Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Fetzer


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer
Professor Fetzer is not a notable person. Morton devonshire 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the request of my Wiki-friend SkeenaR, and in deference to Professor Fetzer, I withdraw the nomination. I bid you peace.  [[User:Morton devonshire|Morton

devonshire]] 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just adding a note that the AfD on this was begun at 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC) for closing admin (I don't think you can technically withdraw once initiated, Morton, but I'm not 100% sure). rootology (T) 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable professor, and 9/11 researcher. He's appeared on Fox News for interviews, and has been featured in major newspapers. Fetzer has also authored numerous books, and scientific articles. Please review Google results for this person and a Google News search for this person. If anyone has news archive access, you'll find MANY more (Lexis Nexus, etc.). POV nomination. (review user's contribs). rootology (T) 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC) rootology (T) 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflict keep. Mr. Fetzer is the author of over a dozen books (according to the article and its sources), multiple articles, and is the founder of a notable organization (Scholars for 9/11 Truth).  If he was just a college professor, he would not be notable, but he is, as I stated, also a published author and the founder of a notable and controversial organization.  Srose   (talk)  22:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable per above comments plus 34,000 Google hits. - N1h1l 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable per arguments already given -Elmer Clark 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whatever you think of the 9/11 truth group (and I don't think much of them myself) they have garnered significant media coverage. The bar for inclusion on WP is so low that he could probably get in on being a professor alone, but he's gotten enough media coverage to make this an obvious call. Gamaliel 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment but hey, why should that stop a nomination, he is a in the 9/11 Truth Movement after all... --Striver 01:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral I not sure on how to 'vote' on this one. He doesn't seem to be that important but on the other hand has had media coverage on a few networks. So I will be neutral and follow this one for a while.  Æon  Insane Ward 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Gamaliel pretty much covered it. I mean, even one thinks Fetzer is completely out to lunch, he is clearly notable. Being the the big bug on WP this and WP that, and clearly not stupid, I have a hard time believing Morton doesn't realize this. A misbehaven nomination. SkeenaR 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete [attack removed] isn't a notability criteria. [attack removed] are trying to become famous and wikipeida shouldn't help them.  NN and not encyclopedic.--Tbeatty 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - [quoted attack removed], as you put it, has nothing to do with it. This man has authored over a dozen books.  No matter what his viewpoint, he has proven his notability.  Maybe his group is trying to get press coverage, but the point is, they're receiving it.  Many of Fetzer's accomplishments are also unrelated to the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Srose   (talk)  13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I never said [reference to attack removed] was a criteria. Maybe read the comments. Wikipedia's mission is to document, not influence. Nothing unencyclopedic here. SkeenaR 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't WP:BLP apply here too? Shouldn't that comment about [reference to attack removed] be removed as an attack? rootology (T) 17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, it should. SkeenaR 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment [reference to attack removed] but he does believe that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon: Draw your own conclusion (of course that's not reason to delete the article, but notability is).  Morton devonshire 19:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because you accept as gospel truth everything that mainstream media and the official reports said about 9/11 doesn't mean that other people can't become notable because they beg to differ. PizzaMargherita 22:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This page is not a biography. How you apply Biography rules to a discussion page is beyond my ability to comprehend.  If that were the case, there would be no histories of articles or talk pages where negative material is discussed.  WP:BLP applies to the current revision of articles, not discussions, talk pages or previous versions of pages.  [attack removed] and that's my opinion and we are allowed to give our opinions in discussions.  --Tbeatty 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment try actualy reading WP:BLP. --Striver 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. How shamelessly POV to propose its deletion. PizzaMargherita 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per PizzaMargherita. Amen. Travb (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone familiar with my work would know that I do not believe that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon! No Boeing 757 hit the building, but a smaller plane--possibly an A-3 Sky Warrior--may have fired a missile just before it impacted.  I find it just a bit much that false reasons, which are easily refuted, are being offered to keep me out of this publication.  Something is not right.  PLUS I am not a "college professor".  I am Distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus, which I earned.  This is a considerable distinction that someone has repeatedly edited off the page.  You can check it at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/. Someone edited out my corrections to the Scholars' entry in the past and now they are editing out my corrections to my own entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.0.27 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Since Professor Fetzer is now editing Wikipedia, the rules of WP:NPA apply and I have removed remarks which could be construed as personal attacks. Even if this is not Prof. Fetzer, there is no reason we can't discuss this issue without making attacks. Gamaliel 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can asssure you that this is James H. Fetzer. I have taken Wikipedia at its word as having a commitment to accuracy. In the past I tried to correct and improve the entry on Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only to have my edits repeatedly rebuffed. Yet who in the world should be better positioned to insure the accuracy of that entry than its founder?  Now I discover that someone is offering distorted representations about who I am in order to sabotage my own entry by trivializing my rank as though I were just another "college professor" and by attributing positions to me that I do not hold!  I have published 27 books!  Anyone who wants to know what I think about the Pentagon can go to st911.org and read "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories':  9/11 and JFK"! I have also added several references. Someone may be abusing his position, but I appreciate that most of you are giving me a fair shake.  user:jfetzer@d.umn.edu
 * Speedy Keep As with the recent AFD on Scholars for 9/11 truth, Fetzer is indeed a notable person. This is ridiculous. EyesAllMine 16:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only is this ridiculous but someone, whom I suspect is Morton Devonshire, keeps changing my permanent rank as Distinguished McKnight University Professor Emeritus to something else. I am no longer Distinguished McKnight University Professor, but I am Distinguished McKnight Univerisity Professor Emeritus, as my official UMD academic web site states.  So why is this person, who is Morton, if I am right, trying repeatedly to trivialize my status?  And why did he create this bogus issue in the first place? It is apparent to me that there is a corrosive force at work here that is not interested in truth or accuracy but rather in minimizing the influence of those of us who are bringing the truth about 9/11 to the American people.  Something is very wrong at Wikipedia! user:jfetzer@d.umn.edu
 * Amen to that... --Striver 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I nominated the article for Afd. No, I have not been changing your titles.  Yes, there is a corrosive force at work on Wikipedia, and that's people trying to use it to soapbox their views -- Wikipedia is not a place of first publication, its role is to gather other information from reliable sources (and that doesn't include blogs and other self-published sources), and deliver it in a neutral manner.  That means no advocacy of theories or ideas, just straight reporting of facts.  Many of your supporters come here to advocate, and that's just not allowed on Wikipedia.  I'm sorry that you've been brought into this mess. I wish you the best.  Morton devonshire 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Someone who thinks a missile hit the Pentagon (in a country where a president can't even keep secret where he puts his cigars but this is kept from public knowledge no less!) needs an article if only to have more people know what he is really about.--Kalsermar 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For some reason, someone is putting a "reference (2)" to "Professors of Paranoia" after the list of institutions at which I have taught as opposed to later in the article when there is mention of my (allegedly) having called for a military coup. At this point in time, I have corrected it repeatedly, only to find it restored again and again.  IT HAS NO APPROPRIATE FUNCTION AS A REFERENCE WHERE IT IS BEING IMPOSED.  I cannot believe that Wikipedia personnel are this incompetent (since it does not belong where it has been repeatedly restored).  I therefore infer that it is a deliberate attempt to perform a subtle smear.  Check it out for yourself, but my confidence in the integrity of Wikipedia is being shaken for the third or fourth time based upon my own personal experience.  Whoever is responsible for this corrupt act ought to be censured or replaced. It is entirely uncalled for. user:jfetzer@d.umn.edu
 * While I appreciate you contributing you call into question the contents of the article now as you are editing it yourself. Further you should read up on policy such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. We take things items very seriously and appreciate if you browse them before proceeding in commenting here. You have called you fellow editors "incompetent" and assumed bad faith by stating you "infer that it is a deliberate attempt to perform a subtle smear". So feel free to contribute but please do not assume people are attempting to portray you negatively or sabotage anything and please refrain from insulting your fellow editors. Thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm gonna vote delete, since mr Fetzer apparantly doesn't want his article to have references. And verifiability is kind of sort of a policy here.--Peephole 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You do know this is not a good reason to delete an article, right? Editors, especially if they are new to WP, are bound to make mistakes. It happens all the time and that does not necessarily end up in the article being deleted. PizzaMargherita 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Professor Feltzer, if you're reading this, please go to mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l. Articles of a biographical nature are held to a special standard. If you feel that any bias exists, place a posting to this mail list--it is read by the literal "management" of Wikipedia, including it's founder, and will draw significant attention to any situation of bias or impropriety. Beyond that, the major rule is that articles have to NPOV, or non point of view--neutral. That is, "positive" and "negative" info can be included, so long as it is factual, accurate, and meets a long list of special inclusion criteria. ANYTHING of a negative nature, including ANY criticism, must be sourced and factually cited by a very vigorous standard, or else it WILL be removed per policy. If you have any additional concerns the Wikimedia Foundation, who runs the show, can be contacted if you need to at wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us. I'll be courteous and email you this info as well, just in case you don't see this page again. Have a nice day. rootology (T) 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me out. Contrary to the insinuation that I do not want references, I have added several to this entry; but I find the one to which I take exception is out of place.  (It already appears as the citation for the final sentence.)  Those of us who become deeply involved in these matters sometimes become overly sensitive about these things, because we are subject to so many unjustifiable attacks from politically motivated sources.  I did not originate this entry but, once I discovered it, I have made an effort to improve its accuracy.  I have made no effort to change any criticisms of me that were originally there, by the way, which tracing the history of this entry would confirm.  The reasons for proposing its deletion--"not notable", "believes that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon", "doesn't want references"--are easily proven false.  My apologies if I have offended anyone.  If you are serious, then these objections should not be taken seriously. I just have higher expectations of Wikipedia. Jim Fetzer P.S. I believe that my concerns are consistent with the "Five Pillars", though not the way I have expressed them.
 * 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.