Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cole (revisionist)


 * 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. JForget 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

David Cole (revisionist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination, attempting to complete nomination based on this edit, though the editor stated later he was having trouble with Twinkle. I believe his rationale, based on this edit, to be: conflict of interest, notability, primary sources, and poor quality of references in a BLP.


 * Abstain as procedural nominator. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I have to admit that his name sounds vaguely familiar, but this is a common name, and Google News showed a number of David Coles but not this one. The article as now written relies entirely on non-reliable sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment while he doesnt appear to have had much coverage, it seems he may be the only jewish holocaust denier on record (noting that he recanted of course). here is a ref from one of our own articles,, Criticism of Holocaust denial. Im not sure at this point if his mention in this other article is all he needs, but at least he is mentioned somewhere, which i think is probably necessary, considering his unique situation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Thank you Blaxthos for completing the AFD for me. The rationale stated above is mostly correct. Being a holocaust denier alone is not notable. The sources do not substantiate the subjects claims about his documentary. His only other claim to notability is an appearance on Donahue 15 years ago. The first ref on the article page appears to be a part of the subjects homepage. The other refs for the article along with google hits show that this subject has a history of self promotion and uses his views to create drama and spread his name around. Beach drifter (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:RS meeting WP:GNG -- holocaust denial websites are quintessentially unreliable sources. Andrea105 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Not voting because I am the author of the article. I have replaced the reference to vho.org with a reference to archive.org, which I don't believe is considered a revisionist website. I also gave a citation, as requested, for Mr Piper's job title at the Auschwitz Museum, which it turns out was actually "Head of the Historical Research Department". As to the supposed conflict of interest: I do not know Mr Cole personally, nor am I affiliated with any revisionist or Holocaust-affirming organizations. I propose the COI point be removed unless it can be substantiated. Ramos221 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit to being somewhat confused on the COI, which I tagged the article for. I did so because when googling David Cole, the fifth link is Page of Jewish Holocaust Revisionist David Cole". This link is very clearly on the same website as the first ref for the article. Clearly the title indicates that David Cole is indeed the author of a source for this article. However it is not clear at all that he actually is the maintainer of this website. In any case I hope the link above counts for "substantiation". Beach drifter (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While the Internet Archive hosts a number of open-source videos, it does not thereby endorse their content. A Holocaust denial video is clearly NOT a reliable source, and cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. Conflict of interest issues are somewhat moot, as the article is quite likely to be deleted on other grounds. Andrea105 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to disagree re. the video not being a reliable source on how David Cole came to doubt the Holocaust, because he himself says it in the video! As for notability, Cole's video caused quite a stir: One of the top Holocaust experts, Yehuda Bauer called it a "powerful and dangerous video"; it prompted the Head of Historial Research at Auschwitz to write a letter which was published in a U.S. newspaper; and it earned David Cole threats from the JDL and others. Plus, David Cole and his work gets mentioned frequently in the Holocaust controversy. As for primary sources, how much more primary does it get than a documentary made by the person himself? Another criticism was "poor quality references". May I ask which ones that would be, the official Auschwitz page? Or the JDL page? Or the codoh.com article on David Cole? The Auschwitz documentary by Cole? Clarification would be appreciated. Ramos221 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. For the reasons that the nominator outlined. Please note that the correct term on Wikipedia is Holocaust denier/denial, not revisionism/revisionist. WilliamH (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the term "revisionism" is a euphemism invented by Holocaust deniers. That choose to make multiple uses of this language in writing the article is a cause for grave concern. Andrea105 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the NPOV term revisionist to the semi-religious term denier, but I changed "revisionist" to "denier" in the article. The only occurrence of "revisionist" that is still left is in the page title. Is it possible to change the title, and how do I do it? Thanks! Ramos221 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Revisionism has been around a lot longer than Holocaust deniers, and they are 2 different things. Historical revisionism, but this isn't the place for THAT discussion. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:55, 30 November 2009 (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.