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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Deletion Reason: 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 Paul’s work “Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City” failed to yield a single reputable source in all 11 pages of returns. A Google search of Don Paul and the word “Fascist”, which would pick up his other work, fails to return a single reputable source in the first 25 pages of returns reviewed. Morton devonshire 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so in order to meet the qualifications set forth for notability, an article must reference sources beholden to corporate media? Such circular reasoning simply goes beyond the pale, especially given the way whitewashing campaigns have so overused this tactic. Your words clearly reveal the evident motivation behind the nomination, yet another example of the broader campaign that is threatening to undermine the Wiki's credibility. Ombudsman 03:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. Note that many conspiracy related things have made it into reliable sources. This person has not. When this person does, he will be put in. And in fact, the insistence on WP:RS and WP:N etc. is precisely the things that let Wikipedia have any credibility whatsoever. Also, please stay civil. JoshuaZ 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're skirting Don Paul's many accomplishments in many other areas long before 9/11 ever happened. Don't try to pretend that the AfD isn't being built around the notion of discrediting well established icons that have made their mark long before the internet arose. Don is a legend in running circles, just ask veteran editors Mark Winitz, over at California Track and Running News, or Bob Cooper, at Runner's World. His extensive work on behalf of charitable groups is likewise quite noteworthy, from San Francisco to New Orleans. He is quite well known in the San Francisco Bay Area music scene, and his poetry earned him a prestigious Stegner Fellowship at Stanford University, the youngest ever to receive the award.[1] Simply as a polymath he deserves an article, or for any of the many disciplines he has mastered, such as when he went under the US and World record in the 50 kilometer ultramarathon, which (in contradiction to a comment below) was certainly covered in the mainstream New York media between 1980 and 1982 (including the NY Times). It certainly has been mentioned plenty of times in the media, usually every time Don produced another stunning performance, right up until his recent retirement from running. This AfD is way over the top. (added cites 10/4/06) Ombudsman 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So give us sources that back up any of these claims. Give us sources. None of us have been able to find almost any mentions of this person. If you can find the sources that back up these claims he will be kept. Furthermore, your repeated accusations aren't helping matters. I (and I suspect most people currently favoring deletion) would be more than willing to keep the article if you gave back up for this. JoshuaZ 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it isn't an accusation to state as a fact that most of the criticism heaped on Don Paul's noteworthiness (already piled below) has been built around attempts at discreditation of his work (i.e., in the 9/11 Truth Movement). A minor exception below is the claim that Don Paul doesn't even meet noteworthiness standards for athletes, and that is just plain silly. Maybe you should read the article by Winitz that is already linked in the external links section, "Paul--a notable competitor on the national and California racing scenes for two-and-a-half decades--recently retired from racing." For another thing, Steven E. Jones credits WTC7.net, a website built by Paul and Jim Hoffman, with having piqued his curiosity about the physics behind the collapse of the three WTC buildings during the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium.Ombudsman 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you now have enough sources to maybe justify an article about him as an athlete with maybe a tiny note about his 9/11 related stuff. However, a single source doesn't make him notable as an athlete either. From WP:BIO- "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level." and he seems to maybe meet that criterion. So you have enough to write an article about him as an athlete and note the other stuff. JoshuaZ 05:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. More hurdles. Just keep moving the flaming hula hoops. Fist the article is dismantled, then more tactics fail, and now a chance to thank you for your outright admission of the true purpose of the concerted serial attacks on the article. Whitewashing is whitewashing by any other name. Citations can be found all day, all over the place (outside the discredited walled garden aka the corporate media), concerning Don Paul's notability, that issue is just another red herring. All the citations needed were in the external links section all along, but the delete votes below simply wanted to believe the mistaken assertions used to justify suppression. There is absolutely no question of notability with regard to the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, because along with Jim Hoffman, Paul helped bring the matter to the forefront of discussions about the glaring holes in the 'official theory' of 9/11 proffered by those darlings of the corporate media, the totally discredited 9/11 omission commission. Ombudsman 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might be more inclined to listen to you if you gave us reasonably main stream sources, didn't rant about the "discredited walled garden aka the corporate media" and other issues. Either he meets WP:BIO and has enough to write an article with reliable sources or he doesn't. Continued uncited assertsions and accusations of "suppression" won't convince anyone. JoshuaZ 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Tbeatty 18:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep: This AfD appears to be yet another distracting attempt at sustaining the scorched Earth campaign to cleanse the Wiki of any and all rational accounts of WTC issues. Don Paul is quite noteworthy as both an athlete and as a scholar, much less for his involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It is getting to the point where the campaign to purge rationality from the Wiki's 9/11 articles needs to be addressed at a broader level, as the ongoing scorched Earth tactics being used have long since passed the threshold of mere annoyance. Instead of an intelligent discourse on what really happened, this campaign seems designed to ensure that discussion, much less editing, never gets past the most essential basics of events surrounding 9/11. There is nothing too hard about understanding that aluminum sheathed jets floating into heavily reinforced giant skyscrapers represent the equivalent of a nerf football impacting a brick wall. WTC 7 collapsed in its footprint without even the distraction of that red herring. Of course, without that, there is not one credible excuse being put forth to excuse the collapse of the building, aside from the entirely unrebutted controlled demolition explanation, which Don Paul has inconveniently helped place dead center in the controversies surrounding 9/11. For that alone, his bio should stand, his athletic and artistic achievements notwithstanding. It is obvious that the omission commission was stacked with panelists burdened by serious conflict of interest problems, but that doesn't seem to deter those engaged in the efforts to suppress rationality from the discussion here at the Wiki, who instead chirp 'conspiracy theory', until hoarse, at the drop of a hat. But even more amazing is the way that the suppression of debate has kept other basic facts from being recognized as the facts essential for rational discourse. The official 9/11 omission commission insinuation that mere carbon chain fuels, which are quite combustible at temperatures in the mid 400s (and unstable by their very nature), could even have begun to come close to the quadruple digit temperatures, necessary to melt the structural steel alloys of the WTC buildings, is a total farce. The scorched Earth campaign to suppress the ideas set forth by Don Paul, Jim Hoffman, et al, is little more than the product of a sad campaign to empty the Wiki of rational content that would provide insights into the actual reality of 9/11. Ombudsman 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ombudsman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.[reply]

There are numerous articles on what really happened on 9/11. They have plenty of space for any additional factual information. Wikipedia is not a blog however, so don't expect too much discourse on what might have happened. --Tbeatty 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm about to apply a personal test. I don't know how it will turn out. The issue here is not what happened on 9/11, but whether Don Paul is notable. I'm going to do a search of The New York Times and see whether it has ever mentioned him. If it has, in the context of his being a well-known 9/11 theorist, I'll vote keep. This is not to suggest that everyone ever named in The New York Times merits an article, nor that mention in the New York Times should be a requirement, but it's a good barometer of national notability, and in the case of 9/11 theories a New York paper would certainly be expected to cover anything remotely relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Search for "Don Paul" in The New York Times from 1/1/2000 to 9/29/3006 produces nine hits, none to this Don Paul. Seven are to the motion picture "The Road to El Dorado" and visual effects director Don Paul, surely someone else. September 9, 2002: "Frankie Albert, a Pioneering Quarterback, Is Dead at 82," mentions "Don Paul, a Los Angeles Rams linebacker who was among the many defenders frustrated by Albert's deception, likened him to Fran Tarkenton." Not the same person. January 8, 2000: "Tom Fears, N.F.L. End and Coach, Dies at 77" mentions "As a former teammate, Don Paul, told The Los Angeles Times..." This is also likely the Rams linebacker. I can't believe that an important 9/11 theorist would not have been mentioned at all by The New York Times, if only in passing. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Incidentally, the New York Times has run numerous articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. An example of a conspiracy theorist mentioned by them would include James W. Walter, subject of an entire article, Nov. 8, 2004: "A 9/11 Cover-Up? One Man's Ads Say So." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and Dpbsmith. Also, does anyone know if the section entitled "Roads scholar" in the article is meant to be funny? We don't generally put puns in articles. Also, note that he doesn't meet the criteria for an athlete either. JoshuaZ 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, Dpbsmith, and JoshuaZ. Crockspot 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dpbsmith. --Aude (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this: Yes, i know. They have already deleted most already. Let them, change your vote to delete. Heck, afd the rest that is not already deleted, it is already established C-Class porn stars are more welcomed than people from the 911TM. I mean, they delete the no-Plane at pentagon article, but keep this, this and this. Hey, i mean, why would you need to keep Don Paul, when you have Bambi Woods, Angella Faith and the rest of the bunch? Man, they even can squeze in Category:Hentai stubs, but God forbid we include one of the most popular and well known figures in the multi million people large 911TM, i mean, he only gets 14k hits, what is that compared to Angella Faith's 16k? Hey, delete this guy, we need more room for porn.--Striver 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote to delete them as well. Put them up.--Tbeatty 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think any of them should be deleted, put them up for deletion. JoshuaZ 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a good source citation to a nice mainstream source that says he's an important 9/11 theorist and I'll change my vote. I believe such a citation will have more influence in this discussion than expressing your opinions about Wikipedia articles. I spent as much time as I felt was necessary for "due diligence" and it looks to me like he's not important. But I'm open to change. If you can find a citable source showing he's a prominent talking head in network TV documentaries, or has appeared on Larry King, or Rush Limbaugh, or has gotten more than a passing mention in the increasing number of books devoted to 9/11, I'll listen. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, how many New York times articles do you see about Rusty trombones? Once the movement has been notable, it is up to the movement itself to define what is notable. Sex is notable, people in the sex-industry use the disgusting term Rusty trombone, hence, it is notable. Same to Pokemon, or any other cruft. Do you see Dark Sidius in New York Times? No, but you will find Star Wars. But this principle does not apply to 911TM, you just deleted TerroStorm with 300k hits.--Striver 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't apply a New York Times hit count as my personal test on Rusty trombone because of their famous "ear," "All the news that's fit to print." However, I know of no reason why 9/11 material would be filtered out by that policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, google testing is not as useful for web-related topics, and no, movements do not get to define what is notable within them by itself. (Again, if you want to AfD various sex stuff, go ahead) as for Darth Sidius, he was mentioned in multiple NYT articles including one a while back that discussed political symbolism of the character. Not an especially convincing example (if you wanted to get rid of stuff from the Star Wars Expanded Universe you might have a point- again AfD it if you feel that way). JoshuaZ 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take offence, but i view that suggestion as "go ahead and get yourself accussed of WP:POINT". I am utterly un-convinced of your argument, and would be very surpised if an afd of those articles would be succesfull. Anyway, i have had enough of this topic.--Striver 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, i am still waiting for Lanczos tensor and Petrov classification to get NYT coverage... Hey, they should be deleted, right? I mean, its own comunity is not supposed to define what it claims is notable, right? --Striver 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being ridiculous. Obviously not every group should be treated the same way. Math or science are reputable areas already with wide coverage and thus can to a large extent self-determine notability (note that even then for articles like the one in question- people- they have some difficulty with just that- see WP:PROF) this is less the case for fringe topics and regardless of what you think of the 9/11 truth movement, they are a fringe and thus their community does not get automatically to decide notability- to put it another way, for something to be notable in a barely notable fringe it needs to be noticed by someone outside the fringe whereas if somethgin is from a mroe or less mainstream area of study it is reasonable to look for notability within that area. As to your comment about WP:POINT it would only be a point violation if you were doing it to prove a point as such. If you a) genuinely think that these articles shouldn't be here, you are more than entitled to nominate them for AfD. Finally, please note that many of the 9/11 conspiracy related articls have stayed on Wiki and have survived deletion or not even been nominated. Some of them meet WP:N and some do not. In this case, there is less than compelling evidence that Don Paul does. JoshuaZ 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make what I think is an appropriate test for Lanczos tensor. Again, this is my personal test for this particular topic. I'm going to search for it on Google Books. If I don't find a reasonable number of reasonably relevant hits I will nominate it for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found one highly relevant hit here, in "The Introduction to 2-Spinors in General Relativity." This seems to me to be good confirmation that this is an important concept in the theory of relativity. I'll leave the analysis of a similar search for "Don Paul" to the reader, as it is such a common name that it is very hard to disentangle them, but if you can find a book citing him as an important runner or 9/11 theorist I'll reconsider my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the New York Times doesn't discuss the Lanczos tensor, but it does have a story, March 7, 1936, p. 10, "Einstein Refutes Attack on Theory, in which a letter by Einstein and N. Rosen mention that "Professor C. Lanczos of Purdue University has independently recognized the error in Silberstein's paper," which to me confirms the notability of Lanczos and his status with regard to the theory of relativity. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the above, and so we get more room for porn (though only well-sourced, notable porn) in Wikipedia's ever-expanding servers. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep - per ombudsman. Don Paul is noteworthy as an athlete, a scholar, and a 9/11 Truth Movement researcher. And I don't think we need more room for porn on here. bov 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you supply some references for Don Paul being noteworthy in these fields? I was willing to spend a little time trying to dig up evidence for his notability, and I couldn't find any. Those who say he's notable really should be able to present something other than an unsupported assertion. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - His notability as a runner is referenced here in California Track & Running News:

Best Marks: Interview with Don Paul

By Mark Winitz

March/April 2006

California Track & Running News

http://www.caltrack.com/features/donpaulinterviewMarApr06.html

"Paul--a notable competitor on the national and California racing scenes for two-and-a-half decades--recently retired from racing." bov 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and others. Wikipedia needs more porn and less 9/11 denying. --Peephole 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dpbsmith. CWC(talk) 13:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dpbsmith above Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this author has written over 20 books, why no bibliography so we can judge their notability? Cruft, plain and simple.--Rosicrucian 15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Dpbsmith's research and JoshuaZ. --Aaron 18:15, 2 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.