Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rense
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 13 May 2022 (Fix font tag lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 of the debate was keep -- Samir धर्म 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable conspiracy theorist with no verifiable sources to notability. His radio program does not claim any sort of major audience. Good article, just not a notable guy - at least no such notability is etsablished in article. Violates WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Also see WP:BIO Strothra 23:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Being heavily critisiced and also being nn at the same time? certanly notable in its own context. --Striver 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
The guy behind Sightings is non notable? I used to watch that show all the time.CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Apparently not the same Sightings. Still, passes the Google test, [1] my keep vote stands. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:haha I think I heard of that show but I think that it was as non notable as the television station it was on. --Strothra 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is at least as noteworthy as Art Bell-Coast to Coast AM, particularly more because of the political controvercies surrounding him. -- IdeArchos 00:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. User:Strothra seems to be going on a rampage, putting every article User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg has listed on his userpage up for deletion, and now putting articles in which Moshe was one of the most recent editors up for deletion. Jayjg
(talk) 01:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed many articles for deletion today and not all of them may be found on his userpage. As I stated earlier in another discussion, I go with what the article gives me. If it violates, WP:NN, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, I nominate it. I don't rely on outside resources, just what's in the article. If it's not encyclopedic and if that fact isn't supported by references, citations, and firm research then it's junk. I'm sorry if that upsets you but there's nothing I can do about that. It's not against Wikipedia's standards to have high standards for an encyclopedia. Wiki itself promotes the use of good, sound research in its articles. --Strothra 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's absolutely nothing wrong with that kind of exploratory afd nomination strategy, if you think an user has a tendency to post afd-worthy articles Bwithh 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable conspiracy theorist. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable conspiracy theorist. Quite common to run across his latest spewings in the course of doing casual internet research on various conspiracy theories. Bwithh 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Among the top brass of conspiracy theory purveyors. This is the second AfD vote I'm casting today initiated by Strothra. I hope this user evaluates cost/benefit of these nominations and I suggest there are also other ways of ensuring various Wikipedia policies are adhered to apart from nominating AfD. Ways that don't disrupt the exopedians' routines quite as much. __meco 13:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this is not a vote but a discussion. I'm sorry but I don't see an article that large with only one citation, a link to the individual's website, and a link to a blog as establishing notability. Where do WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY factor into your discussion? --Strothra 14:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The line between vote and discussion here is opaque. Those two guidelines weigh in with regards to standards that all articles should strive to adhere to, if necessary by incremental improvements, or preferably by sweeping clean-ups. Deleting substandard articles wantonly however I find discouraging and demoralizing and a poor excuse for not finding better methods to influence the quality of the project. Proposing deletion likewise, however to a lesser degree. __meco 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will note the idea of proposing deletion to a lesser degree although it's not like I commonly put of so many AfD's at once. They are typically spaced out over a greater period. I will also consider any demoralizing impact that AfD's may have although I believe that they serve to create impetus for the initial designing of better articles. Wikipedia is a majorly used source for the common public and poorly researched articles on Wikipedia for any amount of time risks severely contributing to disinformation. Articles should be created after research while being improved upon and expanded over time. Anyway, if you wish to continue discussion about the nature of AfD's we should do so on my user talk page and not in the AfD discussion about this article. --Strothra 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After having discovered today that you instigated an AfD process (in this same category of conspiracism articles) for an article less than three weeks after it was previously nominated I have found grounds to take this to your Talk page. __meco 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will note the idea of proposing deletion to a lesser degree although it's not like I commonly put of so many AfD's at once. They are typically spaced out over a greater period. I will also consider any demoralizing impact that AfD's may have although I believe that they serve to create impetus for the initial designing of better articles. Wikipedia is a majorly used source for the common public and poorly researched articles on Wikipedia for any amount of time risks severely contributing to disinformation. Articles should be created after research while being improved upon and expanded over time. Anyway, if you wish to continue discussion about the nature of AfD's we should do so on my user talk page and not in the AfD discussion about this article. --Strothra 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The line between vote and discussion here is opaque. Those two guidelines weigh in with regards to standards that all articles should strive to adhere to, if necessary by incremental improvements, or preferably by sweeping clean-ups. Deleting substandard articles wantonly however I find discouraging and demoralizing and a poor excuse for not finding better methods to influence the quality of the project. Proposing deletion likewise, however to a lesser degree. __meco 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is a notable personality in news media editorials, his opinions do not make him any more or less deserving of an entry than any others in his field. - EmiOfBrie 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Keep deffinetly.. And could someone please tell me what makes you "notable", sounds like an opinion to me..
- It's not an opinion but it's subjective which is why Wikipedia has standards. See WP:NN and WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE and WP:BIO for the basic standards by which notability may be established. --Strothra 13:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could the proposed removal of the Jeff Rense article be linked with the proposal to remove the "What Really Happened" entry? Both are conspiracy web pages. This proposal stinks and does infact give more credence to Rivero and Renses web sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.29.108 (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Rense is certainly one of the foremost conspiracy/UFO people in the world and that alone should warrant this article to escape deletion. Also, Rense is a very controversial individual and there is no doubt that this has won him much fame/notoriety.
--NiceguyC 00:26, 31 May 2006 (GMT)
- Keep Notable conspiracy theorist. Strothra seems to have a mad on against conspiracy articles. - CNichols 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Jeff Rense is a talk-show host distributed by http://www.gcnlive.com including archives. This meets the following test: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". I consider Jeff Rense passing this alternative test as well: "Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?" This AfD fits with my overall sense that a growing number of Wikipedians are interested in destroying Wikipedia content more than they are interested in writing new content. Rather than debating how to write a good Jeff Rense article, we are debating how best to destroy it. I find it very telling that Prisonplanet.com, Jeff Rense, Infowars.com, and What Really Happened are all the same political movement and all up for deletion at the same time. Looks like censorship to me. —optikos 13:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears Dissident Voice has also been proposed for deletion at this time as part of this conspiracism articles clean-up. __meco 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Tychocat 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, does seem to be verifiable, if a bit crankish. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete have to agree with Strotha on this one. Article has inaccuracies (eg. Rense doesn't live in Santa Barbara and he has two brothers not one), also contains non-neutral POV (eg. "popular", "famous"). I read through WP:BIO and he does not fit any of the main criteria for inclusion in Wiki. Nor does the article contain "a good deal of verifiable information". Where are the sources? And I would have to disagree that he passes the Google Test. The Google hits he gets are NOT about RENSE. Can anyone give some links where we may read information about Rense himself? Or perhaps an interview in which HE is the subject of the interview? DanHSmith
- 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.