Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Ryan (WTC whistleblower)


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan (WTC whistleblower)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Given that the sources that the articles cite are his own works, there are major original research problems, not to mention that it doesn't really establish notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a myspace page for conspiracy lunatics. Nick mallory (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment LOL. Asserting that there exists a conspiracy, regardless of who or what it involves does not automatically make a person a 'lunatic', Nick Mallory. Besides, if we applied that line of reasoning to all articles on Wikipedia, we'd have deleted every conspiracy-related article long ago. ;) Alloranleon (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against articles on popular conspiracies, so long as they give proper weight to the overwhelming evidence that Neil Armstrong DID land on the moon, the early middle ages really DID exist in history and that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is NOT a shape shifting alien etc. Your quick step of straw man/thin end of the wedge logical fallacies doesn't address the issue of this man's palpable lack of credibility or notability. Nick mallory (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. A Google News search shows that Ryan got a burst of widespread WP:RS coverage in 2006, mostly in debunking the conspiracy theories. Beyond that he's mainly covered by the conspiracy sites. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nick mallory is right, Wikipedia isn't Myspace, and it seems quite a lot of this is original research. Happy New Year!  The Helpful One (Talk)(Contributions) 14:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. By the way, someone may want to note that the creator of the article is spamming the discussion page for the article with Youtube videos on Mr. Ryan. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per • Gene93k and Redfarmer. Alloranleon (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh delete Avruch talk 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A site manager for Environmental Health Laboratories who wrote a letter to NIST and sued his company? Delete. RxS (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notable It has been written very much about this person regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement, and that was the reason why for example I made a search on this person here on Wikipedia, so I would say he is a notable person. You can for example read about him in Washington Post and American Free Press to just mention a few and is also mentioned in several articles here on Wikipedia. Twilek (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit summary doesn't help but give me the impression that the user is inflating the importance of the person (himself?). "Prominent"?  And with all due respect to you, Twilek, you've made no edits since March 2007 prior to your comment on this article.  That's a little odd, as far as I'm concerned.  --Nlu (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What so odd about not being a very active editor on wikipedia? The only reason why I did a comment on this deletion was that I actually made a search on this person, because I read about him in some other articles and have seen him in a movie lately, and when I saw that the article was up for deletion I just wanted to say that he may be notable because people may search for him (or it can be just me, sure. I actually do not know). If that is not enough, sure, go ahead and delete this article, I actually do not care that much, I just wanted to say that people may search for him, nothing more... But I think it is a bit odd that you judge my opinion from how active I am on wikipedia, to this day I have always thoght that the great thing about Wikipeida is that everyone can contribute, not just a chosen crowed of extra active elite editors. I actually often do some minor edits on wikipedia as anonymous user, just because I'm just too lazy to login ;) but this time i actually logged in, because I know that people can be picky if you comment deletions and discussions anonymously, but then I get shit for it anyway ;-) Twilek (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, unsourced, rants, probably originally written by the subject, and quoted in unreliable sources.  Aside from that, a reasonable article. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (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.