This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Cognition 2 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

• Keep. Berlet is an investigative journalist best known for his critical coverage of Lyndon LaRouche. A person is not a neologism. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
• Keep. This is barely worthy of a response. Cognition (talk • contribs) is a supporter or member of the LaRouche movement, a political cult headed by Lyndon LaRouche. Chip Berlet is an investigative journalist and researcher who specializes in tracking rightwing movements like the LaRouche organization, and he is therefore someone they perceive as an enemy. For that reason, Cognition is trying to have his Wikipedia entry deleted. In addition, the arbitration committee has ruled in two separate cases that LaRouche supporters are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, or to further his cause. This VfD is in clear violation of those rulings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Your ad hominem reasoning is barely worth a response. Just because you happen to get something published doesn't make you notable enough for a Wikipedia entry automatically. Cognition 2 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

• Keep This is either POV-pushing or someone sorely misguided as to notability, neologisms, and Wikipedia. I am prepared to assume good faith and suggest the former, though other actions do lead me to doubt that... This is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at its worst. smoddy 2 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
  • This page is on VfD because he is not notable, which is evident in the tiny number of hits he generates on google. [1] Cognition 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
    • I shall make several points, for posterity's sake:
      1. There are 32900 pages on Google for me. That's plenty high enough for "notability".
      2. Notability is not a policy. See Wikipedia:Importance.
      3. Verifibility is a policy. Look at the references. This is verifiable.
      4. Would you care to explain the neologism comment? smoddy 2 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
      • • Non-notable, not important, same thing here. Hardly anyone read his book. And the reviews on Amazon are quite revealing. [2] Cognition 2 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
          • I said they were the same thing. Try reading the page. Or try clicking on Wikipedia:Notability. Then see where you end up. Then read. smoddy 2 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
            • • • I read it and I still think he's non-notable. Cognition 2 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
                  • Then you fail to understand that non-notability is not a criterion for deletion, however much you may like it to be. smoddy 2 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Invalid listing, WP:POINT. — mark ✎ 2 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by User:Cognition. He has attempted to insert Lyndon LaRouche POV in the article. When that failed he retaliated with this nomination. He originally claimed that the article is "clearly a non-notable neologism", which makes just as much sense as anything else he's had to say about this. Quale 2 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Ambi 3 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has plenty of criticism from a variety of sources, and gives LaRouche material the space it deserves, i.e. very little. Why is this being nominated, because most of the criticism isn't from LaRouche sources and the nominator thinks it should be, or what? Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination made in bad faith. Rob Church 3 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
• Keep and sanction Cognition for badfaith VfD. El_C 3 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability actually is a criterion for deletion of biographies, but Berlet certainly meets it. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep RIGHT NOW This is such an obvious bad-faith nomination that I can not imagine why it's still on VFD this long after nomination. I agree with the sanction on Cognition. This VFD nomination is a complete perversion of Wikipedia means.Unsinkable 4 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)
• Keep, and calm down everybody. Cognition appears to be new here and has made a nomination that many people disagree with. That's no biggie, the net result is that the article will have a templated box on it for about a week. Yet somehow, life goes on. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:02 (UTC)
• Keep, preferably speedy keep, but on the other hand calls to sanction the nominator seem extreme. Everyking 4 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
  • No excessive, not overstated — extreme, no less. El_C 4 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
    • Well, I thought about excessive, but I went with extreme. Everyking 4 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)
    • One particular editor has fairly recently adopted the attitude that any sanction against any editor is "extreme". He appears to have adopted this attitude immediately after being sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for obsessive and possessive editing of any articles referring to a particular young female singer. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
      • No such attitude exists, so both sentences are false. Everyking 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
    • You're right, I should have said "just about any sanction" and "exhibits behaviour indicating that etc." It's possible he still supports some sanctions against editors, though I haven't seen any evidence of that. And while his behaviour indicates that he possesses this attitude, he may well feel something entirely different and is making all these statements for some unknown and unfathomable reason. I apologize for making this inference merely based on all available evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
      • I block vandals on occasion, as you can see in my admin log, so that right there refutes your claim that I support no sanctions. In fact I support many sanctions, provided there is due caution and fairness involved. Everyking 4 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
    • I said "just about any sanction". Reviewing blocks logs reveals that perhaps even a half dozen times, this editor/admin has blocked the most egregious IP vandals for a whole day, and has even, on a couple of occasions, blocked obvious impersonators. None of this, of course, is at all relevant to the evidence he displays regarding sanctions against editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
      • How is that not relevant? Are you making a distinction between that and ArbCom stuff? Everyking 4 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
    • Briefly blocking obvious vandals is not the same as sanctioning editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
      • Unless they're vandals, I'm not empowered to sanction anyone, unless they have violated the 3RR, but I don't believe in that so I don't block people for that. Everyking 5 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
    • Ah, but that wasn't the issue. You oppose any sanctions against editors, never support them, even some quite obvious trolls. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
• Can I vote twice? Dosen't matter, I will! Keep and sanction Everyking for kicks. El_C 4 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and sanction those responsible. NPOV, not LPOV (LaRouche Point Of View). — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
• Keep and sanction for bad faith. carmeld1 5 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.