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. The keeps did not adequately answer the BLP concerns of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Braden[edit]

Jim Braden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about a person involved in conspiracy theories. I'm not finding significant coverage of this person in 3rd party sources. His name has been mentioned in a couple of JFK books but only one of those goes into much detail, others deal with him only in passing. The article itself lacks reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been flagged for [Rescue]. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article lists several online reference sources which constitute significant coverage. Furthermore, user RadioFan attests there is not significant 3rd party coverage, and then goes on to cite passages in several books. Braden is even listed in government files: [www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/cia-files.html] Not sure why Jim Braden was important enough to be included in Senate hearings, but not for inclusion in Wikipedia? Aliveatoms (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let's not make this personal please and focus on the article. As I mentioned in the nomination, I'm seeing some mentions but I do not believe there is the kind of significant coverage that WP:N requires.--RadioFan (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RadioFan, I've been focused on the article from the beginning. Unfortunately, I've been distracted by your petty and vindictive nomination for deletion.Aliveatoms (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, lets stick to the process here and not make personal accusations.--RadioFan (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pro tem in the hope of more third party reliable references. I'm not keen on youtube or geocities stuff, but there does seem to be notability to me here withal. Peridon (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability guidelines, as there is a distinct lack of reliable source coverage or Merge to John F. Kennedy assassination#Official investigations if some RS sourcing can be found for significant content. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He has been mentioned in several locations, but it all ends up being a case of WP:ONEVENT. And it's not like he participated in the one event, he was just a suspect. Everything else was him trying to disassociated himself from the one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References have now sourced.DrippingGoss (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are sources there but still not what I'd call significant coverage. Niteshift36 raises a very good point about this being a biography about a person known for a single event. I'm thinking that SpacemanSpiff's suggestion of selective merge into the article on JFK's assignation may be more appropriate than deletion but would like to see more discussion here first.--RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is highly sourced with material gathered online and from major and university press publishers. Regarding Niteshift36's assertion that this is an article about a person known for a single event (a point which is not included in the initial reasons for deletion): even a cursory review of the article would show that Braden was also circumstantially linked to the Robert Kennedy assassination.DrippingGoss (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Perhaps you should read it again. He wasn't circumstantially linked to it. He was questioned because he happened to be in the city at the time of the assassination. The police would have been remiss in NOT at least questioning him given that he'd been investigated in the JFK event. If they hadn't questioned him, all the conspiracy theorists would have gone ape shit. Notice it says "questioned", not "arrested", "investigated" or even "detained". They covered their bases, established he wasn't involved and sent him on his merry way. Where do you get "circumstantially linked" out of that? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here that isn't in the conspiracy article. WP:ONEVENT. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - DISAGREE The main JFK conspiracy article features no info on Braden's legal name change, his association with the RFK assassination, his appearance before the HSCA, his current whereabouts nor his maintained legal innocence.DrippingGoss (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment which is why a merge is being suggested here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support a merge as well. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt WP:BLP1E applies if he's alive, WP:BIO1E, WP:FRINGE suggest that he doesn't rise to the level of a separate article if he's dead. Ray^Talk 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT: This article does not violate any part of WP:FRINGE, in fact, this guideline seems to warrant Braden's inclusion since "in order to be notable enough... a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication..." Braden and the Dal-Tex theory are referenced in magazines including Esquire, in books and publications from major University presses, and extensively online. Also, re:WP:ONEVENT, please note Braden is implicated as a suspect in the ROBERT Kennedy assassination as well as the JOHN F. Kennedy assassination. That's TWO events, so all the DELETEs referencing ONE EVENT should be discounted in my opinion. Lastly, I see the article has been EXTENSIVELY referenced. In other words, all the initial reasons for page deletion have been addressed. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • He was not "implicated as a suspect" in the RFK assassination according to the article you are defending. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at this time, the article isn't "EXTENSIVELY referenced". There are references, but it's under-referenced more than "extensively" referenced. For one, it sounds like the references are passing mentions- for instance, they aren't books or lengthy articles solely about the subject. tedder (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone think they smell socks? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per NiteShifts' reasoning. If he's still alive, this is WP:BLP1E. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If editors there decide that he should be mentioned, redirect to John F. Kennedy assassination [edit: Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories]. Especially with such a significant and controversial topic, we need good detailed sources which either provide citations or are otherwise part of the historical analysis of the event. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They were a suspect in a crime. Granted, the gravity of the crime here, but I still see this as an attempt at notability by extension. Pres. Kennedy was clearly notable - but somebody accused of killing him...well, the accusation doesn't make him notable, he's just a suspect. Anything better to change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • Comments re: Delete/Merge Firstly, if the decision is made to Merge, I feel it should merge to Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories rather than John F. Kennedy assassination. Regarding the article's references, I took great effort to find support for each claim made in this article. To me, that would constitute "extensive", or at the very least "thorough", referencing. Regarding the concern that the references are merely "passing mentions", that is not always the case. I have referenced some books that devote as little as one sentence to Braden and Dal-Tex, while others devote entire sections, and one devotes over one full page to Braden. DrippingGoss (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Furthermore, I would like to say that Merging the page would create problems of having to cram a lot of extraneous information onto the main JFK assassination (or conspiracy) page. While Braden is mentioned there, so is the Dal-Tex Building. Imagine if ALL the Dal-Tex information had to be crammed onto this one small section of the JFK conspiracy page. It would make for very dense, convoluded reading. This is a good example where we can see the problems of Merging this article instead of just keeping it where it is. DrippingGoss (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP James Braden was the only professional criminal to be arrested in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And his location was arguably, the best possible sniper location in that area, with the clearest view of the President as he moved west on Elm St. Braden admitted that on the eve of the assassination, he was in the same hotel with Jack Ruby. He has also been connected with longtime suspect David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello, the mafia godfather who confessed to a reliable FBI informant that he setup the assassination. Braden is a VERY important suspect. If any article about him is found to be inaccurate, it should be corrected but under no conditions, should it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobharris77 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Bobharris77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tedder (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I will restate my belief that this page should be kept by asking the decision-making administrator to compare the current page with it's initial state when the delete tag was added. You will see it has been thoroughly footnoted with reliable sources including University Presses as well as major-house publishers. I feel deleting this article would be a bad faith gesture WP:GOODFAITH as it is an important element in many conspiracy theories surrounding JFK. Furthermore, how can we tolerate numerous articles such as Lee Bowers, James Tague, Joseph Campisi, Emmett Hudson, and dozens others [1] who are ancillary to the JFK assassination, and who in many cases have much less RS citation than this article. If we had to delete or merge all of these pages and add their full information into the main conspiracy pages, it would be a cluttered mess. DrippingGoss (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems significant and appropriate. 166.137.132.162 (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 166.137.132.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tedder (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just stbled upon this page doing research. Found it very useful, wouldn't like to see it disappear. 166.137.132.162 (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That might be true, but User:Tedder is correct in pointing out that you have made edits in only this AfD, which has several editors who've done the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2009 (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.