Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenn Thomas


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Consider giving the page some time to improve (or attempting to improve it yourself) before reconsidering this decision -- that's my recommendation based on this discussion, anyway. Luna Santin 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kenn Thomas

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Subject is not notable. He does not meet the criteria of notability for Wikipedia. The two sentences which claim notoriety are unsourced. Netuser500 15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep He appears to be notable in his field (that field being conspiracy theorists). You may (or may not) consider him to be a nut-job, but that doesn't make him non-notable.  Important nut-jobs are notable.  He gets 43,000 google hits, which for some things isn't much but for a conspiracy theorist seems like a lot. A lot of those hits are on Amazon and such advertising his book and his magazine; but some like this  are interviews that he's given on various topics.  The article is unsourced and that needs to be fixed, but just a cusory google search leads me to think he is notable and should be kept. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Notability (people) page states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." If anyone finds awards for or multiple independent reviews of his work, I'll change my mind. (Netuser500)

KEEP: He has written several books from several publishers, none of which are vanity presses, contributed to books by other authors, publishes a magazine, writes for other magazines (including Fortean Times), makes occasional appearances on AM and Internet radio as well as broadcast television, and lectures both in the United States and Europe on a frequent basis -- and he is not a "nut-job" (whatever that phrase may mean to you), but a serious, sober researcher. -- Davidkevin 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria for notable is whether there are things published about him, not whether he has published his own works. I've quoted the criteria for authors in my remark above. Serious researchers usually have PhDs and experience as hired researchers at one or more universities. There are more than 1.4 million Google hits for "Anthony French" who is a notable professor. Mr. Thomas does not seem to me to meet any criteria of notable. BTW, I don't believe you should have removed my earlier signature from this page. Netuser500 20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I did that, it was an accident, and I offer an apology.


 * Check the bibliography at the bottom of the article: none of the books therein were published by him, they were published by other people who paid him for the works -- again, these are not vanity press books.


 * Mr. Thomas has professional research qualifications through his "day job" as an archivist at the Western Historical Manuscripts Collection in the Thomas Jefferson Library at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, which I mention only to show those qualifications, with no endorsement by the university of his opinions or conclusions implied.


 * Without meaning to get overly personal, I have to confess that I wonder if this possibly has to do with you're not personally being familiar with Mr. Thomas' work? I've never heard of Anthony French, but I wouldn't make a similar claim for that reason as I don't know everything or everybody in every field.  However, I do know that in his field, Mr. Thomas is regarded as a rigorous scholar.


 * As far as "notable", while it isn't academic, he has been a guest on the nationally-syndicated Art Bell radio program at least twice that I'm personally aware, as well as on nationally-cablecast television and smaller-market radio programs. He writes regularly for the Fortean Times, an internationally-published magazine about which there is a Wikipedia article, and lectures across the United States and in Europe.  How much more of a public presence do you require of him?


 * -- Davidkevin 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * David, one of the primary notability requirements is that the subject of the article have things written about him. His books were written by him, not about him.  Obviously you are familiar with him and his work.  Can you point us to anything written about him? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving


 * I haven't done any particular searches on what other people think or say about him -- I never knew it was a requirement in order to write or edit an article about a person who is prominent in his field, even if that field tends to be beneath the notice of the mainstream press. I'll get to doing something like that presently.  -- Davidkevin 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what I wrote is ambiguous. I am not accusing Mr. Thomas of using a vanity press. I am saying that to be notable, other people must have written about him. How many biographies of Mr. Thomas are available at your local library? A separate criterion for notability is the winning of awards for his works. Another is multiple independent reviews of his works. He fails all of these criteria. As for "professional research qualifications," he is not a professor who performs research for his university. He is an archivist, and his job has nothing whatsoever to do with the topics in his published work.


 * Here's another official criterion "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included." Anthony French meets this one. Mr. Thomas does not. Netuser500 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless notability established from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Davidkevin, but clean up should be included. DrWho42 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But can you find any criteria at the Notability (people) page which Davidkevin has addressed? Although that page lists several criteria, any one of which is sufficient to be "notable," Davidkevin cannot name one which Kenn Thomas meets. To the best of my understanding notable is supposed to be objective, and not just one individual saying the subject seems to be important. As a matter of fact, that seems to be an example in the guidelines of an invalid reason to keep an article. Have you noticed that Davidkevin has not addressed ONUnicorn's question? Netuser500 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse Me For Having A Life. I don't spend all my time on Wikipedia or in research for it, so I hadn't answered his question of me until now -- I remind you of WP:NPA.  -- Davidkevin 09:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a personal attack. It was simply a statement of fact. When one side leaves a debate, it could be because they've run out of things to say. Netuser500 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete since no one has provided an argument that meets the notability standards (Notability (people)), let alone with evidence from reliable sources. Netuser500 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that somewhere in the rules there's one against voting twice on the same issue (this and your initial vote at the top). Even if there isn't, it's certainly a tacky thing to do.  I respectfully request that you please play fair.  -- Davidkevin 09:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm new at this, and I was afraid that initiating the AfD might not count as voting, so I wanted to make a formal vote. I do believe there is a rule against vanity pages, which is what this one looks like to me. Netuser500 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NEUTRAL A couple of short New York Times articles directly address Kenn as a notable person. The first article is directly about him and his work:


 * Section 6; Page 19 (256 words) SUNDAY, JUNE 4, 1995; CONSPIRACIES: Not All the Same Nuts


 * . . . Some folks on the political margins are feeling more maligned than usual these days. "When people talk about conspiracy theorists since Oklahoma City, they're talking about these militia types," says Kenn Thomas, editor and publisher of Steamshovel Press, a small St. Louis magazine. But there are many kinds of political paranoia. "We may all be nuts," Thomas says, "but we're not all the same nuts."


 * Thomas thinks of himself as part of the "marginals press," which includes a variety of small magazines and publishers with names like Paranoia and Feral House. He says he is "uniquely tolerant of the gun-toting right," and will publish "the rant" of one of the two Michigan Militia leaders who suggested that the Japanese could be responsible for the Oklahoma bombing. But he himself is nonviolent. . ..


 * Section 6; Page 36; (207 words) SUNDAY, September 11, 1994; Who Killed the Calendar?


 * . . . . The calendar comes from Thomas's Steam shovel Press, a magazine devoted to making people aware of conspiracies and secret truths of all sorts, including those involving U.F.O.s, the AIDS virus as an escaped weapon of biological warfare, the Shroud of Turin, the eerie similarity of Jesus and Dracula and the role of immortal bloodsuckers through history. . ..

Kenn may be "small 'n' " notable, but you should consider these cites. I haven't tried to look in other magazines and journals, so this probably isn't a comprehensive list of cites. -- Quartermaster 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Week Delete I'm on the edge on this one... Apearing on coast to coast, bylines and books are nice, but I don't see much out there to base an article on - and thats why WP:BIO and other notability guidlines exist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks reliable sources and fails WP:BIO. --Aude (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously notable in his field of interest. ^^James^^ 23:53, 22 January 2007 (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.