Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delmart Vreeland


 * 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. seesm to have had sufficient improvement to survive Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Delmart Vreeland

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is badly sourced and simply not notable.

A criminal with "convictions for child sex abuse, hard drugs, theft and fraud" got some tinfoilhat conspiracy-nut interest when he fought extradition by making unsubstantiated claims that he'd warned of the 9-11 attacks....yes, well. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I can not find a good RS for the child sex abuse convictions; Rocky Mountain News is defunct. Not saying it didn't happen but we can't be saying it did,even on this page, without a RS. Itabletboy (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, the article is terrible, but notability seems to be present. (Note that although it shows me as a creator, I just FORKed the terrible prose into an article of its own from the 9/11 page) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; no evidence of substantial or lasting notability. The sources appear to mostly be local in nature, almost anything can get published on a slow news day. This just doesn't clear the bar. *** Crotalus *** 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems only to have traction in paranoia-land -- zero hits in Google News, for instance. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep 621,000 Google Web hits for "Mike Vreeland". An older story but certainly notable. Itabletboy (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I only get 9,000, and most of them are for someone else (see here for example). Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * weird: I just got 134,000 on a general search, but here is a very specific one for Delmart"mike"vreeland showing 3,020 hits My point is, its nowhere near 0. Itabletboy (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The mere existance of the 9/11 prediction he apparently made- there is no RS that it has ever been disputed that he made it before the fact- is extremely notable in the USA where much of the population rejects the "official" story OF 9/11 events. It would only add credibility to conspiracy nuts to throw out this article on the basis that it is related to them, which is what the sponsor of deletion is implying somewhat overtly; if deletion had real merit, there would be no need to bring out the conspiracy nut or paranoia labels. Itabletboy (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good SourceThis is apparently an archived article from the Toronto Star which is a RS. Maybe the BLP just needs some good editorial work rather than deletion? I will give it a try. Itabletboy (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy_theories deletion discussions.  -- Itabletboy (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Delmart Vreeland is notable for what he has said about 9/11. The article in the Toronto Star is just one reliable source discussing this. Others include: The big wedding: 9/11, the whistle-blowers, and the cover-up by Sander Hicks, originally published by Indiana University; 9/11: the big lie by Thierry Meyssen, published by Carnot Pub; La Pentagate also by Meyssan, published by Ed. T. Paine, The politics of anti-Semitism, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair in an essay by Kurt Nimmo published by AK Press; an many more. Clearly meets WP:N. Kudos to Itabletboy for beginning to clean up the article which was a bloody mess filled with half truths unrelated to the guy's actualy notability at the time of nom for deletion.  T i a m u t talk 10:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Lack of non-trivial independent, third-party sources makes this article unworthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Note that off-handed mentions in 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists' books do not afford encyclopedic notability on this person, and referencing these sources in a BLP is about as problematic as you can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the book mentions listed above (some of which are not trivial), there are also these articles which are totally devoted to a discussion of him: Did this man predict Sept. 11? ; Strange story of a jailed spy unfolds in Toronto court (Oct 2001), U.S. looks into inmate's story ; Jailed man says he tried to warn about attacks (Oct 2001), Post-9/11, this doesn't seem all that weird (Dec 2001), Fugitive nabbed after 2 years on run; Man claims to have foreseen 9/ 11 Has more than 22 aliases, police say (Oct 2004). Note that these are four separate articles ranging from 2001 to 2004 from just one newspaper (ie. The Toronto Star). I'm sure there are many more such articles in the archives of other newspapers. There is enough here to establish notability per WP:N.  T i a m u t talk 19:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a clear case of News of the Weird. The Toronto Star covered the story likely because of its local flair and bizarre happenings (calling up the Pentagon from the witness stand is some incredible courtroom theatrics, after all). But the whole thing became uninteresting to news organizations and, by the way, WP:NOTNEWS. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like a bit of innocent Thought Police activity in play. The terms "tinfoil hat" "conspiracy theory" "paranoia land" "news of the weird" are being used in this discussion in the same way the terms "heresy","blasphemy","heretic" and "witch" were used in the dark ages as a way of demonizing non-conforming information. I fail to see how any of those terms here are even applicable, much less relevant to deletion. I don't see where this particular article fits into that world. Since every single Editor who wants to "delete" seems to fall back on these slurs, I'd like some more specifics about how "tinfoilhats" (I think that's UFO jargon) applies to the article?; how does "conspiracy theorists" apply? who are the conspirators mentioned in this article? "paranoia land" where is the paranoia in the article? "news of the weird" ok,maybe. Look, its real easy to use labels, we have a section about it. But I don't think it ever makes much sense and especially when it comes to so-called "conspiracy theory". The official version of 9/11 is exactly that; a theory about a conspiracy and 19 conspirators. Itabletboy (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple. As a mainstream encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to accommodate encyclopedic topics. When a subject's sources are all conspiracy theory websites and books along with News of the Weird coverage, the subject is generally felt to be not notable. That's why. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Star is not a conspiracy theory website; the other sources  T i a m u t  metioned I am not acquainted with but the Toronto Star is a damn good source; this is the second piece of absolutely false info. put into this dicussion (the first being that google gives "zero hits") which means either an intent to deceive or lack of attention,I assume its the latter. Itabletboy (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. A few good sources which seem to just about meet WP:GNG, although I'm not sure the coverage is long-lasting. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Alzarian16. Just barely passes WP:GNG via coverage by Detroit News, Waterloo Courier, Toronto Star, and LA Weekly. Get rid of all those crappy sources (such as fromthewilderness.com and the campus radio station's mp3 files and web page) and rewrite using the other more reliable sources. The Baltimore Chronicle book review can be handily used as a source to mention that Vreeland's case has traction among conspiracy enthusiasts. The image "Delmart Vreeland Note.jpg" will have to go too, "guerrillanews.com" is not a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 28 April 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.