Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Springmeier

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Springmeier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreferenced BLP article, alleged religious author, seems to be more of a conspiracy theorist, no real assertion of notability WuhWuzDat 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ some of his books are listed at Amazon. ~~BLP is unsourced, so that's unacceptable. Can't find much evidence meeting WP:GNG~~.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is it the case that an author of fifteen books cannot have a wiki page?! The issue isnt about the content of his books. Its that his books exist in their own context, and that in itself is verifiable. To not have a page concernig Fritz Springmeier would be tantamount to Wikipedia's editors engaging in censorship. It would be a version of elctronic book burning. Would there not be a way to chnage the context of the page from a sociological point of view?Ickesshadow (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your premise, but the fact is that there are no independent reliable sources in the article and I can't find any looking a a few pages of a Google search. One curious source I did find was Henrymakow.com, which I noted because the article Henry Makow is also currently up for deletion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few citations, cleaned up the article a little. Take another look. I'm still Weak keep on this one, but there's more here now than the dog's breakfast that first met the eye. Yakushima (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A way to approach this is to portray his books has a form of speculative non fiction. Or has speculative politics. Just because we dont agree with the contents of someones books, doesnt mean that an author should be denied a page on wikipedia. --Ickesshadow (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there are a couple of news reports on this guy [1][2], some commentary from a well-known activist group (Southern Poverty Law Center) [3], he has a passage of one of his books excerpted here [4] in what seems RS to me, he is also cited in a scholarly study of apocalyptic conspiracy theorists [5], among others [6]. Whatever you may think of his theories (utter trash, IMAO), he has managed to achieve a certain notoriety by diligently promoting them. I can't imagine that Springmeier would be terribly happy with a WP-policy-compliant bio, since it would tend to highlight negative aspects. But there may be enough here for WP notability after all. Yakushima (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree those are reliable sources. HOwever the article itself needs to contain references.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. meco (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His books appear to be self published though? .Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far as I've been able to determine, you're right. However, if he's notable fellow traveler with white separatist movements (documented in two news stories largely about him), and been noted by serious academics who study conspiracy theorists for a living (at least one cite), and is multiply referenced within the conspiracy theorist milieu himself (yes, clearly), it wouldn't matter much that his books are self-published. Yakushima (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books aren't the claim to his notability, IMO. I agree with Yakushima's points, however, and the article now is sourced.Keep.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears the article now has been furnished with references to adequately support notability. __meco (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: his writing does not add to his notability unless secondary sources actually notice them. However, politically-motivated criminal activities do seem to have achieved some small degree of notice in such sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Yakushima's finds. Dream Focus 17:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as marginally notable nutcase. However, I reject and repudiate any implication that we are obliged to keep an article just because the subject has self-published a pile of junk and hawks it on Amazon or Ebay. That's not censorship, it's consistent standards. The downside of the computer revolution is that it's increasingly easy to churn out crud like this, and to get it on the less discriminating vendors' sites (such as Amazon for books and iTunes for music). That creates no case for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Agreed on all counts. Calling him an "author" suggests he's notable on those grounds alone, and I don't think he is, though he's been noted in RS. But what, then? We can't call him a "marginally notable nutcase", I think that's WP:NPOV violation. ;-) "Conspiracy theorist and militant religious right wing activist"? Yakushima (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per Orange Mike, a classic example of an article improved due to AfD, but somehow, I don't think this is what the article creator intended. WuhWuzDat 22:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, you know what they say, "Be careful of what you ask for -- you might get it." Yakushima (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2010 (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.