Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Berwick (3rd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Berwick
AfDs for this article: 

Jeffrey Berwick is nothing short of a confidence trickster, and not to delete this article is nothing short of helping the fraudster promote his persona. Delete. EDIT: Here's a proof of his fraud: --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as the individual does seem to be notable, but the article hasn't been improved much (if at all) since the last nomination, which it should have been. I must note, your personal opinions on him that are poorly sourced (vimeo is not a reliable source) are not of interest, and shouldn't really be brought up in a deletion discussion. Strong Keep Changed vote, article has been improved significantly ans fully displays notability. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    14:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - actually the source is not Vimeo, the source is Berwick himself talking about a third vocation not listed in the entry, "the selling of passport expediting" which according to him has not come to fruition.  The Berwick entry needs to be removed because Wikipedia's BLP guidelines (and process) prevents the finding and representation of truth.    It is not the place of an encyclopedia to make judgements about living people.  It is a fundamental imperative that the content of an encyclopedia be be correct and truthful!     The fact this entry exists demonstrates that the Wikiepdia process is broken and lacks credibility (even if its used pervasively). Kitatom (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the source is Vimeo, or more specifically, a user of Vimeo. This is not reliable, see WP:RS. Either way, what he's done regarding that is not reason for it to be deleted from Wikipedia. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a problem with the Wikipeida process not Berwick; the reason for this entry to be deleted is that it cannot be truthful within the context of Wikipedia's constraints. Kitatom (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think a month is too fast to renominate an article that was a clear keep (see Renominating for deletion which suggests 6 months). I've edited the article and added more reliable sources. The guy is mentioned in a ton of reliable sources. Even if a number of his plans have failed, that doesn't make him not notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The failure has to be expressed; to do that you are going against BLP or you have to Critically Think and do research by connecting articles in a timeline and chronology.  Many of the Berwick secondary sources come from Berwick via a press release with follow on coverage that picked up the announcement.   You can announce and say whatever your want, that is not fact.    Nefariously notable would be he same as infamous; so here we have an entry that won't meet BLP guidelines.    The problem here is Wikipeida and it is a major credibility problem.Kitatom (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * His failures have been expressed. There's nothing stopping you improve the article, as long as you keep to a neutral point of view. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 21:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Passport scam fraud has not been expressed; and that is his current "vocation. Essentially Wikipeida is supporting fraud through ommission" Kitatom (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a reliable source for that (NOT VIMEO OR USER SUBMITTED SITES) feel free to add it (see WP:IRS). To me it's evident you have a bias against him, though - so I recommend you request an edit (see Edit requests). We're not stopping anything coming onto the site if it can be proved it's factual, for anything, good or bad, Vimeo is not accepted. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 21:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 *  has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. --<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Kethrus &#124;talk to me 11:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I sent a demand letter to the legal department of the Wikipedia Foundation; clearly the process here is not working. Kitatom (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do. This isn't a legal matter at all. Also see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. --<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Kethrus &#124;talk to me 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: we just went through this, subject clearly passes WP:GNG. SPA accounts have an ax to grind with this individual, Wikipedia is not the place for that. Vrac (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: A sockpuppet investigation has been opened on, who is believed to be the same editor as and . Investigation is at Sockpuppet investigations/Grockeds. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE All of Kitatom's comments have been striked out, as they have been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. --<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Kethrus &#124;talk to me 22:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * More Evidence: --ElNuevoEinstein (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a re-post of a blog post. Also, based on Nestmann's own about page as well as the about page of LewRockwell.com, WP:FRINGE very much applies. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't like it" is not a legitimate reason for deletion, if anything (you know, if the sources were reliable) the information would be added to the article, and wouldn't be grounds for deletion. --<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Kethrus &#124;talk to me 10:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of other edits is a bit alarming. Here, he removes two paragraphs of content claiming that the source is a "notorious liar" and a "self-confessed child-rapist". In another AfD started by, he flat out removes the deletion rational without giving an explanation. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Concerning the self-confessed child rapist: The Center for a Stateless Society, a think-tank which Spangler himself co-founded, has publicly addressed the issue and publicly disassociated from him: . He publicly confessed to it on his own facebook wall. He later removed that post from his facebook wall, but a screenshot of it is still available. []. (I know, one can forge any screencap picture of a facebook post, and it does not serve as proof therefore, but it is understandable.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElNuevoEinstein (talk • contribs)
 * Someone doing something that is generally considered wrong by most peoples standards is still no reason for content regarding them to be removed from Wikipedia. I really think WP:SNOW applies on this discussion, especially as the only other supporter of a deletion is a confirmed sockpuppet (including the last deletion discussion). I'll not count the one in 2005 as it was a long time ago, and a lot has changed, and there now is a claim to significance. --<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> Kethrus &#124;talk to me 14:29, 1 November 2015 (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.