Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Barrett


 * 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. This AfD is being closed early in order not to feed the trolling sock and meat puppets. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinions from Established Editors

 * Delete I have made my case for deletion already on the Talk page devoted to this biographical article. Kevin Barrett is a proponent of conspiracy theories about 9/11 who makes unsubstatiated claims and seeks media attention and publicity. He has no publications other than letters to the editor. He makes public appearances and appears on radio talk shows, making inflamatory claims about 9/11.  The sources he cites are always within a small number of like-minded individuals who make similar claims, or write pseudo academic papers that purport to support the claims.  There is nothing noteworthy about Kevin Barrett other than that he generates publicityabout himself.  The Wikipedia project does not have the editorial resources to maintain articles on people like this, or to verify the accuracy of the information about them.  --Metzenberg 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Artw
 * Keep. His claims are outrageous enough to gain media attention, and indeed they have. This is certainly enough to pass WP:BIO. He may be noteworthy mostly for generating publicity about himself, but the same thing could be said about Paris Hilton. -- H·G (words/works) 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep He definitely passes WP:BIO. He has been featured in national radio and national tv such as FOX News and CNN.    National news media MSNBC have articles on Kevin Barrett.   It is obvious that he passes WP:BIO and this should be speedy kept.  Dionyseus 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's in fact true that he has appeared multiple times in national media, the remainder of the nominator's argument is that he disagrees with Barrett's opinion.Senatorpjt 00:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasons for not deleting are given in the nominator's introduction. All of these facts mark his notability. -- Alias Flood 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: person is notable, nominator's reasoning is orignal research and entirely subjective. --Howrealisreal 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Antares33712 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Whew. There is alot of crazy random IP and a possible sockpuppet or two dropping in around here. However, the case for deletion is extremely shakey as this appears to be a notable crack pot that meets WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". Just because he shows trollish behavior does not necessarily merit behavior and it may be feeding the fire, but it seems from all accounts that this is a notable person worthy of inculsion. I disagree with the IPs and new users rationale for the most part, and I know inculsion is not an indicator of notability. However, but it appears extremly bizzarre and odd behavior sometimes merits an article. Yank  sox  02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure he is a nutjob, but he is a notable nutjob. Buckner 1986 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is notable because he is such a well-publicized nutjob. -- Mwalcoff 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep My opinion is the man's off his rocker, but he's been front-page and top-story news the last two weeks in local newspapers and newscasts here in Wisconsin. Nate 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Nutjob and crackpot? No biased labels and a return to neutrality, thanks. Instant character attacks against those whose views differ from yours is dangerous thinking. Check movement to impeach George W. Bush to understand the concerns of those regarding the criminal acts of one member of the Bush Administration. - Shiftchange 08:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't say I have a high opinion of the guy, but he seems to pass WP:BIO pretty well. Take Jack Thompson as another example of a highly controversial subject which nevertheless warrants a full article. It doesn't matter if his research is good or not, and it's not even our place to judge that; we must adhere to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. By all means, include a criticisms section, though. Luna Santin 09:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Unfortunately, I never fail to be amazed by the people who can't seem to differentiate between notability and political disagreement.  Kevin Barrett is definitely notable; he has been significantly covered in recent news.  Or maybe it's the case that these Orwellian thought-police do understand the difference, but hide under the notability cloak.  In any case, if Wikipedia marches down the road of censored thinking, then it has outlived its usefulness.  Perhaps its time for a new Wiki-based compendium of knowledge where the hurdle for deletion is much higher. Earpol 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable crackpot. -- GWO

Opinions from new users or anonymous users

 * I disagree with this as being appropriate for deletion. Kevin Barrett is becoming more and more like the "Cindy Sheehan" of the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Sheehan started out as just an ordinary person as well, but she certainly deserves her own page now, in spite of similar criticism that she was just after publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.55.129 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep He is an educator trying to teach critical thinking at a time when it seems to be a lost art and his class actually has very little to do with 9/11. The vast majority of "unsubstantiated claims" regarding 9/11 and the War on Terror come from the U.S. government.  Go watch the videos of the towers collapse at virtual freefall speed onto their own footprints and explain to me how that is possible. Listen to and read the testimony of hundeds of New Yorkers who heard multiple explosions before and after the planes hitting and explain to me how it wasn't an inside job.  Wake up folks, governments lie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.35.13 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.120.8.71 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.255.217 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep it. Why not listen to what he has to say? Are we so afraid to consider the questions he brings up? What are we so afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.120.38.150 (talk • contribs)
 * KEEP IT I can't believe you even considered deleting it. If you delete this entry then you may as well shut down this website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.189.131.176 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep He has appeared in national media, and apparently is about to become even higher-profile, since Bill O'Reilly of FOX News was quoted as saying he'd like to see Barrett "murdered and thrown into Boston Harbor". You can agree with Barrett or not--but there is no mistaking that he passes WP:BIO with flying colors. 64.193.3.46 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is a relevant source of information on what has been established as a newsworthy person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.189.126 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep His article promotes discussion.  Conspiracy is politics.  All governments conspire or "plan in secret".  The only real question is to what extent.  As Roman judges would ask in all cases, "Qui bono?" or "who profits".  Follow the money and the real crimminals will be found.  Keep the article and let the truth be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.163.0.42 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.155.185 (talk • contribs).
 * Keepit's a keep. greg2m
 * KEEPWhat is the point of being a free encyclopedia if you are not encyclopedic? That is, you take in all viewpoints, and you engage in the free marketplace of ideas. As I read the piece, it seems quite innocuous -- you are simply reporting that he holds "conspiracy theories" and telling who he is. The problem is always, of course, that what one person calls "unsubstantiated" and "inflammatory" (see below), the next person calls "thoughtful" and "substantial." And what the mainstream calls "false" today, it might well call "true" tomorrow. Therefore, simply explaining who this man is and what he claims is definitely adding to a body of knowledge, harms no one, and gives information when someone wants to know. And THAT's a free encyclopedia.--69.85.11.68 02:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Before voting, read all the nominator's comments on the discussion page. In my opinion he is unable to objectively argue his nomination.  His arguments are fraught with opinion and insults.  Kevin Barrett may be a flash-in-the-pan story, but I strongly believe Wikipedia should not fall victim to subjective editing.  If this article should be deleted, let someone who can separate their beliefs from the subject matter re-nominate, backed-up with a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.56.150 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia is proving again to be nothing but a Zionist propaganda tool. Maybe it's time for people to switch to a censorship free alternative like ZioPedia.org, an online encyclopedia that was specifically created to counter Wikipedias unqualified support for the criminal Zionist regime and its puppet US administration.--Andrew Winkler
 * I am having trouble not violating WP:NPA after reading vile shit such as this, for example, from your censorship-free alternative website. A lot of trouble... - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep He is not a "Coincidence Theorist", and thus deserves an entry. There are many intelligent, patriotic people, both Democrat, Republican, and Independent, who believe there are other "theories" other than what the US government has purported. I will not give my opinion on whether Wikipedia is Zionist/Neo-Con controlled, but if anything that critisizes the Us or Lsrael government is put into the eletion bin....wellll--Swamp Gas
 * Keep less notable people are in this encyclopedia. See Dwayne Wayans for example? 216.141.226.190 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia should not be used to censor "unpopular" opinion. I note also that 60% of New Yorkers surveyed do not accept the official version of the 9/11 Commission, so this hardly qualifies as unpopular, or crazy. The article is reasonable and does not attempt to make judgements on the merit of his claims, only to acknowledge the fact of it. Let's get rid of the thought police. We have enough of that in Washington and the MSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.137.6 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Contrary to the utterly unsubstantiated opinion of your editor urging deletion, Barrett’s claims are substantiated by voluminous evidentiary facts adduced and/or summarized by Scholars For 9/11 Truth.  He raises crucially important issues which need to be rationally considered by citizens of the world, particularly those in the USA where this information has been politically taboo and censored by corporate media. [Ron Rattner, retired attorney] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.45.241 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep it. I haven't read the guy's work, but it seems like he'll become a very small footnote in history, the 21st century incarnation of a long line of American conspiracy theorists. So I think he ought to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honukea (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Until there is someone actually tried and convicted of the attack, ANY question as to who actually ordered (or allowed) the attacks to happen are fair and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Question Authority (talk • contribs)

General Comments

 * Comment As for your argument that the only newsworthy thing about Kevin Barrett is that he generates publicity about himself, isn't that what Ann Coulter and Paris Hilton does? You may not like Kevin or Ann or Paris, that still doesn't change the fact that they all are notable and pass WP:BIO.  Dionyseus 00:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares. No one with any understanding of the way in which Wackypedia is edited and censored would consider it a serious source of information, particularly on a politically sensitive topic. Until Wikipedia names its contributors and editors and published a statement of its accounts with explicit information on all funding sources, it must be taken as a mere propaganda tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.227.181 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - I think those of you who see a conspiracy of "censorship" in this AfD nomination should note that almost all established editors here at Wikipedia have supported keeping this article. Even those of us who think very little indeed of this man and his theories believe it should stay. With that in mind, please be less quick to throw around words like "propaganda tool" and "censorship" in reference to this discussion. It doesn't help your position here. -- H·G (words/works) 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with everyone that this subject appears to meet our notability guidelines quite well and is most certainly deserving of inculsion. The only reason for the formatting was to help organize the discussion since a good deal of anon participants were altering other comments and accidently malforming the AfD. I'm glad to see people that are willing to defend the article, now I hope that they can contribute positively to the article. Yank  sox  10:49, 18 July 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.