Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen G. Bassett


 * 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. SpinningSpark 13:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen G. Bassett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable WP:FRINGEBLP. While the subject of UFO_conspiracy_theory is a valid one for inclusion of Wikipedia, for a biography, we need an assertion of independent notability of the person, not just WP:SENSATIONalized quotes and appearances in agenda-driven documentaries. Awards from WP:FRINGE organizations do not count either. Recognition for WP:MAINSTREAM outlets independent of the "News of the Weird"-type stories currently propping up the biography are necessary to properly couch a biography as WP:NPOV. jps (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 16:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Meets GNG on the basis of the sources in the article already. Also, the nom doesn't give a valid reason for deletion.  Their claim that "we need an assertion of independent notability of the person" has no basis in policy.  Anyway, look at profile in the NY Observer, profile in the Washington Times, profile in Mother Jones, Washington Post 1, and Washington Post 2.  This is a ridiculously untenable nomination. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The argument is simply that the guy is not notable. Discounting the notoriously unreliable and agenda-pushing NY Observer and Washington Times, the "profiles" as such are not biographical profiles of Bassett. They are WP:SENSATIONal news stories about UFO nonsense. Clickbait. jps (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're claiming that the NY Observer and the Washington Times are not reliable sources? Just flat out?  That's silly.  You need to take it to RSN if you want to make such a broad claim.  Furthermore, you can't just dismiss two Washington Post articles and a Mother Jones article as sensationalist clickbait.  It's ridiculous.  No matter what nonsense you care to believe about the other sources, the two WaPo articles are enough to pass the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They're agenda-driven news sources that slant their choices of stories and editorialize their copy to serve a right wing political POV. The narrative that Podesta was a crazed maniac was appearing in both of these publications as of the election last year and it is why these profiles got play. Nothing at all by which to write a WP:BLP1E about. jps (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post is an "agenda-driven news source"? Good luck with that theory at RSN.  And to claim this is BLP1E is kooky.  What's the one event?  The guy is being profiled in the WaPo and you're trying to dismiss that?  Sheesh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DICK. jps (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:PLEASEDONT. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * jps losing an argument on the merits, accuse me of socking. Make your momma proud. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are a little too cocky for your own good. I know who you are, and it is clear that your reading comprehension is not up to the level you might need to do well in college. Be careful. jps (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahahah! You're making that up.  I'm not anyone you think I am, because I'm not socking or evading.  It's just an AfD, friend.  No need to go off the deep end just because your arguments are unconvincing. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm happy to have a conversation about what WP:FRINGEBLPs deserve including on Wikipedia, but if you cannot be bothered to learn the rules associated with these types of articles, it brings to mind WP:CIR. And when you have a static IP like you do, it doesn't take much to look to see who you are. jps (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Really? Even taking into account that there are thousands of people at any given time with access to this network, not to mention the open wifi in the library? You might have some fringe powers yourself. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it up, why not? It helps make train the natural language processor, certainly. jps (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * please explain, I don't fully understand exactly what part of WP:FRINGEBLP overrides WP:GNG. I also don't know where the natural language processor fits in, or exactly how you could figure out who 192.160.216.52, I already ran a trace and could only narrow it down to ~15 people. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGEBLP only asks us to consider carefully what sources we use to confer notability. In particular, avoiding news of the weird sources and sources published by fringe outfits. My argument is that we have WP:SENSATIONalist sources from the mainstream media and fringe sources as the only possible sources for the article. As to questions of identity, don't worry too much about this. I just don't like it when people are evasive like this (you can try to narrow down the search further with some scripts that I will let you discover for yourself). This is incidental to the discussion at hand. jps (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the temptation of being a script kiddie! I see what you are saying, but at the same time practically every piece of 'news' that is ever published is sensationalist to some extent, I just can't see why that discounts the use of these media sources, which ought to be enough coverage, if they can be used. I understand that fringe sources themselves are unreliable, but I don't think the notability argument here rests on those sources. The Guardian for example is regarded as one of the UK's more independent and reliable newspapers, it's not a tabloid bogpaper like the Sun or the Daily Mail and therefore not known for sensationalism. I Think the NYT article gives some context, basically this person is notable for being a lobbyist, the fact he is a crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut lobbyist is interesting, and itself arguably sensationalist, but well covered in reliable media sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)  — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue: UFOs, as a topic, are properly discussed in the context of evaluating evidence, pseudoscience, and occasionally as a psycho-social phenomenon. The articles that people are hoping to use as evidence of notability for this person do not even begin to treat the subject in the appropriate way because they are tuned towards the titillation that is the idea of a lobbyist working on behalf of a wild conspiracy theory. Biographies of living people need to be carefully considered before we delve into them, and when the person in question is claimed to be notable for the fringe-promotion, we look to the relevant epistemic communities to see whether they have had to sit up and take notice. As far as I know, neither NASA, the US Government, nor any scientist has bothered to even entertain this person's ravings. So, where does that leave us? Incapable of writing a truly WP:NPOV article on the subject. We do the reader a disservice if we include the breathless reporting done by third-string political journalists writing self-interest stories on weirdos. Since Bassett does not feature as a prominent figure in the normal evaluations of personalities within UFOlogy as discussed by the WP:MAINSTREAM organizations that delve into them (say, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we're left with our hands tied trying to write a neutral biography on this subject. That's why we have these rules. It is preferable to delete articles that don't have the sources from the mainstream that can make an evaluation of the topics. jps (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep fringe or no, this was one of the first and most relevant crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut lobbyists in the US. (as opposed to an amatuer crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut, which is what came before), He has featured in 14 documentary films about crazy UFO stuff, been substantially featured in national news. He has also setup highly dubious associations and a Political Action Committee to drive some kind of crazy UFO spotting conspiracy into politics, which is fascinating, and therefore widely reported. This clearly meets WP:GNG, and I will point out that WP:FRINGEBLP specifically says: "There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs". If this guy was not a crazy UFO spotting conspiracy nut he would not be notable, but he is, and he is. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You know of a WP:FRIND source on the guy? jps (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A what? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I was actually going to !vote to keep it, but then I saw WP:NFRINGE in one of jps's comments and read it. It matches with my impression of the nominally reliable sources used in this article as what I would generally call "filler" news stories. They only cover this subject because he's unusual, not because he's ever done anything noteworthy. So with that in mind, I'm not seeing anywhere near the coverage I would expect for a notable person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. The notability of the subject is marginal, while the article, in its current state, in 100% promo 'cruft, which also happens to be in part self-cited and to advocate for a fringe topic. Sample content:
 * Between 2004 and 2010 Paradigm Research Group produced six X-Conferences (Exopolitics Conferences) in the Washington, DC metro area. The first five were held at the Hilton Hotel in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The sixth conference was held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.


 * I don't see anyone rewriting this page, so deletion is the right course of action here, per WP:PROMO / WP:FRINGE. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not against TNT. I also think the article is rather badly written. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * are you changing you !vote to "delete" then? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

,, , BLP applies at AfD as it does everywhere; it should be possible to discuss a subject without insulting them.  DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete My first reaction on seeing that it had WaPo, MotherJones, and Politico as sources was "Keep". Then I read the sources (completely) and began to understand other editors concerns. Every source chooses a "wow, you won't believe this" sensationalist angle for the story. We have no in depth analysis, response, or critique of the subject, his work, or his role outside of what is essentially one event ("America's First ET Lobbyist!"). How could we write a full, balanced and objective biography based on that? A majority of sentences in the resulting pseudo-biography would have to begin with "Basset claims...". Yes, we should have articles on notable people who are notable for fringe beliefs. But we need sources that demonstrate the subject has lasting impact rather than being examples of high quality clickbait. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: the Washington Post and New York Observer articles provide substantial coverage. But ජපස's argument compels me to discount Mother Jones as "news of the weird", and to reduce the value of the WP and NYO sources. Overall, this is not enough to establish notability. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just glancing and it all looks ok, after reading it becomes a nn fringe individual with ref bombing by a likely coi editor. Szzuk (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:NFRINGE: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." True, basset is a person, not a theory, but he's fringe, a crank, advocate of nonsense.  There is  a full profile in the Washington Post, a long, INDEPTH interview with details of his bio and extra-terrestrial activism: UFO truthers want to make Roswell an issue for 2016. Meet their lobbyist.  then there is a full profile in Mother Jones, an edgier take  than the Post:   [ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/stephen-bassett-ufo-lobbyist-congress-aliens/ This Is What It’s Like to Be the Only Man in Washington Lobbying for UFOs], and several more in similarly reputable publications.  There is simply too much coverage of this crank and his career  to justify deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2018 (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.