Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Barrett (scholar)

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barrett (scholar)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined to speedy this as a CSD G4, because only around half of the text is identical to the version that was deleted in 2014. That said, I do believe this should be deleted. Most of the sources for the new content fail RS by a wide margin (mostly blogs and conspiracy theory websites). He seems to be mostly notable for a single event in 2006, although he has milked that into speaking engagements that might push him just beyond BLP1E if they had more mainstream coverage, but I'm not seeing it in the article. At any rate, it's different enough from the previous version to prevent me speedying it, and I think we need a new discussion of his current notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Basically per WP:BIO1E. The New York Times 2006 article is substantial, reliable, and primarily about the subject, but it's only a single source and only about that one event. Although the article is larded with many other sources, the rest appear to be primary, highly local, and/or not reliable. Certainly the congressional campaign and domestic violence claims do not rise to the level of notability and cannot be used to save this from BIO1E. And his academic career was over almost before it began, so WP:PROF is no help. The only other potential notability is through his speaking engagements, but I don't see significant independent coverage of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable conspiracy nut.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a conspiracy theorist/crank who fails WP:SIGCOV because sourcing is FRINGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E also agree with other AfD participants above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.