Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rense (2nd 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. --Core des at 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Rense
Delete non notable conspiracy theorist. Criticism doesn't make him notable - he's a consipiracy theorist who clearly represents a fringe minority and thus will be the natural subject of criticism, but it doesn't make him notable. Further, beware that google hits will be slightly inaccurate with this one. He does not meet WP:BIO standards. Strothra 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Article had AfD nomination in June here, passed as consensual keep.


 * Keep, Its hard to keep my fingers from typing out D*E*L*E*T*E, but that’s says more about me than about Rense. In the interest of fairness, I think he reached a level of notability a few years ago that justify his inclusion in WP. He has fallen out of not just the Talkers 100, but even the Talkers 250 in recent years, but that’s now,…a has-been for sure, but he was semi-significant in the world of talk radio once upon a time. Brimba 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Just another crank with a website who does not meet WP:BIO. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Nothing new from last nomination which was closed as a consensual keep. Article had AfD nomination in June, here, passed as keep. This AfD is being done by the same user, Strothra, with the same nomination reasons.  *Sparkhead  12:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per TDC. Consensus can change. - Crockspot 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I hear that same song quit a bit, please provide evidence that policy was followed, per WP:CCC and some documented discussion had taken place before this nom that consensus may have changed? *Sparkhead  14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable kook, well-known to those who pay attention to this stuff. There are 33 Factiva newspaper hits, which would qualify as multiple, non-trivial sources. According to an article from The Pantagraph, for example, rense.com "has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as a site that contains 'a great deal of unreliable information." ("U.S. citizens entitled to many news sources". The Pantagraph. 23 November 2005. p. A6.) Zagalejo 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I went looking for this article, hoping it would count. The only thing I found was this blurb:
 * Article 2 of 3, Article ID: 0500488637
 * Published November 23, 2005, in the Pantagraph - Bloomington, Illinois
 * U.S. citizens entitled to many news sources
 * I write this to bring attention to an important Web site that can be found through Google. The Web site I am referring to is that of the Jeff Rense radio talk show program. It is special because it has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as a site that contains "a great deal of unreliable information." If you go to the site, scroll down a little ways and on the left-hand side you'll see the word "Datapages." Under that is a
 * Get complete article (272 words)
 * Getting the complete article costs $3, which I'm not willing to spend on a minor part of my Wikipedia hobby, but this header and length does not sound like an article as such. Note that 272 words is short - you've just read half the "article" right here. It is written in the first person, which is not a standard journalistic practice. It refers to the reader as "you", again, not very journalistic. It starts with "I write this to bring attention" - how many articles start like that? It reads like a "letter to the editor", or at best a poorly written editorial. The US SD mention seems to be that it was part of a long list of conspiracy sites, again, not something granting special notability to it. Please show me I'm wrong. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, rense.com is one of only a handful of conspiracy sites that the state department explicitly mentions: . I do agree that the article I listed might not be the best source - the more I look at it, it does seem to be some sort of letter to the editor - but I'm sure there are some substantial sources out there.  This guy was the host of a nationally radio show, after all, so give me some time to do some searching. Zagalejo 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The state department mention does seem to be just as an example of a type. Will wait, and if you can find a good citation, I will change my opinion. The Heymann Standard. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I did find an article that is actually about Rense and his website in BusinessWorld (Philippines). Here's an excerpt:
 * The aliens are not just out there in outerspace. They are in cyberspace, too.
 * If you still can't believe it, try Sightings site (at http://www.sightings.com) and get a load of the stories and photos from many sources from around the globe.
 * The site is based on the Sightings on Radio (formerly The End of the Line) program by Jeff Rense, a television news director and anchor for 12 years, the site explained. "The show presents advanced information and alternative views that rarely, if ever, appear in the mainstream media," it continued. [...]
 * Under the heading HOAX!, Mr. Rense explained how the site Webmaster was able to analyze that the UFO photo turned out to be a photo of a stage prop, particularly, stage lights.
 * "My Webmaster, James Neff, a brilliant analyst in his own right... determined that the new photo is indeed a stage prop as you can see from his enhanced computer work," explained Mr. Rense. (Silva, Veronica C. "Cyberspace: Host to Host". BusinessWorld. 4 September 1997. p. 18.)
 * In addition, there are plenty of brief mentions in other sources, eg this one from the Skeptical Inquirer and this one from Whole Earth. Does any of this confer notability...? Zagalejo 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15 Google scholar hits. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ehh.... There clearly are a lot of unrelated mentions, treating him as if he is well known. Will change my opinion, below. The BusinessWorld ref needs to be added to the article, that's at least more than just his site name, it's a couple of paragraphs. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: 50% advertising + 50% accusations of anti-Semitism = 0% WP:N. If someone cleans it up, I'll change my vote. --Aaron 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is possibly as painful as Brimba's keep, but for me the pain is procedural - I am against renominating an article for deletion on a regular basis. That said, though, this article does not have enough citations from Reliable sources. There is a Popular Mechanics article that mentions Rense's site, but he is clearly not its focus. Even so, if there were just one more like that, I'd feel comfortable keeping, but there isn't. The other sources are from conspiracy sites that don't rate Wikipedia articles of their own. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Found a few others. A mention in Skeptical Inquirer, mention in an op-ep in Washington Times, mentions in various books at Amazon.com. *Sparkhead  20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing my opinion per these and other mentions. They're small, but there are a lot of them. Here are more, in fact, here is a Google Books search - 30 books refer to him. Yes, I'd feel more comfortable if there were another article mainly about him, but I think enough unrelated casual mentions by semi-reliable sources treating him as if he is notable do add up to notability. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Without commenting on Jeff Rense, the bottom line is that this article previously received a Keep result in an afd discussion and nothing significant has changed in the article. It is important in the interest of consistency and closure that the results of previous afd discussions remain in place barring major changes to the article. Dugwiki 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the last discussion was tainted because I had nominated the article and some of the people arguing to keep were doing so because I had been in an edit disput with them at the time over a completely different article. I think that it is good to start over again from a fresh perspective in which no one is chasing me around wiki trying to destroy my edits and contributions. --Strothra 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that an AfD that resulted in a consensual keep should be disregarded because you believe certain editors voted "keep" out of spite? *Sparkhead  20:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rense is highly notable in his area. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not a part of an area or field, he's a fringe conspiracy theorist. These individuals typically act alone and have a small readership of individuals some who criticize them and some who support the theorist.  This does not make him notable since he does not have a cult following. --Strothra 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an entire industry around conpiracy theorizing, e.g., Nexus magazine. It is an area of thought, and Rense is well-known in that area. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are compendiums of theories. You're essentially arguing that conspiracy theorizing is a field.  If he was notable in a particular conspiracy theory (as long as the theory was notable), either establishing it or making some breaking discovery in it then I would be more inclined to agree with his notability under that particular theory. Just because there is an industry around it doesn't make it an institutionalized entity which would make it a field of research.  --Strothra 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Among some groups of people, i.e., those interested in conspiracy theorizing and similar political thought, Rense is highly notable. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your belief. --Strothra 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [insert pointless last-word comment here] &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; with 783 unique hits on Google, I don't think we'd be having this discussion if his views were not WP:CB. "Jeff Rense lives in Southern Oregon", should not be the lead, if the article survives this review. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per June keep and re-nom by same editor doesn't seem to have anything new in terms of reasons, but an agenda to promote. ThuranX 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the previous AfD nom. However: The Jeff Rense program show is broadcast over radio networks, satellite and the internet five times a week,  Please update the article for the sake of proving notability: WHICH radio networks? A syndicated radio show host is notable, someone who puts their podcast on shortwave repeaters is not. WHICH satellite? If your show is on Sirius/XM, that's more notable that someone putting their podcast on Free-to-Air.  And the internet, people pay to listen - could be notable, question is - HOW MANY?  SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Whole Earth (magazine) said in its Winter 2002 edition on p. 40 "Jeff Rense broadcasts interviews and conspiracy reports via his Internet radio show for three hours every night of the week and claims over 7 million hits a month. His site archives these shows and also provides innumerable daily news articles on how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. A much linked-to site." Bejnar 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Subject is non-notable outside of the walled garden of conspiracy theories, but little to no mention in mainstream press.  Fails WP:BIO.  Morton devonshire 18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Bit soon to nominate this one again since the last one was keep, and while consensus can change I'd hate to see AfD become a pitch-till-you-win scenario. There have been no new complaints about the article, and the article has not changed that substantially since the last keep. Thus, I'd say let the kook be for another few months unless new complaints can be lodge. He appears to be a notable kook, at present.--Rosicrucian 01:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but this article could possibly use a rewrite and some more credible sources. Johnwwatson 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hyperstrong KEEP Give the Paranormal boys a chance at this. Martial Law 23:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: He once had (still in the archives) a article about a British National who hacked the U.S. Defense system computers to get UFO info. He found something that the US govt. does'nt want released. He also has another article depicting how North Korean troops could defeat the US in war. Martial Law 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Secondary Comment: If you see red or colored links on his articles, Bold BLACK links, either click on them, or access these seperately. Those are the sources of the articles submitted to him, such as the one example placed here referring to Concentration/Internment Camps in America intended to deal with "troublesome" Americans when the NWO is in place, according to its author. Martial Law 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Third Comment: The reason I said to give the Paranormal boys a chance at this, is that 1/4 to 1/2 of the articles reference UFO and/or paranormal matters. Martial Law 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Too soon for another AfD, agree with Rosicrucian this is not pitch til you win, per Sparkhead and AnonEMouse  having found several mainstream references, although his theories are not my cup of tea. Seems a notable kook. We do not have to agree his theories are valid or even rational for him to have an article, but a significant proportion of the population  do share some theories he publicizes. Edison 01:05, 29 October 2006 (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.