Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webster G. Tarpley

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 no consensus-- Keep AdamBiswanger1 03:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webster G. Tarpley

Another non notable conspiracy theorist. Not a single reliable source present. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Peephole 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability outside of the Walled Garden of conspiracy-theory blog sites. Wikipedia requires sourcing to sources meeting the reputability requirements of WP:RS. This article fails to cite to a single reliable source. Violates WP:BIO and WP:Notability. A Google search of "Webster G. Tarpley" fails to return a single reputable source in the first 25 pages of returns reviewed. Morton devonshire 00:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Haven't made up my mind yet on this one. His top book has rank 35,460 on Amazon which isn't that low. See http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-First/dp/0930852311/sr=1-1/qid=1160007723/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2968837-7452164?ie=UTF8&s=books and his other books have rankings with a similar order of magnitude. I am however, unable to find any WP:RS sources about him online. If anyone can find them, it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 00:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His top book has a rank of 25K on Amazon and 16K at B&N. I would think that New York Magazine would qualify as a reliable mainstream source. It's no fly-by-night conspiracy rag. *Sparkhead 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be missing something here, where is the New York Magazine reference? JoshuaZ 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, a round-up of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. He gets about twelve paragraphs. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Synthetic Terror was already deleted as NN (only in 37 libraries nationwide) and I fail to see how he passes notability requirements without it.--Rosicrucian 00:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rosicrucian. --Aude (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does it ever end? --Tbeatty 02:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rosicrucian. --Aaron 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Rosicrucian — both make convincing arguments. CWC(talk) 10:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Rosicrucian Kedlav 10:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't make up my mind. His book on Bush (41) is terribly researched and often contradicts other sources (or from what I can see draws connections out of thin air) and there are a gazillion online mirrors, meaning his wrong factoids keep finding their way into articles. It's somewhat helpful to have an article on him, then, showing the breadth and, er, depth of his career. He's been closely associated with Lyndon LaRouche for most of it. Notable nut? --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung's observation about the article in New York Magazine and concerns raised directly above. JoshuaZ 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding Rosicrucian's argument, keep in mind some of the votes for the book called for merge of the information into this article. Also note that the claim in the deletion discussion for that book that Borders lists it as out of print was a complete falsehood. Borders lists 1st edition OOP. The 3rd edition is still in print and sells at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon. Minor, but also note the library search now shows 44 libraries for that book, and 227 libraries carrying his unauthorized Bush Bio. *Sparkhead 12:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's a slight bump for Synthetic Terror, and admittedly we're not trying to resurrect the Synthetic Terror article. I don't feel that deletion was undeserved though. He might meet notability requirements for the Bush Sr. bio, but it's bad enough that I've already spotted Wikipedia articles citing it as if it were a reliable source. If I were to assume for a moment that the Bush book is notable, the article is still grossly undersourced and needs assertations of his notability that don't come from conspiracy theorists. As Morton said, we're not here to pander to a Walled Garden.--Rosicrucian 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, Morton, and Rosicrucian. - Crockspot 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes all points mentioned nomination:
- WP:BIO: Passes per The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. and Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Like him or not, thinking he's crazy or not, he has made a name for himself in the field regarding government conspiracy history. "Who Killed Aldo Moro" established an international audience (in 1978), published in both Italian and English (at least).
- WP:RS: New Yorker already covered above. He's on nationwide radio shows often, and international ones as well. He's been on CNN, during the whole Charlie Sheen conspiracy issue [1]. He was a panel member for Axis for Peace, a gathering that got international mainstream media coverage (though not much in USA, but this is not us.wikipedia.org). This last point also goes toward proving WP:BIO.

Comment There are a couple of problems with Sparkhead’s assertions, a) Tarpley and his 911 conspiracy theory got about a page of copy in the New York Magazine, NOT the New Yorker as Sparkhead asserts, BIG DIFFERENCE (one is national, the other a local weekly). b) “nationwide radio shows often” Being on Alex Jones’s radio show does not pass WP:BIO. Brimba 08:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:V: What would you like to verify? That he's written books? That he has a radio show? What is the failure here?

Now, while the article itself may not detail these references well enough, that simply means it is in need of cleanup, not deletion. *Sparkhead 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.UberCryxic 18:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparkhead Zagalejo 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sparkhead. Tarpley is a notable author with multiple publications, all easily verifiable, and a well-known proponent of certain conspiracy theories. --Hyperbole 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established and verified per Sparkhead. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sparkhead has demonstrated that all qualifications for retention per policy have been met. Closing admin, please apply less weight/credence to any non-policy based or non-policy citing deletion reasons, in light of recent slew of anti-conspiracy theory AfDs. · XP · 21:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep sort of a tough call here. His achievements seem pretty notable, and I'd say "[his book] broke open the affiliation of the Red Brigades with the neofascist lodge P2." seems like a pretty noteworthy achievement. Lots of Google hits as well. However, we haven't been able to find too many external reviews of his work, and conspiracy theorists tend to have a web prescence rather disproportianate to their overall notability. However, I'm satisfied enough to vote weak keep. -Elmer Clark 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, Rosicrucian. Sparkhead's assertions are simply incorrect, as has been shown several times on this page, including below. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sandy 23:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rosicrucian. Tarpley is a minor player within one niche of conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the people who are voting "delete per nom" offer some rebuttals to Sparkhead's comments? Zagalejo 01:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For WP:BIO, Sparkhead asserts one of his works as notable, but the passage he quotes regards "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." which we simply haven't seen. For WP:RS we have been given one reliable source to assert his noteworthiness and one reliable source does not an article make. As far as WP:V the article makes unsourced claims about "Who Killed Aldo Moro?" that need to be backed up with cites. Now, perhaps this is all cleanup work. But it is cleanup work that nobody has undertaken in over a year, and if the article can be brought up to snuff the onus is upon those that want to save the article.--Rosicrucian 03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also cleanup work that nobody requested in over a year. The talk page is, for all purposes, blank. Put in {{fact}}, {{cleanup}}, {{unencyclopedic}}, whatever. Assume that the article was created in good faith, act in good faith by putting up requests/warnings for improvements before rushing to delete. This stampede to AfD is ridiculous, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. *Sparkhead 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's being requested now. If you believe it's this easy to address the deletion reasons, nothing is stopping you from doing so while the AfD is in process, and if that can be demonstrated you might sway some votes.--Rosicrucian 14:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is request with a gun to the article's head. A tagged request would let someone do it at a decent pace, and wouldn't use the time of everyone voting on an AfD. This approach requires someone to rush to research and put things together. I have done it before, possibly turning a delete into a keep. I don't have the time at the moment to do it properly. There's a reason the deletion process mentions tagging an article before bringing it into the deletion process. Yes, the article can be recreated if fixed "offline", but it's all a matter of a civil approach to improving articles. *Sparkhead 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one that proposed the deletion, though I'm endorsing the proposal. The bottom line is that you've claimed this is a matter for cleanup rather than deletion. I'm countering by asking that you show us that, and if you haven't the time to do so perhaps you should approach editors that do.--Rosicrucian 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom… (yes, per nom) And if you believe this kind of stuff, I have the title to the Golden Gate Bridge in my pocket… All joking aside, maybe I should write a book: The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapses, all a part of a U.S. Government Conspiracy... Yes, the Tarpley article is content that Wikipedia should not have as a respectable encyclopedia. The "New York Magazine reference" is not convincing. Therefore, Delete. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable writer of a non notable "book".--MONGO 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peephole, Rosicrucian, and Morton Devonshire. -- Huysman 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleter as per all that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others and nom, non notable. Just don't salt unless someone actually wants to do the work, but considering it hasnt been done, its time to delete. --Nuclear Zer0 15:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, more notable than some of the other conspiracy theorists we used to have articles on, but still not encyclopedic. GabrielF 17:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brimba 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per elmer.--csloat 10:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that articles on people with controversial political views are magnets for defamation, negative labeling and other violations of WP:LIVING. KleenupKrew 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so you would be in favor of deleting George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, and Alan Dershowitz, right?--csloat 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One, their articles aren't in any danger of being cluttered up with things like Category:Conspiracy Theorists and Category:Anti-Semites if kept. This article is. Two, they're obvious public figures. Tarpley is marginally public at best. Did anyone ask him whether he wanted an article on Wikipedia that may possibly wind up with negative information about him and that he will have to spend the rest of his life watching? KleenupKrew 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the biog articles get cluttered with crap categories; it's a good argument for CfD, not AfD. And people don't get asked whether they want wikipedia articles about themselves - it's one of the costs of being a public figure, "marginal" or no. I don't particularly like this guy but he seems at least as notable as the hundreds of porn stars that have articles about them... cheers,csloat 06:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody brings up the porn stars to try to justify conspiracy cruft. Look, the fact that there's a bunch of porn star articles doesn't justify a non-notable article. You can't just say "well, X has an article, so why is mine being deleted?" If anything, it just means there are a bunch of porn star articles that should probably be deleted.--Rosicrucian 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you won't get much argument from me there (and I hope you don't think this is "my" article).--csloat 18:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tarpley's SYNTHETIC TERROR book is now ranked #1,101 in sales at Amazon following a 5 star review from their top reviewer of political non-fiction works, Robert Steele, who noted that it was "...the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon.". Given the volume of sales and readers, and the prominent review gaining further new readers, how does Tarpley fail to meet criteria of notability? The book is also ranked #288 at Amazon.france. I didn't see the discussion removing his SYNTHETIC TERROR volume itself, but wouldn't have a problem seeing comments about that book merged into his bio. Anthony Thorne 07:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The google video of his appearance on CSpan has been viewed 47,000 times. Synthetic Terror has already sold over 10,000 copies; the average run for books in the US is around 3,000. The #288 ranking on Amazon.fr is for books in English, it was as high as 642 in livres en francais until it temporarily sold out. I would also like to see what the SYNTHETIC TERROR Wiki page looked like. Google returns 248,000 hits on "Webster Tarpley". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.32.26 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

While I can admire your efforts to improve the article with your recent flurry of edits, I must remind you that as you haven't cited your sources on the added info you've actually hindered the article in a way.--Rosicrucian 16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Anthony Thorne's comment above, notability and verifiability should no longer be in dispute. How about if we discuss the neutrality of the efforts to delete this page now...? JPLeonard 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Thorne's comment asserts the subject's notability, but that in no way means we can now make claims in the article without citing sources, because that does violate WP:V.--Rosicrucian 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify the claims in the article you wish verified. JPLeonard 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: Neutrality. I'm adducing statistical evidence here that the effort to delete this is not neutral, presumably political bias. I've gone to this category, Category:United States writer stubs. I took the first ten writers there, along with a rough measure of article length.

Ace Atkins 4 lines
Albert Bigelow Paine 2 screens
Alec Foege 5 lines
Alexander Chee 1 screen
Alexander King (author) 7 lines
Alexander Masters 2 lines
Alexander O. Smith 1 screen
Alfred H. Bill 2 screens
Alfred Kazin 1 screen
Alice McDermott 1 screen

Not one of the 10 has been recommended for deletion. None of them appear to be particularly notable. (Tarpley now has 3 screens of content so maybe this is no longer even a stub.)
I conclude bias is shown. You say your deletion motion is neutral? Let's talk about that now. JPLeonard 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: JPLeonard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Webster G. Tarpley
Ace Atkins, maybe not notable;
Albert Bigelow Paine was a distinguished author;
Alec Foege, possibly non-notable, though AP did review one of his books;
Alexander Chee, possibly non-notable;
Alexander King (author) wrote a best-seller back in the sixties;
Alexander Masters won a Whitbread prize last year;
Alexander O. Smith, possibly non-notable;
Alfred H. Bill, I can't tell, and am getting bored;
Alfred Kazin has a biography in American National Biography;
Alice McDermott wrote a best-seller in 1999.

If you want to, recommend the non-notables for deletion. There are famous conspiracist writers: Milton William Cooper, David Icke, maybe Thierry Meyssan; Tarpley just is not one of them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly fails WP:BIO; remember that a Google test is only useful as a gauge of negatives in this context. Tewfik^Talk 01:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm open to discussion on what needs to be adjusted or rectified with the Tarpley article, and also what was 'wrong' (sorry if I missed a lengthy prior discussion) with the entry on his key book. I'm especially curious as to why the entry on 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR couldn't have been framed to include equal sides of the debate on its validity, i.e positive and critical, rather than the complete removal of the subject. I'd also like to reconfirm what actually needs source citing in the current article, with - again - apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Tarpley has been getting more attention and positive reviews lately than Icke, and has greater credibility, unless Wikipedia currently exists to solely republish the official story about current political events. False Flag terrorist activity is documented - see links to Daniele Ganser's European work if I need to bring them in - and Tarpley has been quoted by Steele as the current English-language expert on the topic. Again, I don't see the rationale for complete deletion over a pro/con page discussing both sides. Anthony Thorne 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You say "clearly fails WP:BIO." At WP:BIO it says "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles... Published authors... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Just check Synthetic Terror on Amazon and you will see multiple independent reviews. 44 reviews in all. Most of them raves; average is 5 stars. Google hits a gauge of negatives? The links are due to interest in his work. Anyway the argument is specious; it would mean deleting the bio's of infamous figures. There are currently 5 Google news items on Webster Tarpley. You have to search on "Webster Tarpley," not "Webster G. Tarpley." I repeat. Will one of the deleters please give us a hint what are the claims they want the keepers to verify? It is pretty clear that a lot of people want to shoot the messenger because they don't like the message. Thanks, I don't want to recommend hundreds of non-notable writer stubs for deletion. Let the deleters here go do it. But some people DO want to delete Tarpley, because they notably dislike what he has to say.JPLeonard 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you're citing things like personal webpages on Tripod. Thus, quite a few of your sources do not pass WP:RS which is required for WP:V. Beyond that, you'd do well to assume good faith.--Rosicrucian 02:36, 10 October 2006 (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.