Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Spiers


 * 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. A requested move should be initiated as well. (non-admin closure)  J 947  18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Max Spiers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So there appears to be a few problems with this article and they are:


 * WP:GNG is not met. Firstly, there is no assertion of notability. The key points of this article seem to merely state this person was a conspiracy theorist, which I would not consider makes a person notable on its own. There is coverage but not significant coverage of the topic.
 * WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not news. Not only has a claim of significance not been made but there are no references other than media based ones.
 * Tabloid coverage alone does not substantiate the definition of significant coverage.
 * This is a death which is currently under investigation for criminal wrongdoing. The cause of death is undetermined and this article puts WP:UNDUE weight on the implied correlation between him being a conspiracy theorist and his death.


 * → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [Self-Rescind of nomination by nominator.]
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think keep. It may be that his death has made him more significant, but if we delete this, we will probably have to regenerate it soon. J S Ayer (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete or WP:Userify or Rename to Death of (after rewrite). (Remove the speedy as clearly controversial), at risk of tearing it down before it's built, but a mysterious death does not a notable topic make, so no assertion of notability. Express and Metro aren't really the quality of reporting needed to build a bio on such an murky conspiracy based topic where there's competing issues mental health vs conspiracy theories (BBC etc sources are but the notability is from the death). May be just a little WP:TOOSOON for some encyclopaedic perspective on his death which may need deeper research provided by books. Any such medical aspects need a higher level of sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Currently it's WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox ; talk 15:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Wiki-Coffee, I've contested the speedy, this needs to be discussed here as clearly controversial, so speedy A7 doesn't apply. Please revert yourself. Widefox ; talk 09:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I commented on your talk page about the adding of speedy :). Furthermore, The criterion for that speedy deletion tag is that the subject is “unremarkable.” I am not so sure if controversy equates to making something remarkable or not. I have no real views about this matter either way. While I could be persuaded his death might be cause for some sort of input into Wikipedia about it there is nothing indicating the subject is remarkable. The media picks up on people’s deaths all the time and I wouldn’t think this automatically makes one remarkable, notable or significant. I am also very hesitant to include content on Wikipedia that is solely based on tabloid or news articles. In the absence of any academic material on the subject matter it brings to issue the academic integrity of the content. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue I have with the BBC video source is that it's typical BBC3-like light magazine coverage, e.g. with every sentence including the title having question marks, it's at the lower casual end of their coverage and I would argue not a great source per WP:NEWSORG Human interest reporting. which is way short of that needed for MEDRS, or basing a whole bio.  Widefox ; talk 10:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. A well-known figure in the UFO conspiracy world, as described by multiple reliable sources given in the article: the BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph are top-echelon reliable sources. The coverage goes well beyond just reporting his death, including a ten minute BBC mini-documentary that covers his life in considerable detail. Failing meeting those notability criteria, I suggest Death of Max Spiers as another possible title for this article, as his death most certainly meets the GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be prepared to rescind my nomination for deletion if sources that are not tabloid news outlets could be identified which specifically support the subject of this articles notability. As it stands however, merely being reported about by the tabloid press is hardly enough to establish notability; With regards to the thing you have mentioned about him being well known in the conspiracy community, this has not been established by any non-tabloid sources. The academic integrity of this article is nil as there is not a single academic source and as an encyclopaedia, WP:NOTNEWS it doesn’t seem to me it should be filled with content simply because tabloids reported on it. Many people are in short-films on the BBC about an array of different issues (council tax complainers, EU Leave voters remain voters etc.) but that alone would be a very thin thing to base notability on. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 16:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, even if you are to consider the tabloids are a primary source to validate a thin argument for notability there are no secondary sources which are non-tabloid which support it. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither the Guardian nor the Telegraph are tabloids. Both are widely regarded as newspapers of record, with long histories of responsible fact-checking. The BBC's investigative journalism is also highly regarded. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That it may be, however, this does not still provide a remedy from this article not conforming to WP:NOTNEWS. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The subject's notability seems linked to the purportedly mysterious nature of his death and conspiracy theories spawned as a result. I wonder if that death does not fall under WP:BIO1E. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable UFOlogist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as Death of Max Spiers. His death is notable, but his life was not so much. bogdan (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please can you reason how it's notable? Widefox ; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename as Death of Max Spiers as suggested. There are enough bona fide non-tabloid reliable sources for that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not rename. Noted today on BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39077231. Davidkt  (talk | contribs) (adding signature. Previously unsigned.)
 * The BBC source isn't that reliable per guideline (see my comment above). Widefox ; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that perhaps that I’ve quoted too many policies without legitimising my arguments for why this article should be deleted, so I apologize for that.

I’d think that objectively speaking we should look at this matter as what qualifies for encyclopaedic content. In this case the subject of this article became noticed by the news for one event, that is his death, but otherwise he would be non-notable private individual. The assertion of credibility is that he was a “well known conspiracy theorist” but there is no academic evidence to suggest that he is a noteworthy conspiracy theorist. The other argument I would raise is that the focus of the sources is around the events surrounding his death and not the person in of itself. But even with this considered to say that a death specifically of this person is notable is at best a shallow assertion. There is the issue of UNDUE weight being placed onto the notion that him being a conspiracy theorist is linked to his death despite sources indicating otherwise. '''The fact is this person is not a notable conspiracy theorist in respect of academic sources or even retrospectively based on tabloid sources. His death could be notable by the standard of primary sources however, is not asserted by non-tabloid secondary sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be for documenting news articles. → '''(talk to me!) (contributions) 09:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I have rescinded my nomination for speedy delete per comments found here. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 10:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep More than enough reliable sources to establish notability, (1) BBC News (2) Telegraph (3) Guardian (4) Independent --Iantresman (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Iantresman Except the BBC source isn't that reliable per my comment above. WP:NOTNEWS is also an issue. Widefox ; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if the BBC source was the only source. But we have have several broadsheets who seem to find the subject matter notable. In my opinion, that satisfy the notability criteria, and I am fine if it falls short of other editor's standards. --Iantresman (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently this is a magnet for poor sources with speculative titles (Express, DailyMail, Metro "Who killed conspiracy theorist Max Spiers? Here's the top theories"). Clearly WP:NOT. Separating assertions of notability 1. Reporting on the inquest (Telegraph etc) is WP:PRIMARYNEWS (i.e. we don't count primaries for notability, and the BBC source is investigative so per PRIMARYNEWS "Investigative reports" may be strictly called a primary source), 2. his bio is clearly not notable 3. but his death may be (but it's WP:TOOSOON to know if it avoids WP:BIO1E "major role in a minor event"). The interplay between these aspects of the bio is tabloid fodder (speculation in sources) which aren't a good mix for a bio (WP:SYN/WP:OR/WP:CRYSTALL here), but IMHO are nothing to do with subjective judgements but a conflation of the assertions of notability. Widefox ; talk 02:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - As per arguments above. - hahnch e n 20:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: At least temporarily. Admittedly, I had never heard of the man until his death, the death in combination with the investigations means that this may be notable, even if notability is not yet firmly established. Justin Eiler (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If notability is not yet firmly established, which I agree with, doesn't that mean the strongest argument for keeping is actually WP:ATA i.e. one to avoid? and as WP:NOTTEMPORARY shouldn't we just say it's not notable now? Widefox ; talk 02:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that there's a paradox at play here - I agree with those who say that this person doesn't fulfil the requirements for being included on Wikipedia; on the other hand, IF he is removed, that would automatically fit in with those people who claim there are conspiracies out there - including a conspiracy to hide the news. Then there would be a need for an article about the "controversy" of removing this article, which would need to be explained by re-instating this article.  In other words, it's not a topic for Wikipedia - but it very well could end up being one IF the article is removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.25.244 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No paradox - if deleted then this AfD remains as a record of the arguments, including that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Widefox ; talk 01:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: He is gaining increased interest for his work and media attention for his death. The story is interesting and I'm sure as the investigation into his death develops, there will be more information to add to the article. 188.39.152.34 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:INTERESTING. Widefox ; talk 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG. coverage and sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ Daily Mail is not good per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220 generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles .. .  Widefox ; talk 09:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:FRINGE dominates the majority of this article (currently) - 1. his beliefs, 2. theories of others about his death. This is an NPOV / weight problem. Widefox ; talk 11:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is harder than I thought to get this thing objective lol. I am trying if you could give me a copyedit I would appreciate it. Lots of the news articles are puffery trying to get it down to the most objective ones. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 10:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Better. Changed my !vote. Quick copyedit done. Balance is better, but without facts of death (inquest) this is built on OR that it's psychosis (drug induced). That caveat aside, noms withdrawn so nothing to see here. Widefox ; talk 12:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Rescinded nomination: Since nom I have completely overhauled the article so it conforms to the issues I first raised. Thanks. → (talk to me!) (contributions) 12:29, 2 March 2017 (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.