Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Barrett (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   delete. There were a substantial number of keeps but for the most part these either failed to understand the requirements of the GNG or else failed to respond to counter claims that they do not meet GNG. I caution anyone from following the link to ref#2 which set off my security software for attempting to run an untrusted application. SpinningSpark 12:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor conspiracy theorist not notable by WP standards, fails WP:BIO. With the exception of one incident in 2006 (see WP:BLP1E for why one incident isn't enough), links are either to primary material, a student newspaper (not WP:RS), other non-WP:RS sources, or refer to a minor and badly failed House candidacy in 2008 (fails WP:BIO for politicians). Page is listed in the "9/11 conspiracy theory" category, which artificially inflates the number of pages linking to it. Note that the previous AfD unleashed a truly remarkable amount of sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry from the conspiracy woodwork and this is likely to happen again. Fleenier (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep On the keep side we have a lot of RS refs in this article. On the delete side many of those refs (Chi Trib, CBS, AP) relate to the initial incident. The congressional race doesn't meet the political notability test. On the keep side a number of the refs (Atlantic Monthly, ADL, NY Sun, The Week) relate to his continuing conspiracy theory activity. The ADL ref marks him as one of the nation's leading anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. I think this ultimately (perhaps barely) falls on the keep side. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The discussion here has changed my mind. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof or WP:Politician. Not enough recent sources for pass of WP:GNG as a conspiracy theorist. If anything a WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC).


 * There is a 2013 ref right in the first line from The Week that talks about some of his recent conspiracy mongering. It is accompanied by a 2011 Atlantic Monthly ref and a 2011 ADL ref. Perhaps not enough, I am unsure, but certainly recent (event was 2006). Capitalismojo (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge a few bits. There just isn't enough meat on the WP:RS bone for an entry on Barrett himself, I think. A better approach would be to fold some—and not much—of the recent WP:RS-supported conspiracy material into the relevant pages already existing (International Conference on Hollywoodism, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories, etc.). In each ref, it appears that Barrett is mentioned almost in passing among others sharing the same conspiracy theory, and the emphasis is not on Barrett per se in any biographical sense but the conspiracy theory he (but not he alone) spouts. That is, it is not Barrett himself that the WP:RS are interested in, but the conspiracy theories he shares with others, and the latter is the part that therefore belongs on WP. I think delete-and-merge could well address the matter of Capitalismojo's recent WP:RS sources while not inflating Barrett's quite questionable personal importance to the level of actual notability. Fleenier (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This guy had been quoted by several media outlets (such as Press TV) and has earned the special attention of the Anti-Defamation League. His views have been discussed in the New York Times and his teaching of a course (in which he promoted his 9/11 conspiracy theory) at Madison University drew national attention. In addition, the article documents that his conspiracy theories are not limited to 9/11. He may not be the most well-known conspiracy theorist, but he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Much of what you say is covered under WP:BLP1E; beyond that one incident, there really doesn't seem to be much there except a garden-variety PressTV-affiliated internet crank interviewing internet cranks with sunspot theories and the like. Fleenier (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * His 9/11 conspiracy is certainly what he is best known for, but he has promoted other conspiracy theories as well (such as Israel being responsible for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). His 2008 Congressional campaign is also notable, although its true the sources in this section seems to be lacking. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Under WP:BIO for politicians it's hard to see how Barrett's candidacy is notable: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" It might be worth mentioning as part of the "Hollywoodism" article that Barrett is among those the ADL calls out for attending, as part of the Veterans Today gaggle of loons, but I just don't think there's enough significance here to hang a full Barrett biographical article on, and the conspiracy/antisemitism material is better addressed in other ways.
 * You might find that sunspots link amusing, BTW.
 * Fleenier (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Minor conspiracy theorist who does not pass the one event rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Many of the references on the article are not reliable. Cleary not notable enough. Goblin Face (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - He also writes for PressTV ref.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How does this change the application of WP:GNG? Fleenier (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Barrett authored Press TV article syndicated by Eurasia Review [ref 1, he also appeared on Press tv ref 2[[User:Jonpatterns|Jonpatterns]] (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eurasia Review and some appearances on Iran's tiny state-run English-language blog and internet TV channel -- doesn't really seem to be enough to hang the existence of an entire bio article on, does it. Fleenier (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep He has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See BLP1E; there's a general agreement here that there's essentially no WP:RS coverage of Barrett outside one incident in 2006. Fleenier (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The coverage subject has received subsequent to 2006 is enough move this beyond a BLP1E. -- Pink Bull  21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you point to coverage subsequent to 2006 which would overtly rule out WP:BLP1E?SPACKlick (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2014 (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.