Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Bolton (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Kerry Bolton
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is really a biographical challenge. There are a great deal of contentious statements that are directly challenged by the subject in 3011814. When looking at the sourcing I don't really see multiple, reliable sources. I'm not completely convinced of encyclopedic notability. I'm asking for deletion based on two points 1) notability 2) BLP. That is to say, we need to get it [the BLP article] right and a starting over may not be a bad solution. The subject is living. Thank you for your time and consideration on this article. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A Google news search shows that he is quite clearly notable, many in-depth news articles. Maybe some editors would volunteer to scour it or Mr. Bolton could point out any unreferenced statements that are objectionable.  The last time this happened on a different biography, the objectionable information came right off the subject's website so it was removed and immediately reinserted with the source cited. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looks like his complaint against the thesis is an example of the Streisand effect. He has written apologist material about the Nazi regime. People with notoriety rather than achievement can have articles written about them ("Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety"). There are reliable sources referring to him, and he's been called "perhaps New Zealand’s best-known neo-Nazi", which is certainly a claim to notability. Without knowing what Bolton objects to the complaint is hard to judge. Fences and windows (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. He has founded notable journals, has been a leader in political parties, and has published numerous books. He has been called the "leading Holocaust Denier in New Zealand". He is one of the main publishers of the Protocols of Zion and related books. Last year he forced a university to withdraw a masters thesis wrtitten about him, which received wide coverage in New Zealand media amid concerns about academic freedom. In one of those news articles the subject is described as a "well-known figure both in New Zealand and Australia in the far-right movement, and is a former National Front secretary." The subject created a blog that holds more press coverage and private correspondence related to the dispute. Here's another blog mostly devoted to reprinting information about him. He has written a number of "open letters", indicating that he is not shy about making his opinions known in public. The subject is a substantial topic in several books: Black Sun, ISBN 0814731554, pubished by a university press, Lucifer Rising: A Book of Sin, Devil Worship and Rock 'n' Roll ISBN 0-85965-280-7, The politics of nostalgia : racism and the extreme right in New Zealand,, and Lords of Chaos . If I'm not mistaken, this is not the first time the subject has sought to have the biography deleted through OTRS. So to conclude, the subject is a public person who has sought publicity for his causes, but who has also made strenuous efforts to avoid scrutiny. He is profiled in multiple reliable sources and meets the WP standards of notability.   Will Beback    talk    19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WillBeBack. There is so much evidence of notability for the subject and there is hardly a strong case to delete this article against the reasons to keep it. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  19:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a New Zealander, I can say he seems to be mentioned in the media fairly regularly, making him notable in my eyes. Unfortunately. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment many of the works he has published are held by the national library, search at http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz/. This is a good source of independent/official information and links. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find. It appears that around 32 books or publications by Bolton are in the national library, which substantiates his notability as a writer.   Will Beback    talk    21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 21:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Will Beback. Plebty of sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question I take it that you mean he's questioning the way that certain bits are worded, especially unsourced parts.  Since he has problems with bits of the article, couldn't we stubify it and completely rebuild it, sourcing every little bit of the article?  Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, just about the only part of the article that isn't sourced is the subject's alma mater, which I doubt is contentious.   Will Beback    talk    03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Tentative keep: Seems notable enough, or at least notorious enough. I agree the article seems to be well sourced, especially in the part I imagine was most controversial, about the censorship of the thesis. Without any further information about what alleged inaccuracies the subject has complained about, I can't make any strong judgement on the BLP issue. I see that the nominator deleted two passages citing BLP concerns immediately before nominating this for deletion, which suggests that any BLP issues that remain are less important. At least one part that was deleted (about being a member of the Adelaide Institute) seems like a case for changing tense and improved footnoting (adding another to the Waikato Times source), not deletion. So this makes me suspect that the BLP issues wouldn't really be that hard to address. Of course, I don't know any details of his allegations, but from what I can see, it seems a fairly clear keep to me. I would reconsider if it becomes clear that most of the article is affected by his allegations, and it would be hard to address these well enough. -- Avenue (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck the tentative part. Enough of the article now has multiple citations to good sources that I can't see any realistic scenario where his allegations would be reason enough to delete the whole thing. -- Avenue (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I dislike holocaust denial (eg ), but I doubt he's very notable (I nominated him for deletion last time). Many of the links Will Beback provides in this discussion are links to far-right primary sources, rather than being all secondary sources. Except for two sentences ("Bolton was a co-founder ..."), all of the content in the article either cites a single book from a university press (how much editorial oversight do such books have given the need for academic freedom?) or relate to the libel controversy, or is uncited. Andjam (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added new sources, and reused many that were already there. New York University Press is well regarded, the book is by an expert in the area, and it's fairly recent, so I don't see a problem there. -- Avenue (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * University press books are considered among the most reliable sources. See WP:V.   Will Beback    talk    19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. We've establised notability, so primary sources can be used with care to fill in some facts. Fences and windows (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - the NYU press book and mentions in Sunday Star - Times and other NZ papers signify notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 27 May 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.