Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathanael Kapner


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nathanael Kapner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete. Subject not notable. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - subject meets threshold of notability for article inclusion.--John Cline (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Struck !vote and commented anew, below.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how? At the moment, except for a very few sentences in the Ynetnews piece, the article relies on one third-party source, Summit Daily News, a local paper for a county with a population of 30,000. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My assessment is based on a google search of the subject, and not exclusively on the sources included in the article. In my opinion, the search returned enough coverage in independent reliable sources to justify the subject's inclusion.--John Cline (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links to some of these RS, please? As it stands now, the subject seems little more than a lone conspiracy theorist, with no following or any claim to notability. Being a lunatic in and of itself doesn't make an individual unworthy of Wikipedia, but being a lone loon does. Scaleshombre (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Amen on the "lone loon exclusion". I think that makes for great policy, myself, though I'd be a "loon" to put such a thing forth. And though it would do wonders in keeping the overwhelming amount of cruft out of Wikipedia, (YAY), it would not exclude this subject. While, he's not famous, like Farrakhan, or Moore, he is far from "lonely". Normally, my prejudice would keep me away from this discussion; I stumbled here by my own intoxication, and I don't mean by drugs or alcohol, but my !vote was misplaced, here. I don't like the subject, nor would I read the publications that write of him. And the closer I look, into the subject, the less I see to defend.  I've stricken my !vote above, and changed it to merge, below. Best regards to all.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge usable content into List of conspiracy theories and redirect Nathanael Kapner there with R from merge, R from person, maybe with R to list, and also add Unprintworthy. I don't see how he doesn't meet the guidelines for a redirect and perhaps a WP:DABMENTION along the way.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is rather sad actually. Since it's rather sad, I'd rather leave the guy alone, and I'd want an indication this his notability is so high that we kind of must include him to fulfill our encyclopedic mission. I don't see that. Clicking in the link to find refs, the ones that come up first are: YouTube - Daily Stormer - Daily Stormer - Real Jew News - Age of Treason - Stormfront... ugh, that's enough. We don't need to publicize this stuff when its not really necessary. Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm also having a BLP tussle with an editor who wants to keep some sad information that is arguably not ref'd well enough and anyway is gossip. Articles like this tend to attract BLP problems. It's worth it if the person is truly notable. For a person who is at best marginal if that, another reason why it is not worth it. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete When most of the coverage on a subject comes from a paper serving a county of less than 30,000 we lack any signs of notability. Clearly no reliable 3rd party sources putting Kapner in a larger context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - we achieve a sort of "censorship by systemically biased consensus" when we delete subjects by !votes such as are seen here. How else could we eradicate mention of subjects with verifiable knowledge that meets or exceeds our threshold of notability for "nopage inclusion", to exclude it from this living work that endeavors being the sum of all such knowledge, with !votes that amount to "higher bars" for topics we do not like? While it can not be said that this subject fails our criteria for inclusion, it can be said that we shouldn't include the topic unless it exceeds our inclusion criteria by a margin so great that we otherwise must include it, or that sources used to demonstrate its coverage must not only be editorially independent and reliable in statements of fact, but also, since we don't like the topic anyway, that sources must exceed an arbitrary circulation value of, say; for example: 30,000? Or, one might say, that no 3rd party coverage exists that describe the subject in a sufficiently large context; itself, dispelled by  this book  alone?  Any who say, knowing an opposite truth, that this subject does not even qualify to be kept as a redirect, even to an article where they are not, as yet, mentioned, is simply being intellectually dishonest in favor of their own biased preference. My own bias is better served with this subject blotted out, but I am remiss to achieving that end by self-serving means.  I find nothing to relish but am not afraid to tell a man digging: he digs with a spade.  Having said all of this, I'll bid thee adieu, saying: "do carry on", lest you've strength to be true.--John Cline (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Binlerce yolculuk ayaklarımda bir mil yürümekle başlar ve ona bütün dünya deri kaplıdır. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The book that you point to as providing sufficient context is something that fails basic reliable-sources tests. It's a vanity press. Nor can we claim that it is so influential that even its unreliable content must be seen as establishing notability; judging by its review count and sales rank on Amazon, it may very well have sold zero copies through the biggest bookstore in history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * delete Delete NN not enough RS. While I too am saddened by the state of his soul, even his conspiracy views are NN. He is but one of many disaffected by modern life. In a way, I'm reminded of a Harlan Ellison story, The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Dloh  cierekim  10:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete sourcing is not adequate to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree the sourcing is not there to support a proper article on this person. The bulk of the citations in the article are to Summit News, a local newspaper for a fairly small area with a population of about 30,000. I don't think that's enough - it implies he's a local personality and nothing more, and local newspapers aren't the best of sources for sensitive content. Of the other sources just quotes him as a representative of a certain kind of conspiracy theory and  is a primary source. There are BLP implications of writing an article about someone which basically makes them out to be crazy and/or ostracised, and I agree with Herostratus above that it isn't worth it in this case. I don't see why we should mention him in an article about conspiracy theories in general, he's not remotely well known enough for that.  Hut 8.5  21:12, 3 May 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.