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 No consensus. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Zwicker

[edit]

Article was ((prod))ed as WP:NPOV but tag was removed. Attempt to expand the article has made it even more POV, IMHO, and has definitely rendered it unreadable. In addition, most of the wikilinks are to nonexistent articles, and it's questionable whether the subject meets WP:BIO in the first place, and he already has an entry on the Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 page. Major cleanup or delete as crankcruft. Aaron 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 17:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Cleanup is never a reason to delete. His merits talk for themselves, this AFD is a clear atempt to remove the artilce since nominator does not like its content, and has nothing to do with Barrie Zwicker notability or verifiablity. Bogus AFD.--Striver 17:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll leave it to the closing admin to determine who's been creating and editing a rash of 9/11 crankcruft articles over the last few days. --Aaron 17:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conspiracies_Guild#AFD.27s?

The patern should be obvious: Anything remotly resembling representation of the 9/11 truth movement is deleted. That is called censorship. Wikipedia is about adding information, not deleting.

Only a few article with general content is allowed, as soon as anything more specific is added, it is afd withing hours, not even giving the article the chance to develop. How is a article supposed to prove notability if it is delete within hours?

Just compeare it to the UFO and UFOlogy articles, they thrive, we have lots of them, terms like Black triangles and lots of writers. But as soon as a term or writer for the 9/11 truth movment comes, it is deleted with a totaly different standard that is put on the UFO related articles. how come? --Striver 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article doesn't have to prove notability within hours; its subject does. I could create an article about my pet hamster, but it wouldn't qualify as notable whether it was one line long or contained 10,000 words. As for UFOs and black triangles, that's a WP:POINT argument. The fact that dubious article X exists doesn't mean that dubious article Y automatically gets a free pass. By the way, the quality of an article does count for something. For example, I would probably change my vote on 9-11: The Road to Tyranny if the article was written in an encyclopedic fashion. --Aaron 17:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. First of all WP:POINT has nothing to do with my argument, its completly valid. Second, A valid article with bad content gets tried to stub level or NPOVed, or improved or gets a tag, not deleted. --Striver 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be ashemed to AFD this articel only since it is ABOUT a guy that has oppinions you dont agree with. Why dont you go AFD Muhammad? Oh, he is notable? So, i dare you , say Barrie Zwicker is non notable! This AFD clearly shows that you are doing things in bad faith and are not the least intrested in inmproving or contributing to Wikipedia. --Striver 17:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it needs some major cleanup and expansion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more 9/11cruft. I'm tempted to apply Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters here; this person certainly deserves a line on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Isopropyl 18:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious that you didnt read the article, so ill give you the favor of letting you read it:

He was a writer for The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Province, Sudbury Star and Detroit News, and taught the Media & Society course at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto for seven years.

He worked as VisionTV's media critic since the multifaith network's inception in the fall of 1988, until 2003. [1].

He was also involved in The End of Suburbia. Just say "No conspiracy article on WP". --Striver 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Isopropyl or merge. Since Zwicker barely satisfies WP:BIO if he satisfies it at all, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11#Barrie Zwicker is enough in this case. That entry can be expanded with some of the material from this article if necessary. bcasterline^talk 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does not making WP:BIO? Are you kidding? --Striver 19:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another nn article...POV pushing nonsense...about as notable as a toadstool.--MONGO 22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Puclished author, with an audience of more than 10,000. Also media commentator in major national newspapers. NPOV issues can be sorted out with editing. No need to delete the article. Batmanand | Talk 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. His notability seems to come from his efforts along those lines; I'm not convinced he warrants a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He fullfills WP:BIO and much more, he would never be even afd if he was a UFO writer. --Striver 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is already covered in Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#Barrie_Zwicker. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. The guy is much more than a opinion regarding 9/11. He easly pases the 5000 audience demanded from WP:BIO. I mean, omg, are you voting to delete mainstream journalist as non-notable?

For all of you that didnt bother to read the article:

Barrie Zwicker is a Broadcaster and writer who has specialized in media criticism since 1970.

He worked as VisionTV's media critic since the multifaith network's inception in the fall of 1988, until 2003. [2]

And here is from WP:BIO:

The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage

Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.

A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following

Name recognition

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more

Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?

He fullfills all the above.

--Striver 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- See my comments below -- the quote on the newspapers that Barrie Zwicker was a writer for is taken from the Vision TV web site, and is not correct in my opinion. It is a big stretch to say that Barrie Zwicker is a mainstream journalist; I'm pretty sure that he's a freelance journalist with an alternative view whose articles were picked up by many major newspapers -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing on the page indicating that he's a local political figure or that he's received significant press coverage. As a corollary, widely recognized is very dubious. Nor are his productions well-known. --Mmx1 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Bio does not demand a 5000 audience. It says: "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." and among them is the 5000 criteria. The flaw with the 5000 figure is that major publications have minor authors. Does everyone that publishes an article in the New York times get a pass? Including the local section editors, or the style columnist? If anything, I think it's a particularly flawed analysis. The New York Daily News has several million readers. I can't think of more than 10 current writers on their staff worthy of an article. The wiki only mentions 8 historically. --Mmx1 16:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per --Aude. Sandstein 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've seen Barrie Zwicker on Vision TV and read (although disagreed with) his articles. He's legitimately notable in my view. If you apply the college professor test (he was a prof at Ryerson in Toronto), he's more notable given his media contributions. This being said, the article is very POV: ~~(1) I don't think "he was a writer for the Globe and Mail....", despite what other web sites say. I'm pretty sure that he was a freelancer whose articles were picked up by other newspapers.~~ (see below) (2) Also, calling Barrie Zwicker a member of the "mainstream press" is a bit out there, he's clearly an alternative voice in Canadian media. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, please WP:CIVIL -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My error, he was a staff writer at the Toronto Star -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:38, 28 February 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.