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. Despite the vocal protest of two editors, they have failed to show how/why this passes any of our notability criteria, whereas the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based. Boss Reality and Starman005 (if ever the latter gets unblocked) are strongly reminded of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave vonKleist[edit]

Dave vonKleist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After finding quite a bit of copyvio in this article from [1] I tried to find reliable sources to rewrite it. The only clearly reliable sources I found was a book at [2] which mentions him in connection with the documentary 911:In Plane Site but doesn't tell us very much about him. Seems to fail our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I wonder if I am now the target of Chief Censor Dougweller and have incurred his wrath for backing boss reality ? (Starman005 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Such as WP:RS. I note that Starman005 has added this book[8] as a source. It's published by El Shaddai Publishers/Bed and Breakfast.[9] who writes "shortly to occur Second Coming. You will be convinced to cast off your complacency and your unpreparedness as you read of the coming worldwide disorder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published. So that earns the article an additional !vote for delete per WP:BLP. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure why Boss Reality feels a need to quote what I said a couple of lines up, nor I am sure what self-published sources has to do with the policies I refereed to... but IF reliable sources exists, why are they not used in the article? Though in all fairness, Starman005 have stripped out a few references I tagged as unreliable and self published - even if the article still falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:BLP WegianWarrior (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, notblity is established and I agree with the creator, Also there seem to be NY Times and NBC linkes too. Good enough ! (Boss Reality (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

* Comment - I refer to what the page looks / looked like at a certain time. So looking at this capture here I made after the last edit done by WegianWarrior at 11:42, 10 August 2014‎. That's what the page looked like after his / her edit. Basically the statement by this person is totaly incorrect. WegianWarrior says he / she has been through all the refs twice.
Quote WegianWarrior: "I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published."
This is incorrect and even I can see (with one eye closed) that the main foundation of the article is reliant on credible refs. Sure there are some self publshed refs. The self published refs are to do with some of the recordings released and a film or 2. It's the same as saying a house with concrete foundations has bamboo foundations and is unsteady just because the window covers are made from bamboo. If there is a bit of intentional misleading then that's very naughty of our young friend. If not then very careless and reckless. But besides that I know that this is a repetition of what happened with my articles and I do believe I detect censorship yet again. I'm not losing my mind here as I have asked others to look in and they have seen what I've seen. Now it seems others have to endure this with their articles and have their work deleted. Could this be so that people are now deciding what others should access? I do know from my limited time here that certain articles are much more likely to be deleted go against the official version of things and if the people they're about are hated by certain groups or organisations. This is commonn knowledge.I remember once a case of a boy messing up his brothers bed then calling his mother to say his brother hadn't made his bed. He may now have grown up into a man I once worked with who would sabotage other co workers projects to make them look bad. If Wikipedia is going to be an encylopedia with blanked out pages then we need to have a good long look at things and decide if this should be a place where one group decides what others should see and know. I can tell you right here and now that's not something I'd support. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It seems to me like you still don't have a policy-based reason why we should keep this, and are resorting to attacking your fellow editors.. frankly, it makes it hard for me to assume good faith on your part any longer. However, lets have a look at the article as it stands now (per the time I'm typing). There is 22 references listed.
  • One goes to a transcript on "CNN.com" from the Glen Beck Show, which is at best borderline fringe.
  • One is "Escapee From America Magazine", which has all indications of a fringe website, fails WP:RS.
  • Five is "Coast to Coast AM", which is catering to the fringe, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "Freedom's Phoenix", which appears to be a fringe website, fails WP:RS
  • One is to vonKleinst own website, self-published, as such ought to be avoided
  • One is to "lewrockwell.com", which has all the indications of a fringe website, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "Wake Up! the Lord is Returning", a self-published book that appears far fringe, fails WP:RS (I hope the author's bed&breakfast is better than his book though)
  • One is to "911inplanesite.com", a self-published fringe website, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "Why Do Drugs Cost So Much?", another self published fringe book, fails WP:RS
  • One is to "William Lewis Films", and is a dead link... looking at our article on William Lewis (film director) though, it's pretty clear that it's fringe as well.
That is fourteen (14) fringe and/or self-published sources, out of twenty-two. So yes, this article, as it stands, seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published. So... do you have any policy backed arguments as to why this should stay, or is this a purely emotional reaction from you? WegianWarrior (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually 16 sources. The AllMusic ref lists three albums the label is CD Baby which is a self publishing vehicle, so no record label has produced/distributed his work. IMDb, AllMovie and the info page hosted at The New York Times website (based on unedited content from Baseline) three very low quality sources. The NBC News source is "Weird NNBC News" news of the weird sections/features are specifically discussed in policy as not reliable sources. The New Scientist article makes passing mention also something discussed in policy as not supporting notability. The other sources are discussed above as non RS Fringe junk. The Coast to Coast ref in addition to being fringe is a bio of a guest on a talk radio show promotional bios are not RS. There is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Total fail of notability in any possible classification/category. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny he hasn't linked any of the websites that mention his relationships (striking this as it is 'associations', not necessarily relationships) with neo-Nazis and other far-righters. Something that several of these biographies (eg his wife) have in common. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would just like to point out that Coast to Coast AM is a globally syndicated radio program which has interviewed everyone from Michio Kaku, Kevin Mitnick, Pat Boone, David Talbot etc (they cover a lot of ground); the original host Art Bell was interviewed by Larry King. Maybe the episodes should be cited instead of the Bio (which are usually written by Coast anyway, not the subjects). Lew Rockwell(.com) is not fringe (they run the same content as Common Dreams) - LR is an WP:RS. Claiming that CNN and Glenn Beck are fringe is simply preposterous - by that token Democracy Now would be as well. Mayhaps the above alleged National Socialist connections are not mentioned because we lack an RS? (although, there is also nothing inherently wrong with a far-"right" association; I do not see why it was even mentioned, by an Admin no less) His wife is lacking an article here and is not the subject of this article, so it is of no concern with this discussion. -- dsprc [talk] 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Verifiability policy and the Reliable sources guideline. Note that being globally syndicated, having an impressive guest list or having a previous host interviewed by a notable late night TV talk show host are not in any way support for Coast to Coast as being a reliable source. Coast to Coast has consistently presented poorly fact checked and fringe material, they have no reputation as a serious journalistic endeavor. They don't meet the standards which are clearly explained in the policy and the guideline, please read and understand them. Glenn Beck has certainly taken a number of fringe positions and his credibility has suffered extensively. His journalistic reputation is not that of a reliable source, his show and the content presented on it have been held at a distance by CNN and clearly the editorial oversight and fact checking have been grossly lacking. Lew Rockwell has consistently advocated fringe views, has an editorial veiwpoint clearly at odds with mainstream academia. Please read the Fringe theories guideline. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & Reply to Dougweller, you said "hasn'e linked any of the websites that mention his relationships with neo-Nazis". This is the firsdt that I have heard of anything to do with Neo Nazis andd I have researched von Kleist. What I see here is a childish attempt to do something untoward. This is now possibly a violation of Wikipedia policy and certainly grounds to alert Mr von Kliest of this so he can seek some legal advice. I'm disgusted that you'd try this on and you are supposed to be an administrator. I'll make sure that Mr von Kleist knows of this just in case he wants to act on it. (Starman005 (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reported this to WP:ANI under WP:NLT. I did a basic Google search on "Dave vonKleist" and this sort of stuff came up on the first page. I don't know how you search for him without finding it. Most of the stuff about him is indeed not in reliable sources, that is why we have this AfD. I am not calling him a neo-Nazi. 07:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
As was inevitable and firm policy, another Admin has indefinitely blocked Starman005. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Starman005: You shouldn't call the fire dept. when you're pouring fuel onto a fire which you've lit...
@Dougweller: You may wish to investigate a phenomenon known as the Filter Bubble (here is a TED Talk) which is used heavily by Google and shows us all different content (I didn't get any National Socialism stuff either, mostly just forums and self pub on first page). -- dsprc [talk]
@Dsprc:Interesting. Right above "Dave vonKleist - 911 In Plane Site" I get a site dedicated to him, "DAVE VONKLEIST, SPY & NAZI DISINFORMER". I'd think that and simmilar sites would show up on any ordinary search although maybe not page 1 even with the filter bubble effect. I don't often search for neonazi but maybe having found it earlier and looked at it it bounced it up on my next search. Ah, just discovered that if you search on his name without quotation marks that site shows on the 2nd page, if I use "Dave vonKleist" with quotation marks it's on the first page. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Boss Reality: We have Wikipedia:Noticeboards for this, please address your issues there, if appropriate, as this is not the correct venue for such matters. However, I believe you will find a different outcome from the one you intended pursuing this course of action. @CambridgeBayWeather: surely there must be senior citizens with Adminship amongst our ranks? (I dare not out any however) :) -- dsprc [talk] 13:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::::* Reply to MrBill3, Doesn't matter if the CD's are on CD baby or not. I believe you're attempt at making the point is to support your agenda. Now imagine this, If Harry Wayne Casey of KC & The Sunshine Band hadn't found an overseas distributor for his records then they would have been released on his TK Records label which is the one he formed himself to get them out. They'd be self published then and I know that you wouldn't be tattooing his page with the like you've done here. Friend, sorry I disagree with you all the way on that and that doesn't stack up at all. (Boss Reality (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

* Comparisons to make the point- Again I'm taking the unusual step to post here 2 comparisons of edits. One last edit by starman 005 who created thew article and the other by MrBill3 who after WegianWarrior has deliberately made a mess of the article by tagging it in a way that by my observations could only be described as a strategic manoeuvrings to discredit the article to hasten and ensure it's deletion. This tactic has been previously and successfully applied by WegianWarrior and my good friend Dougweller and usual core group that follow him around. Rather than discussing the quality of the links that have also been pointed out by 2 other editors here to be worthy, this tactic is instead employed. And again I emphasize it's done IMO to get rid of the article. The questions pops up like a helium balloon riding a huge sudden gust of wind .... What's the agenda? (Boss Reality (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@Boss Reality: Please use links and make use of the history page, reposting the entire article is unreadable. The best thing is use a Diff to show the changes from one version to another.
Revision as of 05:12, 10 August 2014 by Starman005
Diff to MrBill3
As to an agenda, everyone has one so cool it. By that I mean there are different philosophies on editorial control. There are deletionist and inclusionist with most editors in between. While I can appreciate you see tactics, it could simply be bold editing to get a never-ending job done. There are over 4.5million articles on the English Wikipedia, having a drawn out debate on each issue isn't in the cards.
Currently I'm neutral to the deletion to give the article time to shore up 3rd party refs, but that's being generous; self published refs are a big red flag @ Wikipedia when it comes to Bios. RoyBoy 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to RoyBoy, I was trying to show where and how the IMO the messing up of an article occurs. BTW: thanks for the info amigo. I wasn't sure how to do it. I think I may be OK for next time. I'll try to sandbox test and see if it works the way I want. Cheers (Boss Reality (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

All I can say here is it's not a good look at this kind of what I believe to be carlessness and possible naughtiness should that not be encouraged. It could give folks the wrong idea. So please let's play fair. Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (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.
More