Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Burgermeister


 * 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. Textbook case of WP:NOTAVOTE. I mostly ignored the votes by SPAs which all failed arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and were not rooted in policy. The consensus, ignoring the SPAs, are that the third party sources are not enough to establish notability. NW ( Talk ) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jane Burgermeister

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability and BLP concerns; article has become a Coatrack for conspiracy theory claims about the involvement of living persons in some sort of alleged genocide attempts involving H1N1 vaccine. Article was apparently created by the subject. Its sources are primarily blogs and fringe websites. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Jane Burgermeister exists and has a lot of reference in nature.com and pubmed ; so we can't know if everythings she says is true but she is really who sayd to be. Zioalex (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Zioalex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. No evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep While I never recommend listening to crazy people, unfortunately, lot of people are listening to her. I added a bunch of references that I found, chock full of conspiracy goodness. Have fun. Silver seren C 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: neither of the two independent sources (American Chronicle, Centre for Research on Globalization) appear to be reliable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know what The American Chronicle is, but the piece cited from it is clearly not a reliable source. N p holmes (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Silver serens additions help toward the required "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any BLP concerns can fixed, I see none. Article doesn't appear to have been coatrack, her claims are that high level people are involved in a conspiracy and that it what the article says, whether she is right or not is immaterial. No proof given that was created by subject (more likely a supporter who didn't wait for the better sources to come along, given that jbwiki2009 was the username). Some better sources have already been found. A variety of news results from google around the world for "Jane Burgermeister. 86.3.142.2 (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep With addition of a number of external links which do not immediately come off as conspiracy cruft, I think notability should be not so much an issue any longer (I haven't gone into detail studying them). __meco (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you had gone to the trouble, you would have found that several of them were pieces of science journalism by Burgermeister, which contribute nothing to notability, others were unreliable sources and one (the Pacific Free Press article) might be a reliable source, though its unbuttoned style is not exactly encouraging. N p holmes (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  —meco (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No mention of her in any serious media. If every conspirationnist had his own Wikipage, then it would be crowed with such non-sense.194.78.194.182 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of what you believe to be true or not, one fact is undeniable and in my opinion, most worrying. This being the WHO's authority under certain circumstances, to make it a criminal offence not to receive a vaccination. Furthermore we should never stifle free speech and debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olltwit (talk • contribs) 16:06, September 21, 2009 (UTC) — Olltwit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The fact that this person has filed criminal charges against WHO and Baxter, among others, merits an article here. No one can deny the fact that Baxter did contaminate a huge amount of vaccine sent out to different parts of the world. Nor can one hide the fact that they were responsible for contaminating a public transportation with bio-hazardous material. Cannot find this info on the wiki page for this corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.125.57 (talk) 16:47, September 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia often serves as a decent source on fringe ideas or barely notable people. This article, however, is a collection of non-notable, unverifiable information that is hardly useful to anyone. And that does not seem likely to change. More reliable sources may have come to the conclusion that it is a hoax/froad or a tragic story of mental illness. In any case, it is not up to Wikipedia to make the subject of this article notable or its content verifiable. Rl (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "This article...a collection of non-notable, unverified information"=article is all of six sentences, two of which mention the one case (the first one being the introductory sentence). More "reliable sources" may have decided they prefer to get a paycheck. I expect this article to be deleted and some time in the next two years, re-appear as her name is provided in books so the MSM avoidance will not be an issue. She is not a hoax as can be seen from her previous writings in Nature etc.163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Jane Burgermeister is notable for filing criminal charges against Baxter for the attempt to start a bird flu pandemic. The event occurred and the charges was made. Since then Jane Burgermeister has been interviewed on more than 25 radio shows and is well known among vaccine resisting organizations. The claims made by her are supported by evidence and Wikipedia is not a court of law where cases like these are supposed to be judged. Keep in mind that the pharma industry would love to see her disappear, not only from here but also IRL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  85.3.250.68 (talk • contribs)  — 85.3.250.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: (i) Burgermeister has not filed "criminal charges" (nor AFAIK does she have the power to do so), she has only filed allegations. Allegations get filed all the time. Mere allegations are not notable unless they have received considerable coverage in reliable third party sources -- generally the mainstream media. We have no coverage whatsoever of these allegations in reliable third party sources, nor do we have any indication that the FBI is taking these allegations in the least bit seriously (or even that they have jurisdiction to investigate them if they did take them seriously), so we have no notability whatsoever. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The above "Comment" is partly incorrect. Jane Burgermeister did file criminal charges in Austria. She has presented the file numbers given to them from the Austrian Police. The FBI never gave any file number to her and they may never have started an formal investigation.Two different branches of the Austrian Police have started investigations. The file numbers are presented on her web site. So is a stamped document proving the charges was received. Criminal charges have also been made in France - they have also been clearly documented and scanned copies of their receipts have been published on her site. An Injunction has been submitted in the state of Florida, also with proof of receipt. Beware of the religious fanatics from the Dr True Ott camp who are leading a nasty smear campaign against Jane Burgermeister. They seem to be active here and are aggressively attacking everything about Jane Burgermeister, see www.labvirus.com. — 85.3.205.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: my understanding is that private prosecutions are rare and difficult to initiate. WP:REDFLAG would therefore apply. "File numbers … from the Austrian Police" would only indicate that an investigation has been initiated, not that charges have been laid (the latter would necessitate a case number from the Austrian courts, not from the police). I see no evidence that any court has accepted these criminal charges. Regardless there remains the problem that no reliable third party coverage means no notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: None of Burgermeister's claims stack up, and the appearance of this page gives her a veneer of respectability. At the very least, some significant health warnings need to be introduced, not only the question of whether these legal proceedings have been submitted. These errors by her (whether deliberate or not) on her website are 1) it was H5N1 (bird flu) that was the contaminant, not H1N1 (swine flu) 2)it was not vaccine that was contaminated, but normal human flu virus - this is a huge difference, as her version suggests it was designed to enter the 'food chain' 3) she was only a freelancer for the news organisation she claims to have been employed by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.112.32 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2009
 * None of the above comments by 82.35.112.32 refer to anything covered by policies and guidelines for deletion. The orginal nom questioned notability and BLP concerns as well as noting coatrack. BLP concerns and coatracks in themselves are not reasons for deletions, although I agree with the nom n that coatracks (see "But it's true") are unbalanced and this at present can be said to be true about this article. Is she notable for having done what she has done is the real question, everything else is "fixable" if we find that she is.86.3.142.2 (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: One question that should drive our attention is: Why was this entry proposed for deletion at this very moment, when the problem of the porcine flu vaccine in under such a hot debate??? Isn't it another attempt to shut the mouth of a responsible voice? Just thinking...(Futureisland) — Futureisland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete While I totally agree that critics of government policy should express their concerns, this person does not seem to have reached the level of WP:Notability. This would happen when she is discussed in depth in the mainstream newsmedia, books, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep So that any and all people may make an informed decision on any subject there needs to be material to research. 71.112.229.82 (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC) — 71.112.229.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Notability doesn't seem a stretch as google autofilled her name when I looked her up and linked me to her wiki page. Frankly trying to delete it seems to be censorship in the worst sense. Bjs402 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC) — Bjs402 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Reliable sources aren't covering her, only unreliable fringe sources like Prison Planet. This isn't about censorship, it's about the complete lack of reliable sources to verify any of this material or to demonstrate real notability. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wiki Watcher is talking about this deletion on Prison Planet [www.prisonplanet.com/what-to-do-if-you-are-forced-to-take-a-swine-flu-shot.html] but I do not think this person should have an article. MacrolideNZ (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, we already have a "if you have come here from another site" notice up, that is not a reason for deletion, the only reason you provide is that you "do no think this person should have an article".
 * What "Wiki watcher" actually said was "Russell’s article seems safe, though Jane Burgermeister’s is ‘the dock’ for deletion:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....germeister"
 * That is as a response to an article by Drs. Russell Blaylock and Joseph Mercola, one could say "so and so is talking about this deletion" when they only provided a link but I personally would infer they are just surprised "consensus" hasn't already deleted Blaylock's article.86.3.142.2 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (i) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very poor argument for keeping. (ii) I wouldn't be surprised if Russell Blaylock gets AfDed as well (it's already been posted to WP:FTN). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read and understood what I wrote, you'd appreciate I wasn't making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I was commenting on the user's lack of deletion rationale. Google scholar seems to come up with a fair decent amount of articles in known Medical Journals for Blaylock.86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.