Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Israel


 * 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. Needs additional cleanup and improvement (non-admin closure) ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 12:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jared Israel
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete: Yet another conspiracy theorist, article fails to establish notability through reliable sources according to WP:BIO. The article was already deleted once. Peephole (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A7. I have tagged the page as such. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the sources, seems to be a notable conspiracy theorist. Edward321 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the sources are written by Israel himself. --Peephole (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft.  Ikip (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I have found and added several sources, including New York Times x2, BBC x2, Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times.  Notability states clearly: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."  There were no efforts at all by the nominator to find any sources. In fact, this is clearly a WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, see User:Peephole/911TMCruft for nominators strong POV, dressed up with a facade of policy. Speedy deletion clearly does not apply, because there are several sources which exceed notability. Therefore this AfD should be speedy closed. Ikip (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually I did look for them and I just thought they weren't good enough. The articles you referred to are in essence about Slobodan Milosevic. Being mentioned as running a support group of his doesn't warrant inclusion in my opinion. What I'd like to see are articles about Jared Israel himself, or articles about a category of people to which Jared Israel belongs (for example an article on who the people are who still defend Slobodan Milosevic). I just don't think these sources qualify as "significant coverage". "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." from WP:BIO and "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." from WP:NOTE.--Peephole (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * weak keep. Added references aren't great, but from good sources, so enough for notability. I wish people wouldn't keep throwing "speedy" around when inappropriate, as both the speedy delete was (notability is claimed) and keep (if someone already voted delete, cannot be speedy keep).Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   —Peephole (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   —Peephole (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - it can be verified that this person exists and is a consipiracy theorist, but I'd like to see some better sources to confirm that he's notable per WP:BLP. I'm not ready to invoke WP:HEY yet. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I could not read the NY Times article, but, if anyone who's Neutral has an account can read it, please confirm the statement.  If he's in there, then he's notable. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete NN - Just because it is referenced does not make him notable.  And he is not notable.  --rogerd (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improved sourcing which now pushes past the bar for notability. Stating toward a search to say "I just thought they weren't good enough", is opinion and apparently contravened by Ikip's presentation of reliable sources. Being "Yet another conspiracy theorist" is no reason to delete. A person may not like 'em. A person may not agree with 'em. But meeting the requirements of coverage in reliable sources shows notability per guideline. A7 speedy certainly does not apply as there is a credible and sourced assertion toward notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: So, you really think that being part of a support group of some dictator that is mentioned passingly in a couple news articles is enough to make one notable? Once, again, the notability guidelines state pretty clear that there has to be "significant coverage".
 * I have no use for conspiracy theorists. Usually a bunch of hogwash. However, I keep my personal animus seperate from my opinions at an AfD. Bringing an article into line with policy improves wiki. Regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources indicate some notability, although it is perhaps only marginal. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up/expand. Clearly there is GNG here and between his writing and bio there should be enough to write at least a short article on the subject. -- Banj e  b oi   17:33, 7 February 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.