Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich


 * 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. Not enough evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rodney Stich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There appears to be a total of one reliable source that discusses this person; all others are fringe sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLPFRINGE. Location (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No real evidence of notability. The sources just aren't there and the article smells like a form of soft promotion. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands, though at least there's one more RS than most articles like this. It's possible it should stay, but needs the RSes added first - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Added more wp:RS, so per wp:AUTHOR, clause 1, The person... is widely cited by peers or successors. The works of the author have been cited by a best seller, and other books one published by Feral House and the other by New York University Press, in a trade magazine published by Utah Fire and Rescue Academy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Being cited by others does provide some evidence of notability, but he's certainly not "widely cited by peers or successors." Pburka (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Defrauding America has been reviewed by the Conspiracy Digest, describing it as "Defrauding America by Rodney Stich is the Rosetta Stone for decoding nationwide criminal conspiracy. It's also an astonishing contribution to American history. And, without a doubt, it will be the most mind-blowing book you've ever read.". More citations for Defrauding America,    Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A photograph in an article written by Ken Summers, has been attributed to him. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a closer look at those sources; Gyeorgos C. Hatonn is my favorite. Conspiracy theorists frequently cite or give kudos to other conspiracy theorists. I do not believe he has been "widely cited", but that is irrelevant. Implicit in "widely cited by peers or successors" is the idea that those peers and successors are reliable sources themselves. We don't allow fringe sources to dictate the notability of fringe subjects. This fails WP:BLPFRINGE. - Location (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your fringe description, his theories may be fringe, but they are popular, and that makes him notable. Also he has been quoted by mainstream sources too, as per above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking Hatonn off per Location. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me to go through these sources one by one? Well, Conspiracy Digest is the self-published work of artist Uri Dowbenko. For Farrell, see Articles for deletion/Joseph P. Farrell. Douglas Perez's work appears to be self-published and only notes Stich in his recommend reading list (which contains other conspiracy works). Larry Chin cites other conspiracy theorists to support a version of the October Surprise conspiracy theory. Ken Summers writes for Week in Weird; this is essentially the National Enquirer. John Barry Smith's www.montereypeninsulaairport.com is self-published. And as you've noted below, Flying Magazine cites Smith, not Stich. - Location (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * John Barry Smith in his Rupture at Midspan Latches of Cargo Door in Flight Probably Caused by Wiring/Electrical Fault uses a photo from The Real Unfriendly Skies, Saga of Corruption, Smith is an independent investigator who has been quoted by Flying (magazine). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Smith using a photo from Stich's book is hardly a citation, and contributes little to notability. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed one photo alone doesn't contribute to notability, but it isn't one photo alone, here is an independent investigator who uses a photo from Stich's work, how is a photo any worse than quoting text. Yes, Flying (magazine) doesn't quote Stich, it quotes Smith, so Smith is a notable investigator who cites Stich. Even when we take a couple of sources as bad, there still are seven that are kosher, as I see them. Stich has come up with fantastic theories that are taken cognisance, so what a few are National Enquirer type. His Spartacus Educational entry says he has done 2500 radio/ TV shows, internationally, which also makes him notable. SE isn't blacklisted, it is "use with caution" just as any other source better or worse, see this Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Mahabaleshwar it locates it completely wrong. I had written them, yet they ignored. This is a package, a conspiracy theorist, an investigator, an author, if you sum the parts, there is enough to make him notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim is copied nearly verbatim from Stich's book advertisements: . - Location (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Conspiracy Digest is "small but influential",Robin Ramsay (editor) mentions CD so does Adam Gorightly Mark Fenster Richard M. Gilman Richard M. Gilman calls it Small but highly influential. A Orion Publishing Group book also refers to a quotation from it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The advertisements mention reviews by West Coast Review of Books, Dick Gregory, Nexus (magazine) and American Library Association Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Given the lengthy back and forth above I decided to have another look at the article and try to take in the points from the discussion. Unfortunately I still am not seeing much. Once you take out the Fringe sources the case for notability is incredibly weak. Regrettably I stand by my Delete !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2015 (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.