Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Richard Arnold


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Gary Richard Arnold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office, which is not an WP:NPOL pass, and for getting 15 minutes of fame in 1982 for heckling Ronald Reagan, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Of the 55 references being cited here, just 12 of them are actually reliable source coverage in media -- and most of those are just blurbs about the heckling incident and/or namechecks of his existence in WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the elections. Besides that, this is literally drowning in unreliable and primary sources like city council meeting minutes, raw tables of election results, voter pamphlets, directories of public access television programming, and conspiracy theory blogs. Literally nothing here, either on substance or on sourcing, constitutes a reason why someone like this would earn an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep, there is a lot more to Gary Richard Arnold than just Quote: 15 minutes of fame in 1982 for heckling Ronald Reagan. He has been actively involved in the politics in the state of California for over five decades. He has been involved in numerous issues that involve the people of California. So what if he has been involved in some issues that have the "Conspiracy Theory" tag. That is only a minor part of the article and to make a statement of: "Besides that, this is literally drowning in unreliable and primary sources like city council meeting minutes, raw tables of election results, voter pamphlets, directories of public access television programming, and conspiracy theory blogs" is totally incorrect. Arnold is referred to, and referenced in many areas. He is more than notable to have an article here. People and things are notable in Wikipedia for a multitude of things. Some more than others. Not everybody here thinks some articles should be included but that's tough. One deletion nominator who I won't mention the name of, has IMO a belief that some music acts because they are uncool or square, should not be in Wikipedia. Well, let him start his own Coolpedia or Groovypedia. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not the fact that he happens to have beein "involved in some issues that have the Conspiracy Theory tag"; it's that the sources you're using to support that content are unreliable ones that cannot be used to support notability in an encyclopedia article. As already noted, of the 55 sources being cited here, 43 of them are unreliable ones — and of the remaining 12 that are reliable sources, exactly zero of those are covering him in a context that constitutes a notability claim. You cannot get an article kept in Wikipedia just by throwing any webpage that happens to have the person's name in it at the wall as "referencing" — 80 per cent of the sourcing here is to invalid references that don't count as supporting notability, and that's not acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well actually you're quite incorrect here and inaccurate, and I have to say that the answer gave didn't disappoint me in my anticipation. First of all parroting the "15 minutes of fame" even if unintentional, gives a false impression and is only a term that was used by some media sources. Arnold was covered in news papers all around the country as well as abroad. He appeared on television shows around the country as a result. Yes some of the other sources are lightweight and some may be regarded as unreliable but your estimate doesn't add up. The lightweight sources are of activities not generally covered in main-stream media. There are reasons for this but I won't discuss them here. This isn't the time and place. The thing is, is that these were included to give the article breadth so the reader can get an idea of his activities. I'm all for inclusion of info for a notable article. This is an article about a notable person. If others disagree then the article should be improved after all that's what Wikipedia is about. It's supposed to be about creation and improvement not destruction. This article has been here since October 4th, 2014. That's nearly 2 years.‎ In addition to Arnold's appearances on television in the 1980s in relation to Ronald Reagan incident, he has been covered on TV every time he has run in the California state elections over the years. In recent times he has also appeared on RT among others. Well old chap ... I do like your style but sadly you're grossly incorrect. 09:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm quite not incorrect about any of this.
 * Firstly, non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates. Because all candidates in all elections always garner coverage in the local media serving the area where that election is taking place, campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot get the candidate over WP:GNG on "coverage exists" grounds. For campaign coverage to establish notability in and of itself, it has to be demonstrably more than what all candidates always get — but there's no evidence that that's the case here.
 * Secondly, Wikipedia has a rule called WP:BLP1E. Coverage of the Ronald Reagan heckling, regardless of how nationalized it got, doesn't make him permanently notable in and of itself, because the nationalized coverage of him doesn't exist outside of that one minor incident. Appearing on TV is not a notability freebie, either, if the only way you can reference the appearance is to use its own occurrence as its own metasource for itself because reliable sources haven't written about that appearance or its significance — so RT doesn't assist notability either. A person accrues notability by being the subject of coverage about him, not by being a soundbite giver in coverage of other things. I've done talking head on the news about things other than myself, but that fact does not give me a notability freebie if reliable sources aren't writing about me doing anything that would make me encyclopedically notable.
 * Thirdly, you say that you're resting on lightweight and unreliable sources for the conspiracy theory activity because reliable sources aren't covering those activities — but that's not how Wikipedia works. It is not acceptable to turn to unreliable sources and blogs and user-generated discussion forums to source things that aren't covered in reliable sources — especially in a BLP (but really nowhere else either, it's just that we have a special rule spelling it out in BLP contexts because it's so critical that we be hypervigilant about BLPs due to the risk of harm), the rule is that if reliable sources aren't covering the claim, then it can't be in the Wikipedia article at all. Wanting to pad an article with further context about his other activities does not give you a license to lean on garbage sources to do it — if reliable sources aren't covering that aspect of his life, then neither do we.
 * So no, I'm not the one misunderstanding or being wrong about Wikipedia's rules here. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm just going to assume at this stage you're actually viewing things from a peculiar angle. Saying things like you have done so far, you've made out that this article was supported by basic brief mentions and a here and there mention. nothing more could be further from the truth. Quote: - "Wikipedia has a rule called WP:BLP1E. Coverage of the Ronald Reagan heckling, regardless of how nationalized it got, doesn't make him permanently notable". Yes I know that. Arnold is notable for other things beside that incident that got him attention around the world. He was interviewed and covered in articles for his policies and what he stood for. Most likely he was interviewed in part as a curiosity because of him coming across as an extreme right-wing libertarian was unusual in that day and age. Also a man committing political suicide by his remarks about the Federal Reserve, CFR etc etc wasn't an everyday occurrence. Sure he was invited on television shows and interviewed possible to make him look way out but what the heck! He's been covered. And the notoriety followed him around for years has been a political curse of sorts. Yes, the Reagan incident got him noticed more. But you have to remember that Arnold has been a politician since the mid 1960s. He has been in the news for other things besides the multiple times running in elections up until recently. Quote: - "Appearing on TV is not a notability freebie, either". This always brings a smile to my face. The use of "Freebie" can be used sometimes to throw it off the tracks and on to another. I've seen those who are voting for a deletion bring this "freebie" up time and time again. Not saying that's what you're doing here. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that you're looking at it with this peculiar angle again. I said that he has appeared on television for other things as well as the Reagan incident. Quote: - "I've done talking head on the news about things other than myself, but that fact does not give me a notability freebie if reliable sources aren't writing about me doing anything that would make me encyclopedically notable." - I don't think I can reply to this as it sounds like you're talking to a child. Sorry, but that remark is so silly I'm not even going to reply to this. It's just nonsense. Sorry. Quote: - "Thirdly, you say that you're resting on lightweight and unreliable sources for the conspiracy theory activity because reliable sources aren't covering those activities — but that's not how Wikipedia works. It is not acceptable to turn to unreliable sources and blogs and user-generated discussion forums to source things that aren't covered in reliable sources". You're being inaccurate again. NO! I said that some sources are lightweight. I was referring to many of the council government sources that showed his involvement in local government issues. The small amount of conspiracy sources are only to mark attendances of events and the odd interview or of film he appeared in. Films like Man Against the Machine,  or this one here, or  from the Patriot Flix website that has Alex Jones type documentaries on it. Many which can be purchased from sites like Amazon. Or 911 : The Greatest Lie Ever Sold or something from the Clay and Iron Ministries website such as him being  interviewed on their Christian prophecy show or whatever it is. Referring to interviewed in "just mention" only. Nothing more and certainly not to support a view. If that were the case, in the 2 years that this article was up, they would have been removed or the neutrality of this article would have been challenged. Quote: - "Wanting to pad an article with further context about his other activities does not give you a license to lean on garbage sources to do it — if reliable sources aren't covering that aspect of his life, then neither do we." - FINALLY!!! YES ... You've said something that may in part be true. Sadly I can only agree with "Wanting to pad an article with further context about his other activities" as I may have put in a bit much about his other activates and should only have put in half of what I did. But again, you are being inaccurate with "does not give you a license to lean on garbage sources to do it" as even though they're not garbage, I'm not leaning on anything. So that's inaccurate again. That But with "further context about his other activities" is just additional to an already notable article. Additional and nothing more. So, with the local government meetings and the films etc,  have I been excessive ...  Hmmm, OK thinking about it now, maybe ...  possibly somewhat. So with what you said here,  " if reliable sources aren't covering that aspect of his life, then neither do we", I'll take that on board as constructive criticism as I'm always looking to improve on my work. And again, Gary Richard Arnold is a notable figure. Yes he got a great deal of media attention that led to his profile being boosted, and that got him on TV. But he was called back for his other views. He's now remembered 40 plus years later for other things. And yet back in the 70s and 80s, as recorded in Time, Volume 120, Issue 2, Page 86, he was known as the guy that "looks like Lennon, Talks like Lincoln", and as per the Ocala Star-Banner Oct 7, 1982 edition, he was told by Reagan to shut up because he said "Somebody has to say the emperor has no clothes". So he said his piece. But that's just one stage.  Karl Twist (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "peculiar" about the "angle" from which I'm viewing this: I'm viewing it exactly dead on through a completely clear-eyed and completely correct understanding of Wikipedia's policies.
 * For one thing: "appeared on television" is not a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, if the only sources you can provide for that are YouTube clips of the television appearances. "Was interviewed on the radio" is not in and of itself a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, if the only sources you can provide for that are the radio program's own primary source website about itself. "Appeared in a film" is not in and of itself a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, if the only sources you can provide for that are a film clip on YouTube or Patriotflix or a buy-me page on Amazon. If you want to include that kind of content in a Wikipedia article, you need to source that to reliable source coverage about those appearances — he can be in 10,000 films, and still not actually accrue notability for that until newspapers on the order of the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle start writing about at least some those film appearances. He can appear on "Clay & Iron" a million times, and not actually accrue notability for that until reliable sources start writing about those appearances. And on, and so forth. So those things count for nothing toward notability, because they're not supported by reliable sources.
 * Secondly, committee work at the city council level works the same way: it can assist notability if the LA Times or the SF Chronicle are writing and publishing coverage about that work; it does not assist notability if you can source that work only to the council's own self-published meeting minutes. Notability criteria are passed by reliably sourcing that a person has received media coverage for doing or accomplishing something that passes a Wikipedia notability criterion — they are not passed by the fact that his existence can be nominally verified in directly affiliated primary sources like the meeting minutes of the city council, or press releases, or the self-published website of a radio program he happened to appear on. Either real media, completely independent of the claim being made, have written about that work or it counts for nothing. So working with a city council committee counts for nothing toward notability, because it's not supported by reliable sources.
 * Thirdly, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, because all candidates always generate some of it. So coverage in the context of elections that he did not win does not assist notability or count toward WP:GNG. So those things count for nothing toward notability, because it isn't an acceptable notability claim in the first place.
 * And finally, all of those facts mean that all we have left, the only thing that isn't blown out of the water by either the total lack of reliable sourcing about it or its complete ineligibility to even be a notability claim in the first place, is "once heckled Ronald Reagan". And that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply, it seems to be another variation on a theme from you. It seems to be more of the same old same old. Quote: - "For one thing: "appeared on television" is not a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, if the only sources you can provide for that are YouTube clips of the television appearances". Yes I know that. I'm not even saying the TV appearances be used to support the article. I just mentioned as a result of his arguing with Reagan and also his right-wing Libertarian policies being unusual for the time, he was invited on to TV and radio shows and interviewed. . I don't know why you're mentioning "YouTube clips" or Amazon in that context. I appears that you're making it sound like I'm trying to grab at this which is now silly. Not only that, you may note realize how misleading you're being. I just mentioned that some of the films on the site appear on Amazon. Now you're making it appear I'm saying something else. I just mentioned the site of the films that I listed has films that would sell on Amazon. Nothing more! I have only included the films he has appeared in for the expansion of the article and for the info interest of those reading the article. Certain films of a controversial nature, especially ones that are libertarian issues or ones that challenge the official version are generally avoided by mainstream news sources. I repeat, the only reason for their inclusion is for interest. Quote: - "Secondly, committee work at the city council level works the same way: it can assist notability if the LA Times or the SF Chronicle are writing and publishing coverage about that work; it does not assist notability". Again! I say that I have included council / local government reports as an account of what he has been doing for the last few years. Arnold's involvement in issues that he believes concern the people of California. Some of the issues are to do with liberties, Smart meters:, Water fluoridation: and the issues surrounding it. So the reports are just there to show what he has been doing. Not for notability. Quote: - "Thirdly, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates" - Yes I know that. Arnold has been a politician since 1966 and he won a state primary at the age of 26. Later won a contested primary for state senate and later won a primary for congress. All through the way, Arnold has attracted attention for his somewhat controversial statements. Arnold has attracted attention and has been written about and interviewed for many other things other than the Reagan incident. Quote: - "once heckled Ronald Reagan". And that just makes him a WP:BLP1E". Again you're repeating this again which in addition to being misleading is now becoming a bit tedious.  There's much more to Arnold than just this. As I have said before, Arnold got a boost in profile (obviously) as a result of arguing with Reagan which was covered in hundreds and hundreds of news papers. If the boost in profile got him noticed more and possibly a platform to talk about issues he concerns himself with then that's the way it is. Much of the attention of Arnold is about his views. He is also notable. Karl Twist (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's "more of the same old same old", the reason for that is precisely because I'm exactly correct about how wikipedia notability and sourcing policies work.
 * You question, for example, why I'm harping on YouTube links and Patriotflix when it comes to the documentary film — but those are the links that you provided to support his presence in the documentary film, so my statement was not a tangential left-field slice of randomness, but a completely straightforward response to the exact words you posted to this discussion.
 * And you keep flipping back and forth on the matter of the city council committee work and the conspiracy theorizing, too: if I argue in general that he doesn't have enough properly sourced notability, then you argue in response that those things boost his notability, but if I argue that those things don't confer notability, you argue in response that they're just there for supplementary context. And again, regardless of whether those things are a main ingredient of notability or are just there as garnish, they're resting entirely on primary and unreliable sources, and thus still cannot be in the article at all.
 * Winning a primary does not count as a notability claim either, just for the record.
 * Everything written or sourced in this article at all is one of three things: (a) nationalized coverage of him in the context of a single minor incident, (b) WP:ROUTINE local coverage of him in the context of local election campaigns where local coverage is expected to exist, and thus does not aid in building a claim that he passes WP:GNG, and (c) primary and unreliable source "coverage" of him doing things that don't count toward notability at all. Which leaves us at WP:BLP1E, exactly as I said above, because every single source that counts toward notability at all is covering him in the context of a single incident of no enduring notability. If it sounds like I'm repeating myself, it's because what I'm telling you is correct. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply OK, getting more tedious as we continue. Quote: - "You question, for example, why I'm harping on YouTube links and Patriotflix when it comes to the documentary film — but those are the links that you provided to support his presence in the documentary film". Rubbish and now we're getting back to "Silly time" again. There are no YouTube links to support his presence in documentary film. Well not as you're trying to insinuate. The Movie section is only there to be complimentary to the article and as extra info for the reader. That's all there is. Nothing wrong with that. Yes one of them referenced. with Patriot Flix. The other is referenced on World News Network etc. Nothing to do with YouTube there. Quote:-"And you keep flipping back and forth on the matter of the city council committee work and the conspiracy theorizing, too: if I argue in general that he doesn't have enough properly sourced notability, then you argue in response that those things boost his notability". As I've said, the local government and council minutes were soley there to give an idea of what he has been doing in local government and council issues, his participation etc. They don't boost his notability and were never added to the article for any other reason than what I stated. Sorry but you're starting to sound a bit like you did here with "I've done talking head on the news about things other than myself, but that fact does not give me a notability freebie if reliable sources aren't writing about me doing anything that would make me encyclopedically notable.". That doesn't even fit into the debate! Anything that is regarded as conspiracy theory like Fluoride or Smart Meters or Chemtrails or appearances at Conspiracy Con: has just been added to the article as "added interest" value. The subject of the article Gary Richard Arnold has received a lot of coverage world-wide for his challenging of Reagan and in doing that, he made history in American for being the first man to openly challenge the credibility of a standing president. That obviously got him the attention to be interviewed on his policies which lead to further coverage. Even prior to the Reagan incident, his saying that he was at war against totalitarians of Wall St. and Washington was going to be the wrong type of publicity. What you need to know is that Arnold, a controversial figure has been involved in politics and has been running in elections since the late 1960s up until recently. Plenty of coverage of a notable figure and possibly someone that doesn't make certain people in office happy but hey, that's what it is. I know he drew criticism for writing the article about the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, which was a 2 page write-up in the September 5-11 edition of The Philippine Times. Yes Arnold is not everybody's cup of tea, and the man is notable. Karl Twist (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If this is becoming tedious, it's not because I'm the one misunderstanding or misrepresenting anything — I am still fully 100% correct in everything I'm saying about what's here and how it measures up against Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You're the one making it tedious, not me.
 * You say here, for example, that there are no YouTube links being provided to support the notability of the documentary film — yet right in your previous comment, the one I was replying to when I mentioned YouTube links, you linked the title of the film to a YouTube link. So, again, I'm directly responding to what you said, not to strawmen I'm making up for kicks. And you're entirely ignoring my point, also completely correct under Wikipedia policy, that it doesn't matter whether the conspiracy theory stuff and the city council committee stuff are there "to support notability" or just "for added interest" — if you cannot reference it to reliable source coverage in media, then it cannot be in the article at all. If your only source for "appeared in a film" is primary sources like Patriotflix, and you cannot reference it to real coverage of the film in real media, then it cannot be in the article regardless of whether it's there to aid notability or just for added interest. If your only source for "was interviewed on the radio" is that radio program's own primary source website about itself, and you cannot reference it to real coverage of the interview in real media, then it cannot be in the article regardless of whether it's there to aid notability or just for added interest.
 * And you're also ignoring that "has been running in elections since the late 1960s up until recently" does not assist notability. It doesn't matter if someone ran for office once, twice, ten times or 100 times — they must win at least one election, and thereby hold a notable office for some length of time, before that activity gets over a Wikipedia notability criterion. Local coverage of the campaigns does not aid passage of WP:GNG, because local coverage of local election campaigns is expected and WP:ROUTINE — if a person didn't win at least one election to an NPOL-passing office during their political career, then they get an article only if that article would still be keepable under some other inclusion criterion even with the candidacy entirely discounted.
 * "He made history in American for being the first man to openly challenge the credibility of a standing president"? Er, what's your source for the claim that he was the first person ever? Lack of personal awareness of anybody else doing it before him doesn't prove in and of itself that nobody else ever did it at all, and no source present in the article credits him with being the first either. Unless what you mean is merely that he was the first person to openly challenge Reagan's credibility in particular, without regard to whether that had ever previously happened to Carter or Ford or Nixon or Johnson or Kennedy — but "first person ever to get into a public argument with one specific other person" isn't a notability criterion either.
 * So what we still have is a lot of stuff that doesn't make a person notable at all under any Wikipedia notability criterion, still leaving us with "once heckled Ronald Reagan" as the only reason he might warrant a Wikipedia article at all — and that still just makes him a WP:BLP1E who doesn't earn a standalone article for that. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Bearcat 6:44, 6 October 2016 post. Ok, so let's get this straight. Quote:- "yet right in your previous comment, the one I was replying to when I mentioned YouTube links, you linked the title of the film to a YouTube link." That's not what we're talking about and you know it. I have never used a YouTube link to add to the notability of Gary Richard Arnold on the article page. And the only time I have used it here in this discussion is only so you could have a look at what I was referring to. To give you a better idea of what I was talking about. Nothing more! Quote:- "And you're entirely ignoring my point, also completely correct under Wikipedia policy, that it doesn't matter whether the conspiracy theory stuff and the city council committee stuff are there "to support notability" or just "for added interest" — if you cannot reference it to reliable source coverage in media, then it cannot be in the article at all." - I'm not ignoring anything and you're point(s) are not making a lot of sense with addressing this. The Small amout of "Conspiracy" stuff like his speaking at public venues like Conspiracy Con, talking about the dangers  of fluoride and smart meters to people is just for interest. Nothing more. So, fair enough, if we're not allowed to add them to his page for whatever rules exist then I have no problem with that. This should be discussed on his Talk page, or Deletion Talk page. Seems you're still singing the same song, it's just a Variation on a theme ! Quote:- "And you're also ignoring that "has been running in elections since the late 1960s up until recently" does not assist notability. It doesn't matter if someone ran for office once, twice, ten times or 100 times". He's been involved in politics and has received coverage as a result no doubt. But, the coverage of Arnold, some of it is quite deep and solid comes as a result of his views and the noise he has been making over the years. That is not to do with elections, it's to do with Gary Richard Arnold being viewed as a controversial figure and such a figure he is, it's no doubt he would get interviewed for and covered by various types of media. Some people may view Gary Richard Arnold as a terrible person for his stance against the establishment and the fact that he openly challenge a president and accuse him basically of being nothing more than a puppet amounts to treason. Well, be Arnold a very brave who destroyed his own political career for voicing his views or be Arnold a madman who can't shut his mouth about things is beside the point. he is notable. These very brave or crazed views of his were bound to attract attention. Some good. Some bad. Much of the coverage of Arnold has been based on that. There's not many people willing to commit political suicide by voicing certain things. Quote:- "Er, what's your source for the claim that he was the first person ever? Lack of personal awareness of anybody else doing it before him doesn't prove in and of itself that nobody else ever did it at all, and no source present in the article credits him with being the first either. Unless what you mean is merely that he was the first person to openly challenge Reagan's credibility in particular, without regard to whether that had ever previously happened to Carter or Ford or Nixon or Johnson or Kennedy — but "first person ever to get into a public argument with one specific other person" isn't a notability criterion either. - Well, he may be the very first person as I mentioned here . I forgot to add maybe or possibly here. What I was getting at, is that he obviously was noticed for such an act that some people view as treason (because you aren't supposed to rock the boat), it was on the cards that he would be interviewed on TV and other media for his stances on certain things. Controversial = yes. Correct = well, that remains to be seen. But as a result, he became notable as he (even though he inherited the title as the man who once "heckled Reagan") has attracted attention for his views and outspokenness over the last 6 decades. Not unlike Alex Jones. Quote- "So what we still have is a lot of stuff that doesn't make a person notable at all under any Wikipedia notability criterion, still leaving us with "once heckled Ronald Reagan" as the only reason he might warrant a Wikipedia article at all — and that still just makes him a WP:BLP1E who doesn't earn a standalone article for that." - No incorrect! What wee have is an article that has many, many news references from notable and distinguished (if there is such a thing) and prominent news sources. Much of the coverage is solid and some in depth. A good deal of his coverage is from his activities, outspokenness over the many years. Perhaps some refinements on the article would be in order and a bit of trimming here and there. Well, if that's the case then  we have Talk page, or Deletion Talk page. So, lets discuss! What the article has is good solid coverage in refs  of a notable individual. Notable article! Karl Twist (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete a perenially defeated candidate who has never won any office. His support of various ideas has not garned enough attention in reliable sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply, Arnold has been a politician since around 1966 and he won a state primary at the age of 26. Later he won a contested primary for state senate. later won a primary for congress. Yes he has never won any office but this is not what the article is based on. All through the way, Arnold has attracted attention for his somewhat controversial statements. Arnold has attracted attention and has been written about and interviewed for many other things other than the Reagan incident as well. He is a very controversial figure. Lot of media coverage on Arnold. Karl Twist (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, so much coverage of Arnold and some good in depth stuff too. Known in different parts of the state of California for his activities both inside and outside politics. While it could be argued that his incident with Reagan, accusing the former actor turned politician of being a servant fir the banks, CFR and Trilateral commission had given him coverage that boosted his profile, he's been covered for a multitude of other things. Politics, activism, writing articles about the assignation of political figures, accusing governments of corruption, taking away liberties etc would attract media attention as well as the negative type as well. Arnold may be the poster boy for how to sabotage your own political career and make sure you get locked out. Probably an unpalatable man in the political arena for his abruptness and wild talking ... But he's notable and been covered. Karl Twist (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG; as stated, largely WP:BLP1E, with minor mentions in many primary sources, not conferring notability. WP:NN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Chiswick Chap 15:15, 11 October 2016 post. QUOTE:- "with minor mentions in many primary sources, not conferring notability", well it's obvious that you haven't had a good look at the page because what you're saying is totally incorrect. Your statement of "minor mentions in many primary sources" is false. Even for the Reagan event he had some in-depth articles and if you took the time to have look you'd see that "minor mentions" totally wrong. There's been coverage of Arnold over the years, more than the large amount of attention he got for accusing Ronnie Reagan of being a puppet for the elite. Arnold has been in the news quite a few times for his activism and also trying to get government organizations and officials to be more transparent. Even before the Reagan incident his views attracted attention. - Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 29, 1982 - Page 15 GOP Candidate Arnold Blasts Sentinel Reporter - The Sunday Sentinel, June 20, 1982 - Page 1 Arnold Says He's At War Against Totalitarians Then as a result of the Reagan incident he got good solid front page coverage including the below articles, - USA Today, October 7, 1982 - Page 1 'Shut Up' Even Presidents Lose Their Cool By Gene Policinski - The Washington Post, Thursday, October 7, 1982 Page 1 'SHUT UP' Reagan, GOP Candidate Clash By Lou Cannon - The Ledger, Friday, October 8, 1982 10A Man who disrupted Reagan ready to sue over 'taxploitation' - The Washington Times, Thursday, October 7, 1982 Page 1 GOP Candidate's remarks rile Reagan BY Wesley Pruden - Bangor Daily News, Thursday, October 7, 1982 Conservative candidate draws Regan's ire - Observer Reporter - October 7, 1982 'Shut Up' Conservative Accuser Rouses Reagan's Ire And even though not front page, certainly not in the "minor mentions in many primary sources" class, - New York Times, October 7, 1982 Regan is Angered by G.O.P. Heckler - The Cincinnati Enquirer, October 8, 1982 Page 6 Republican Accuses Reagan Of Fraud - Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 7, 1982 Page 8 The East Room Debate - Lodi News-Sentinel, May 1, 1984 - A burr under the saddle ROBERT L. STUDER Politically after the Reagan incident, he had been in the news - Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 21, 1982 Page 2 GOP spying on own members, Arnold Charges - - Los Angeles Times, August 29, 1986 - Orange County Digest, Placentia : Accept Candidate for Treasurer, City Told Candidate for Treasurer, City Told - John Spano - Los Angeles Times, September 24, 1986 - Thwarted Placentia Candidate Appeals Order - Roxana Kopetman - Los Angeles Times, October 03, 1986 Placentia : Critic of City Can Run for Treasurer, Judge Says - John Spano - The Lewiston (Maine) Daily Sun, Monday, February 27, 1984 14 N.H. Primary: Not One To Lose  And for his activism  - Los Angeles Times, September 17, 1985 - Orange County Digest, Placentia : Critic Says Officials Barred Look at Records - Mark Landsbaum -  Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1986 - Orange County Digest, Placentia : Would-Be Candidate Loses Court Appeal - Roxana Kopetman And he wrote an article that was published in and appeared across 2 pages of the Philippine Times about the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, written about in the following book, Conspiracies and controversies: Phillippine's favorite conspiracy theories and most controversial Filipinos of the 20th century, Erick San Juan, Rhodelee Joan Espinola, Vergel O. Santos, Casiano Atienza-Navarro - ISBN 9789719204916 Page 148, Page 168, Page 292. That's just a slice of Arnold. Your statement to back up the delete vote is not founded. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment, just a reminder on some of his political career, 1966 He was a Republican candidate in California for the 1966 general election where he ran against Democrat nominee for Los Angeles' 63rd District, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. as per Independent Press-Telegram, Sunday, October 30, 1966 Page 55, and United Press International, Oct. 6, 1982 Gary Richard Arnold, the Republican congressional nominee who was... With his vote total of 31,350 (43.56%), he came short of her 40,616 (56.44%) votes. - Join California, Election History for the State of California November 8, 1966 General Election, and Our Campaigns CA State Assembly 63, Candidates In 1982, he beat Anne Nixon Ball in the primaries. - Santa Cruz Sentinel, Tuesday, October 12, 1982 - Page 1 Republican leaders organize to write-in opposition to Arnold Then he ran against Leon Panetta and lost with Panetta picking up 140,602 votes to Arnold's 24,068. - Reno Gazette-Journal, November 3, 1982 Page 18 He was also running against Reagan at one stage. What I'm getting at is that in amongst his political career and activism, he has made a lot of noise and angered a lot of people and made enemies no doubt! If you could imagine Ron Paul amplified and with the gloves off,  accusing presidents and politicians of being part of the One World Government agenda, then you would have Gary Richard Arnold. Some may consider him a whistle blower, while others may view him as an agitator and trouble maker. Well ..... the man is notable and unlikable and terrifying to some, but that's the way it is.  Karl Twist (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep harping on "was a candidate" as if that somehow made a difference. For about the five hundredth time: people do not get an NPOL pass because candidate — they get an NPOL pass only if they win the seat and thereby become an actual holder of a notable political office. Unelected candidates for office get articles only if they can be demonstrated as satisfying some other notability criterion for some other reason besides the candidacies — and coverage of the campaign itself does not assist passage of GNG, because all candidates always get some coverage. So any sources which are covering him in the context of campaigning for a seat he didn't win, in media outlets that are routinely expected to publish coverage of that election and its candidates, are doing nothing to bolster his notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Bearcat 18:36, 12 October 2016 post. You're slanting it again my friend. I am mentioning Arnold has been a politician since 1966 and he won a state primary at the age of 26. Later won a contested primary for state senate and later won a primary for congress not to support his notability. He is notable without any of that. Arnold is notable for reasons other than his political career. There is a reason I'm mentioning Arnold's political history, not for the reasons you're trying to suggest, but to put things into better perspective. Arnold has attracted attention before he made news nation-wide and around the world for his accusing Reagan of being a puppet and stooge. Arnold entered into politics and the fact that he was only beaten by 6.4% by Yvonne Brathwaite Burke showed he had promise. But instead of doing what most people with political ambitions do and stay on track and behave themselves, Arnold went off the rails and did what he either felt was right or was firing around wild accusations of political stooge-ism and corruption in paving the way for the one world govt. Right and righteous or wrong and crazy is beside the point. Arnold made noise and he got noticed. Then in 1982, he made history for openly challenging a standing president. He said things that made him instantly disliked and (Quite possibly) some real enemies. That incident got him MEGA attention and on the FRONT PAGE of major news papers. We could be looking at more than 30 nation-wide. Contrary to the comments by another member Quote:- "with minor mentions in many primary sources", you can see that this not the case. He has had amazing coverage. You see Arnold is an activist, politician, social commentator and likely Whistleblower as well. So, after the Reagan incident, as you can see in my post 11:18, 12 October 2016, under Politically after the Reagan incident, he had been in the news he has been attracting attention and getting coverage. And then under And for his activism, he has been in the news. That's only a portion of what is out there and that's just what me one guy has come up with just using a couple of search engines. See Arnold  is notable but he is annoying to some people. Like I said, he is the poster-boy for the destruction of one's own political career by being outspoken on certain things, and pursuing the path of activism. Yes Arnold has gone on about the possible dangers of fluoride, Chemtrails, Smart meters, and the New World Order etc  But that's what he did and got attention  for that. Easy to see that he is notable when you look at the coverage. I'd also like to add that there is a school of thought held by some that any band that didn't have a charting hit is not notable. I remember once someone saying that Arthur Lee is not notable because he never had any noticeable hits, and "who is the band Love?" Once someone said that a  certain artist shouldn't be included on Wikipedia because he falls into the Square category. Lol. There is also an extreme dislike here for people who fall into the conspiracy theory category by a small amount of Wikipedians. Part of the reason is that they have their view on people like Arnold, Mark Dice, Jim Fetzer, Ted Gunderson, Anthony J. Hilder, David Icke, Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, and Webster Tarpley. They think of them as cranks and losers who have nothing better to do than complain. They can't see past this sadly. The thing that they fail to understand is that these people are notable for the coverage that has been given and the influence they have had on others. Right or wrong, they have had an influence. I'm not going to defend the actions of any of these activists or as some refer to as "complainers" / "agitators" / "trouble makers" / "ungrateful scum". One of the reactions to the conspiracy discusser is displayed here ,Sounding Like another Wiki 'Love Piece' which appears on the Webster Tarpley Talk page. I was quite entertained by that. Anyway, I'm getting off track here. Perhaps when the article was started, it should have been made more clear as to where Arnold's notability lies. But, anyone willing to take the time would realize that there is more than enough coverage of Arnold on various levels and different directions, and for more than one event. I'm just reporting on the notability of one activist/politician/social commentator called Gary Richard Arnold. Thanks 10:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So, just so we're clear on your argument strategy here: the Reagan heckling incident doesn't make him a WP:BLP1E because he's notable for other things besides that, but every single thing that's present in the article besides "heckled Ronald Reagan" is just there for supplementary background rather than to actually assist the notability claim. Yeah, no, if you think that's how Wikipedia works then I'm definitely not the one who's "slanting" anything.
 * And just for the record, the only evidence I can find anywhere on Wikipedia of anybody saying that Arthur Lee's notability was in any way dependent on chart hits is you making up that argument out of thin air as a strawman to argue against in an AFD discussion about a completely unrelated person of not even slightly equivalent notability to Arthur Lee. It's not a thing anybody ever really said for real, or a thing that's in any way reflective of what WP:NMUSIC actually says — it's a red herring argument that you use to try to derail unrelated discussions by trotting it out in irrelevant places just to contradict it. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to Bearcat 19:05, 13 October 2016 post. Again you're playing another variation on the same theme. And use of the term "supplementary background" is incorrect and misleading again. You know very well that Arnold attracted major attention for his open accusations against Reagan. This was almost unheard of at the time. A politician who, because of his stance destroyed his own career because of his inability to keep silent on certain issues. This caused ripples all around and got Arnold into the media. Arnold's continued crusade be it right or wrong against what he sees as nepotism, corruption, and betrayal of the people of the United States has been covered. He has had enough coverage to make him notable. Even if the amount of news articles were to be halved, he'd still be notable. You're appear to be ignoring the obvious. His other activities are much much more than "supplementary background". They are covered by major news sources! It would appear that you are using that Arnold, Reagan Incident as a type of leverage to support your case for deletion by making out that this is all the Arnold page has. Well it's not all. You know it and so do I! To some folks who stop by to read here, your use of the term "supplementary background" may seem like you're being deliberately misleading in your desperate quest to have this article deleted. I'd still like to think that you're innocently charging in erroneously and somewhat naive about these things. It is getting harder to hold that view friend. Quote:- "And just for the record, the only evidence I can find anywhere on Wikipedia of anybody saying that Arthur Lee's notability was in any way dependent on chart hits is you making up that argument out of thin air". .....  You walked right into that one didn't you!! ...... 1. I didn't say that it was on Wikipedia. And 2 I'm NOT making it up. I am referring to youngish somewhat naïve person who hasn't got a clue about real life. This person because they didn't really know who Arthur Lee was had no idea of his status and influence. I've come across a few of "these types" in my travels. Some of them on Wikipedia. Did you see this one ((Sounding Like another Wiki 'Love Piece')) which is about Webster Tarpley ? Sadly people who have lived sheltered lives sometimes end up behind the keyboard. Karl Twist (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not being "naive" or "misleading" here; I'm responding, exactly correctly, to exactly the things you're saying. If I argue that the Reagan incident just makes him a BLP1E, then you insist that he has notability for other things besides that incident alone — but whenever I point out, entirely correctly, that everything else besides the Reagan incident fails our notability rules entirely for one reason or another, you respond that those things aren't there to show notability but merely as additional information about somebody who already satisfied our notability criteria before those things were taken into account. It's all right there in your own words: when I said that the Reagan incident makes him a BLP1E, you specifically stated that "ran as a candidate for office", "worked with a city council committee" and "appeared in the media as a conspiracy theorist" stood as further evidence of notability for more than just the Reagan incident — but the moment I addressed why those things don't constitute evidence of notability, you flipped your argument to "they're just there for background information, not as a basic notability claim". So, in other words, even in your own comments the question of whether those things speak to notability or not depends solely on which way you have to present those things in order to contradict whatever comment you happen to be replying to in that moment. I'm sorry, but you're the one who doesn't understand how notability and sourcing work on Wikipedia, not me. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as an overly detailed vanity page filled with information of very minor significance, such as "City of Watsonville Council Meetings". This looks like a project of love, but unfortunately for the article advocates, the subject does not quite rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to K.e.Coffman post 05:27, 14 October 2016. Quote:- "Delete as an overly detailed vanity page filled with information of very minor significance" - I'd be interested to know how you think "vanity" comes into it? Quote: - "filled with information of very minor significance, such as "City of Watsonville Council Meetings" - Council meetings is only a very small section here and out of the more than 100 refs, there are only about 10 that apply to the council meetings. Quote: - "This looks like a project of love" - I find it quite intriguing that you would bring that up. Why do you say that? By the way, have you read the 19 or 20 articles from major newspapers about Arnold before, during and after the Arnold, Reagan Incident? They are at Revision as of 11:28, 12 October 2016. There is quite a bit of coverage on Arnold and some solid articles. And there's more. Thanks for your input but I think you've missed a bit here. Karl Twist (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:TNT, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:COAT, and WP:MILL. Even if he passed WP:GNG, this is nothing more than soap-boxing: calling out on the Internet for one's Platonic ideals. It's so terribly bad as to require a re-write from scratch. It's clearly just using us, a charity, to push a political agenda by way of a BLP, which places our tax-exempt status in the sights of the evil IRS. He is not so prolific as a perennial candidate as to be notable for that alone. He's just one of tens of thousands of failed local candidates still alive today. FWIW, I voted for Reagan in 1984, and all the Democratic candidates for President since. #Imwithher. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2016 (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.