WP:LEGAL --Whoosit (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely legal threat, and now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Quite a tough one, but I've taken a close look and found a few problems: The lead section provides no context which explains why he is notable; None of his music has reached any charts, and the biography does not meet WP:ANYBIO, unless I'm mistaken that the statement: "For this paper, Yeagley received letters of praise, including one from the President and CEO of the Mihan Foundation." indicates that this person is worldwidely recognisable. Minima  c  ( talk ) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please comment on the notability of the subject. Your opinion of Yeagley as a person is not useful here, and WP:BLP applies to AfD as much as it does to articles. Attacks on Yeagley are not appropriate.
 * Sources: Here is some independent coverage of him, which may show notability:  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible keep of those sources, perhaps the key one is the first, a discussion of him in a book (not just an interview where he's quoted); the final one, a NYT article, is characteristic of the others--it quotes a number of people, or whom he is one. We have normally not held that sort of interview does not contribute much to notability. But there's another possibility--he may be notable as a composer. If there are actual reviews of his compositions, I think they might count, as they've been performed at a few major venues. Naturally, there's a reasonable reaction against considering people notable whose autobio articles talk about their importance in half a dozen miscellaneous things.   As for the politics, the way to handle it is to use some quotes by him, about which people will form their own judgment.    DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, because notability not established per WP:GNG or per any of the more specific criteria in WP:BIO. The blatant COI editing and the legal threat above don't help Yeagley's personal credibility, but are not really relevant to the decision on whether to keep a cleaned-up article on him or to delete it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fairly weak case for notability, plus significant COI and BLP concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep though I won't cry in my beer if this goes toward deletion. There are enough references (thanks Fences) to scrape by. But note: Fences' first link, the one David refers to above, is published by Peter Lang--a rose may always be a rose, but a book is not always a book. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page is obviously self-promoting. Here Yeagley states that the user Badagnani wrote the article by proxy : "My opponents are clearly taking advantage of the ignorance of Wikipedia editors who know nothing of Indian things. That’s all. The “David A. Yeagley” page was created by a professional musician, Dr. David Badagnani, who met with scholarly accuracy every requirement of the Wikipedia biographical page templet. I did supply him with various documents and evidence. The rest he researched for himself. I did not create the “David A. Yeagley” page. I wouldn’t know how." Wheras here he admits that he wrote it himself: "Some time yesterday evening, Wikipedia administrators changed the entry under "David A. Yeagley." It now somewhat resembles what I originallyl posted at the beginning of this month." In any case, it is self-promotional. Btw Badagnani has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. [] --Tiritomba (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2010 (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.