Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Emory


 * 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 without consensus, but stubify to remove violations of copyright law, the rules on biographies of living persons, and the rule against a skewed point of view. The subject appears to be quite notable based on the verifiablity of some sources and the large number of Ghits. The Washington Times is not a reliable source, but there are others, including the New York Times and Washington Post, with more than trivial mentions of this person. There were about equal numbers of keeps, deletes, and comments. The default is to keep and stubify in such cases. This article should be watched carefully by admins. Bearian 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

David Emory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

 A radio talkshow host from California - and the article is nothing but an unsourced essay about his tinfoilhattery. Escaped Nazis are running the global economy, and along with the CIA conspired to kill Jews at the Munich Massacre, and now are in league with Al Quaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Republican party.....please. -Docg 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that he appears to be a fully paid-up whacko isn't a problem - we have plenty of pages on his fellow travellers; the fact that there does not seem to be a single mention of him anywhere is. —  iride  scent  17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Google news turns up nothing, and neither does a straight-up  google search, which turns up this guy only in the form of resume's and programming announcements and a few blogs.  No coverage by reliable sources.  If he is notable in his field, than at least SOMEONE (such as maybe a local newspaper, or the like) would have interviewed him or reviewed his program.  I have found no evidence of such, and thus he is wholly non-notable.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment google reports 34,100 hits on "dave emory" Peterhoneyman 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete A headcase. scope_creep 18:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep--This page epitomizes the flaws of Wikipedia. The first six "delete" posts occurred within a roughly six-hour period on Halloween. The other three on November 2. This appears to be an example of collaboration among members of a network of some kind, not a spontaneous occurrence. Furthermore, the posts are without merit. There is plenty of discussion of Emory--use any of the available search engines, including Google. The posters are suspect as a result. And as far as secondary sources, there have been over the years. We have listened to Dave for years, and we've seen articles about him in various publications, including the San Jose Metro and San Jose Mercury News. There is an audio file on his website recorded in response to an attack on him in a book about conspiracy theorists by Jonathan Vankin, who devoted much of a chapter to Emory. It seems that these are people who don't like Dave and don't believe in free speech. Jayron has pictures of the Austrian crown jewels on his website. Emory has written critically of the House of Hapsburg. Hmmmmm. Addendum to previous comment: There are a number of stations other than WFMU and WCBN that carry Emory's work. He's been featured for more than 20 years on KPFK, the Pacifica station in Los Angeles, as well as KFYI in Kansas City, two stations in the San Francisco Bay Area, KBOO in Portland Oregon and a station in Vancouver, B.C. After almost 30 years on the air, he's attracted quite a large following and a large number of enemies as well. A Lexis/Nexus search for Emory turns up a number of references. And as far as references being critical, well, that comes with the territory and is not a criterion for deletion by Wikipedia. ONE SHOULD NOT FAIL TO NOTE THE NUMBER OF DELETIONS OF FAVORABLE POSTS TO THIS PAGE. Sounds like somebody's playing dirty pool. Wonder who?! Be Seeing You, Farstriker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farstriker (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)  — Farstriker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Open the revision history of this AFD. See the page size? Goes up with each post. No-one is "deleting favourable posts to this page". —  iride  scent  00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentYou're right, all those interested in Austria fondly remember the House of Habsburg and are always willing to take up the cudgels in their defence on WP, especially against those willing to speak truth to the awesome power of that Imperial House. That was sarcasm. Relata refero 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Subdolous. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jayron32. Doctorfluffy 08:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep - Emory is mentioned elsewhere but he or his minions have repeatedly cleansed the article of links and information critical of him and which speaks to his wider influence. I have just today restored two external links that set him in a larger context. One is by Chip Berlet although Emory gets only one mention in that piece. I know from personal experience that Emory has a significant following and his content is distributed via at least two independent, i.e. not owned or controlled by Emory, radio stations: WFMU and WCBN-FM. --DieWeisseRose 08:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - We lack the reliable published sources needed to write a biography of a living person. WAS 4.250 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is largely a free speech issue. Emory has been documenting fascist connections for over 25 years. Emory sources all his material in a truly meticulous manner. He has made many enemies over the years with what he says. An old Turkish proverb that he often quotes says ”He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages”. Wikipedia should not be one of the villages that Emory is chased out from. Also, Emory is the subject of a documentary film currently under production T.Ferrett 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) — T.Ferrett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Do Not Delete Wow, it must have been a slow Halloween, with suddenly 6 posters demanding that Emory be deleted 17:16 and 23:10 (just before the witching hour, on October 31). This seems like a concerted effort to stifle speech, or maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist. It is nothing short of character assassination for iride  scent  to compare Emory to the likes of David Icke or Michael Riconosciuto. It is rather insincere of Jayron32 to cite a Google search of “David Emory”, when in fact, he goes by “Dave Emory” professionally.. Emory is cited in the book “The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time” by Jonathan & Whalen, John Vankin.Vanfield 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) — Vanfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, largely per Iridescent. There are no mainstream sources which cover David Emory, and the article can only find two sources which are truly independent of him (both of which are critical). Sam Blacketer 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. As has been already mentioned, numerous articles from mainstream publications reference him in LexisNexis (I found five separate articles in a matter of minutes) and hundreds of his shows have been broadcast over the public airwaves for decades.  Also, even if wikipedia had a policy of deleting posts about public figures that lack credible sources in their work, that critique simply does not apply to Mr. Emory. His shows are filled with readings directly from major mainstream news sources or interviews of other public figures that appear in wikipedia (Lucy Komisar, Robert Parry, and John Loftus, for example).  The fact that the validity of Mr. Emory's wiki entry is even up for debate is rather bewildering given the irrefutable facts involved.  --Fiddlefaddlefoo 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC) — Fiddlefaddlefoo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment &mdash; I have removed some egregious biography of living person's allegations from this discussion. Being a member of no cabal, and having no special interest in this person or what-have you, I would just like to make some general comments:
 * Assume good faith about other editors; assume they are acting to their best of their knowledge.
 * Be civil to one another; assusing other people of "censorship" and being the member of shadowy cabal is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
 * Be civil to real people too; material which would probably be libel or slander in real life is not welcome, nor does it have any real relevance or bearing on the discussion here. Avoid it, and stop using it.
 * In addition, there is no cabal; no one is out to "get" this user, and accusations that there is some dark force at work to stifle dissent are ridiculous and totally at odds with expected behavior.
 * This is not a vote; accounts registered solely to comment on this discussion are not productive, and will not affect the outcome.
 * What will affect the outcome is someone actually producing multiple reliable verfiiable sources about the person in question which support his notability.
 * This should be normal behavior on Wikipedia, but since many of the editors here are unfamiliar with our guidelines, I thought a little refresher might be in order. Play nice.  --Haemo 01:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Googling (and presumably other searches) will be more productive if you look for "Dave Emory" - it gets 4x as many hits as David. I've listened to him for years, but I don't know how notable he is outside the Bay Area. --Jamoche 09:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: The article is almost an exact lift from the Book of Thoth site [] and thus, quite aside from its lack of verifiability in any medium except the extremes of conspiracy theorists and paranormal websites, it is a complete copyvio. Bielle 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is some coverage from a reputable source, Z Magazine. --ip editor, 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.61.192 (talk)   — 131.216.61.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  No shit, Sherlock. That's why it was a comment and not a fucking vote. I just thought you motherfuckers would like to be apprised of the situation. I don't fucking care what you do with the goddamn article. I just tracked down a fucking source for you. Do what you will with it, but for fuck's fucking sake, quit treating every unregistered user like sludge shitcake with bad faith on top. 10:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep my opinion anyway--Zingostar 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Dave Emory has been a notable resource for an alternative view of world events for as long as I can remember. I find it mind-boggling that the article is being considered for deletion, and am suspicious of this attempt at censorship.  What is the real agenda? Peterhoneyman 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what "the real agenda" is (or do I?), but I have a feeling you're about to tell us... It would be far more of a service to this article's chances of staying if the people saying "he's definitely notable" would add some reliable sources to the article to indicate this. —  iride  scent  22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the hidden agenda might be! But I'm guessing someone is unhappy with his message.  As for his notability, I don't know how to answer -- it's like asking what makes Walter Cronkite or Howard Stern notable -- I have been listening to Dave Emory's radio show for over a decade, and so have many of my acquaintances.  Frankly, I sometimes find his message difficult to accept, and just plain incredible at times, but I find him to be a valuable alternative source.  (I'm repeating myself; sorry.) Peterhoneyman 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep-I'm a longtime listener to the show and I've kept tabs on the wiki discussion and history for the fellow. That the page would be subject for deletion so suddenly is mystifying.  I suspect there are enough people listening to content streamed from wfmu.org/daveemory or downloaded from spitfirelist.com that there is no just cause to delete Mr. Emory's wiki.  The call for deletion is out of order.ChipdipkKill 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — ChipdipkKill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Great! Could you link us to two or three articles about him in, say, newspapers or magazines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He is quoted in this NY Times magazine article.
 * The Washington Times suggested he was the inspiration for Mel Gibson's movie Conspiracy Theory
 * He is quoted in another Washington Times article
 * This one is particularly apt
 * Here is an article about a ham-fisted attempt to silence Emory
 * This article has a couple of paragraphs devoted to Emory
 * There's more ... Victoria (B.C.) Sun, San Francisco's City News Service, Chronicle of Higher Education ... but I think the point is made.
 * Peterhoneyman 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Struck through my prior vote.  Sources have been provided.  The article is a mess and in serious need of clean-up, but in light of the recently uncovered sources by Peterhoneyman, this seems to longer be about a non-notable person, and thus, should not be deleted.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has a couple of paragraphs devoted to Emory
 * There's more ... Victoria (B.C.) Sun, San Francisco's City News Service, Chronicle of Higher Education ... but I think the point is made.
 * Peterhoneyman 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Struck through my prior vote.  Sources have been provided.  The article is a mess and in serious need of clean-up, but in light of the recently uncovered sources by Peterhoneyman, this seems to longer be about a non-notable person, and thus, should not be deleted.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Peterhoneyman 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Struck through my prior vote.  Sources have been provided.  The article is a mess and in serious need of clean-up, but in light of the recently uncovered sources by Peterhoneyman, this seems to longer be about a non-notable person, and thus, should not be deleted.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  06:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The above sources work for me, although the article itself could use a POV cleanup. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreeing with FisherQueen, the article could use a POV cleanup but I don't think it should be outright deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendali (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It hardly matters wether he's right or wrong, the point is he exists and makes the claims the article says he makes. Surely Wikipedia has no policy against biographical articles about people who other people disagree with? Badjeros 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per FisherQueen. --AliceJMarkham 11:58, 6 November 2007 (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.