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 no consensus. A bunch of trolling and ill-tempered comments don't help here. But it boils down essentially to the subjective question of whether the sources presented in the article are sufficiently substantial to meet the WP:GNG. Some people say yes, some people say no. It's clear, reading the comments, that there's no clear consensus either way on this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cook[edit]

Nick Cook (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)

Vanity articles / fails GNG - This article is sourced to one reference - a book review of Cook's one and only book in The Atlantic. The external links section contains a couple more book reviews of the same book, and a bio on the conspiracy radio show Coast to Coast AM. A very thorough search for RS has found only articles bylined by this reporter, and reviews of his one book. We've had an additional citations needed tag up for 3 years without resolution. BlueSalix (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an author, subject does not meet our WP:AUTHOR criteria. Subject does not meet GNG. As a journalist, he is a freelancer for a small trade pub. As a businessman he is CEO of what appears to be a one-man company. Journalists will, inherent to their profession, have wide RS due to bylines. This does not establish notability, otherwise the police beat reporter at the Santa Barbara News-Press would have a BLP. I appreciate you appear to be very interested in paranormal and woo-woo topics, like Jim B. Tucker and the Bosnian Pyramids, however, we have objective standards for notability. BlueSalix (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I edit a lot of articles, clearly you are keeping better track of it than I am. I have to say this is sounding a lot less like a WP:N concern now and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Artw (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just randomly chose two from your edit history and they both seemed to deal with paranormal woo-woo topics. A quick perusal seems to indicate that inserting fringe information into WP is an area of special interest for you. BlueSalix (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you to be WP:CIVIL, remind you that this is WP:NOTAFORUM, and also state that no, I do not go around induscriminatly inserting fringe material into articles. Artw (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have said nothing uncivil. I'm not sure what it is with space alien/UFO enthusiasts responding to fact-based observations with WP:CIVIL charges but this seems to be a recent trend as we've seen here and elsewhere. Anyway, thank you for clarifying that you are not "induscriminatly" [sic] inserting fringe material. We should still avoid selective insertion of fringe conspiracy theories. BlueSalix (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the morbidly curious there is a good takedown of the claims against me here. [2] Artw (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I'm not sure the AfD is the correct place for this or the word "takedown" is likely to advance the dialog occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well we definitely don't want to cencor anything. BlueSalix (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian ref is there for purely WP:V purposes and is not part of an attempt to establish WP:N Artw (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdote and advice.
Well you're definitely not going to be happy to learn that Wikipedia has decided to ban Boyd Bushman as part of an Illuminati cover-up then: [3]. (Apologies to any other editors in this thread who may be offended I did not address the Wikipedia-Illuminati-Martian conspiracy with the utmost seriousness and reverence.) BlueSalix (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of things, a ban is something that happens to users and not articles. The article for deletion process that was used would be this same process you are using now and it takes a consensus to delete or keep the article. Because of the nature of trying to maintain credibility wikipedia tries to have everything sourced and won't even allow itself as a reference. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) BlueSalix may I gently suggest that you tone down your commentary. It has an acidic taste to it that some might consider as suggesting a lack of AGF or CIVILITY. Speaking as a non-involved observer... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was wiling to give it some consideration but if The Guardian reference is to be disregarded in determining WP:N then we have even less on which to build an article. St★lwart111 01:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather odd to pick on that one ref to the exclusion of all others. TBH in my own edits to this article my primary concern has been adding WP:RS to support statements so they won't be re-blanked on BLP grounds, but I believe between the pre-existing ones and the ones I've added WP:N is met. Artw (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree. The Guardian seemed to have some credibility as a reference per WP:GNG, though not much. I "excluded" the others because they were either about his book or about other subjects where he had provided commentary. St★lwart111 02:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for disagreeing in a reasonable and constructive manner. Artw (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest you strike your silly personal attacks. Whether or not Cook has an article on Wikipedia impacts not at all on his standing as a reliable source for purposes of notability elsewhere. Notability and reliability are not the same thing. If Cook's article is deleted, his work can still be used as citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. His work cannot, however, be used as substantiation of his own notability. Writing about yourself (or even other things) does not contribute to your own notability. St★lwart111 03:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would do EVERYBODY good to move away from the hostile and confrontational tone set by the original poster. Artw (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the original post was confrontational - it was an entirely ordinary nomination. Other than yours, the keep !votes here have all been non-policy based and have favoured personal attacks and conspiracy theories over rational argument and thoughtful contribution. St★lwart111 05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the OPs attack on me is honestly one of the most unpleasant interactions I've had on Wikipedia, and I've dealt with GamerGaters. But let's move on beyond that. Artw (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The GamerGaters who allegedly threaten to rape and kill women just to send a message... and it was suggested you have an interest in the paranormal and the inclusion of fringe information. The horror. I'm an advocate for civility and BlueSalix and I have had our run-ins but seriously... you need a slightly thicker skin than that. St★lwart111 05:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't great for me either, I assure you. I've never, ever, ever, seen another editor delete and edit someone's comments in order to advance their position in an AfD. I'm, honestly, shocked you didn't get a 30-day vacation for that. BlueSalix (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above, none of those sources are useful for the purposes of determining notability except the interview in The Atlantic because none are significant coverage of the subject. Even The Atlantic, as a primary source interview, isn't great but there is some additional material at the top which might be of some value. But it's not great and its still not "multiple". St★lwart111 03:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aerospace Consultant Nick Cook" on NPR’s “Fresh Air,” August 14, 2002
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1148308
  • Publishers Weekly Talks with Nick Cook," June 10, 2002
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20020610/26530-pw-talks-with-nick-cook.html
There's also a small mountain of articles in which Nick Cook is quoted (in major new sources like the BBC and The Guardian etc), generally on advanced military aircraft subjects (but often on international conflict topics as well). I don't know if those sources are are of any significance, but they do seem to paint a picture of a recognized authority on experimental and advanced military aircraft, and particularly on aerospace black budget projects - Cook appears to be the world's leading journalist on those specific subjects, and one of very few journalists to have ever gained access to classified research sites. Informedskeptic (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A journalist requires more than frequent instances of being quoted or bylines, as otherwise virtually any reporter would get an article. see: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."). This recent story [4] in the LA Weekly would be a fine source for journalist Gary Webb. The sources you're citing - unedited interviews during a one-time book promotional tour - really aren't that usable. A BLP is about a person. Interviews about his book (unless it's an autobiography) don't give us information about the person. When we don't even have enough reliable information to attach a date of birth to a BLP, that's usually a cue there's a problem. BlueSalix (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I just keep thinking to myself: if I had some successful books and television programs under my belt, with decades of experience writing authoritative articles about advanced aircraft and international conflicts, published in the world's top news journals, with a flourishing news and interview career to boot, with my name pasted all over the internet, and The Atlantic knocked on my door and wanted to give me an interview - I'd reckon that I'd achieved some real measure of notoriety in this world. I'd probably call my Mom and say "Mom - I made it!" I mean, is the new gold standard having people write books about you? Because if that's the measuring stick, we're going to have to cut Wikipedia's biographies by, what - 90%? 95% maybe? Perhaps more, since old-style publishing is circling the pooper and most of the once-respected newspapers have gone tabloid. Pretty soon the only people with a multitude of RS's are gonna be psychopaths and politicans, and who wants to read about them anyway? Informedskeptic (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After WP got stricter on BLP there was indeed a significant reduction in article size on bio articles as they are extremely strict on WP:RS and WP:V. Sadly a Facebook profile probably doesn't cut it for information going into the article, though we've no reason to doubt it. Per WP:DOB we should lean towards leaving the date out. Artw (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect a book flap or similar would do the job. Artw (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Facebook pages, blogs, YouTube accounts, messenger pigeons, etc., are not RS. BlueSalix (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't Facebook a primary source? The WP:BASIC guideline states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." I really don't want to have to buy his damn book to scan the jacket. I've already read all the interesting bits to support my arguments against you on the Boyd Bushman talk page :/ Informedskeptic (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:SELFSOURCE guideline seems to give the green light to using Facebook for a D.O.B.:
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." Informedskeptic (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. Nick Cook is notable for a sweeping breadth of good reasons, which you've just stated. I think it's fair to dip across a variety of guidelines to make a solid case for notability, when someone's notability spans a range of domains like this - respected journalist, novelist, documentary film writer and director, guest in television programs and radio interviews, consultant for innumerable mainstream news articles on aerospace, and international finance and conflict. It's harder to come up with an area he that doesn't contribute to in the media. Another one I think you may have missed Artw is the WP:ACADEMIC guideline which states: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." He's frequently consulted on and quoted in top news sources about military aircraft, especially new technologies and black budget operations and projects. Informedskeptic (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Cook is not an academic, therefore, his notability is not evaluated under the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Because we think someone sounds kinda bright doesn't allow us to invoke ACADEMIC. As per the definition, "an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education." Cook would have to either have published in a peer-reviewed journal (he has not), held a teaching appointment (he did not), or published scientific texts (His book about a conspiracy to suppress Anti-Gravity technology by the Illuminati was a popular book designed for a lay audience and published under an entertainment imprint - Broadway Books - not a technical/scientific publication.) to qualify under ACADEMIC. BlueSalix (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WP:AUTHOR 1 may be applicable there: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Artw (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the WP:AUTHOR argument in my comment above (that was one of my comments you chose to delete so it should be in your edit history if you scroll back). BlueSalix (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no missing comments. If an argument is not here it is because you have not made it. The ones you have made I am unconvinced by. Artw (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Serialjoepsycho restored my argument after you made the choice to delete it. I'm just noting it was one of my AfD arguments you made the choice to delete so it would be easier for you to find it (rather than scrolling through the whole thread). It was a courtesy only. BlueSalix (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was it the bit about the Bosnian Pyramid Wars? Per the sources the article meets WP:GNG. Arguably it also meets WP:AUTHOR, something I am leaning more and more towards. In addition through the documentaries he meets WP:ENT. Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "na-na-na" does not count as a counterargument. Artw (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Art - I'd really like to focus on the substance of the discussion here. Can I empower you to please refrain from continuing to use invectives like "Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "na-na-na" does not count as a counterargument." It tends to inflame the conversation and juvenelizes the level of dialog. Thank you so much, Art! BlueSalix (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below. As for keeping focused - if Bosnian Pyramid Wizards are not relevant why did you raise them in the first place? Artw (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
welcome back BlueSalix (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's really well sourced now. Thank you Artw! Informedskeptic (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per, Stalwart111's well-reasoned explanation above, I disagree. It still fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR. We should really remove Cook completely from WP. BlueSalix (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the Atlantic: There is no way to know exactly what that money is being spent on, but Nick Cook has some ideas. For fifteen years Cook has been a defense and aerospace reporter for Jane's Defence Weekly, which some consider the bible of the international defense community. During his career Cook has often brushed up against the "black world" and has even delved into it, both in reporting for Jane's on advances like the B-2 bomber, and in working on a documentary, Billion Dollar Secret, that probed the U.S. military's classified (or black) weapons programs. ...it goes on... For his work at Jane's, Nick Cook has received the Royal Aeronautical Society's Aerospace Journalist of the Year Award four times, in the Defence, Business, Technology, and Propulsion categories. He also writes for The Financial Times, The London Times and often comments on defense and security for the BBC and CNN. I spoke to him at his home in London.

From Salon: In the post-X-Files age, this sort of conspiracy theory won’t raise any eyebrows. What makes the allegations interesting is that they appear in “The Hunt for Zero Point,” which is written by Nick Cook, for 10 years the aviation editor at Jane’s Defense Weekly. Jane’s is the bible of the defense establishment, known for its no-nonsense, nuts-and-bolts reporting. A former Jane’s editor tackling this topic is enough to make you take a second look. His research for the book is then described in further detail.

From CNN: "The computers that were secretly developed to go to the moon are now on your desktop," Nick Cook, aerospace consultant for Jane's Defence Weekly told CNN. "It all ends up in the commercial world in some ways, but black world technology is hard to penetrate in terms of figures and types of programs," he said.

From The Bookseller: Nick Cook is aviation editor of Jane's Defence Weekly; he specialises in freelance writing on military and defence and has written two of his own thrillers, Angel, Archangel and Aggressor. He has ghosted two books for Cameron Spence about the wars in the Gulf and Bosnia, Sabre Squadron (Penguin) and All Necessary Measures (Michael Joseph), and is currently ghosting a third book, for Random House. ...there are further quotes.

From the BBC: This week some of those involved in the initiative gathered at a conference in London. One of the instigators, Nick Cook, a former aerospace journalist who now runs a company called Dynamixx, explained how he latched on to the idea. It continues with quotes.

and so on... According to WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - which of those criteria do you believe has not been met? Artw (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've established that he has written about things and provided his opinion about other things. The one or two lines introducing him to the audience before he and the author provide significant coverage of some other topic (dark budgets, black world technology, air force operations, etc) won't generally be considered significant coverage of him or the author (including in cases where he is both). We've read the sources - they are the same sources (for the most part) that have been there all along. I, for one, have no vested interest in seeing this deleted and would happily see it sent to draft space to give someone a chance to work on it until he is notable. These are all, primarily, passing mentions in articles about other things in fact many actually cross-reference the passing mentions he has received elsewhere - "comments for the BBC and CNN". He may very well be an industry expert (even in multiple related industries) but the press have hundreds if not thousands of go-to experts in each field. Being one of them doesn't necessarily make you notable. Even more so, in my view, if you're a journalist yourself and probably count those interviewing you among your own "little black book" of experts. St★lwart111 06:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He may very well be an industry expert (even in multiple related industries) but the press have hundreds if not thousands of go-to experts in each field. what you are describing there is a straight up WP:AUTHOR 1 pass. Artw (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just another of the thousands on the "expert commentary" circuit. That criteria relates to creative professions - he's not considered an important figure to the field of journalism, he's considered an expert commentator by those in the field of journalism. Turn on any 24-hour news channel and you see one every few minutes. Misinterpreting that in a way that makes him sound like some sort of Walter Cronkite or Larry King is silly.St★lwart111 07:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Artw (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a particularly creative misreading of that policy. Being the go-to-guy for a couple of journalists is not the same thing as having your written work (books, academic papers, etc) cited (in an academic sense) by peers such that you would be considered a notable author. St★lwart111 09:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again from the Atlantic

This last project was something of a prelude to Cook's new book, The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology, which documents his ten-year search for a mythical technology that all the brightest minds in aerospace were gushing about in the early 1950s. Strangely, just a few years later the aerospace world was suddenly silent on the subject. After about 1956, anyone who mentioned antigravity, or the once-imminent "G-engines," was given a wide berth. It was an odd switch that left Cook with questions: Had there been anything to these rumors and reports? If not, why the hype? If so, what had happened? So he set out to look for answers, and what he found was surprising. Cook traced a long succession of both military and civilian scientists and engineers working to develop a branch of applied physics for which we still have no vocabulary, but which seems to involve manipulating the little-understood quantum-level "zero-point field" to achieve peculiar effects, like shielding objects from gravity.

...and...

Against the advice of his colleagues and friends, and against his own better judgment and career interests, Cook felt he couldn't ignore the leads he uncovered, which drew him through the black labyrinth back to an unexpected place: Nazi territory around the end of World War II. That is where, Cook claims, some of these technologies were first developed and then acquired by American and Russian forces

...and...

Since the book's publication in Britain, Cook has uncovered documents detailing Boeing's antigravity research program at the top-secret Phantom Works, where the company is striving to develop "propellantless propulsion" ahead of its competitors. Writing in Jane's Defence Weekly, Cook quoted the documents as saying that along with Boeing's own program, other "classified activities in gravity modification may exist"—suggesting that antigravity may, in fact, have been more than a 1950's fantasy.

So yes, there is a decent amount of text there about him, and while it mentions the Zero Point book it is about the research process that went into the book and discussions that happened afterwards.

I would say the same for the Publishers Weekly interview. I'm not seeing anything that leaps out quote-wise without actually cutting and pasting the whole thing here and even I am not quite that mad.

Back on the WP:AUTHOR 1 side of things there's this from a BBC article[5] that's not currently in the article

Added to this, the large number of still-secret Paperclip documents has led many people, including Nick Cook, Aerospace Consultant at Jane's Defence Weekly, to speculate that the US may have developed even more advanced Nazi technology, including anti-gravity devices, a potential source of vast amounts of free energy.

Cook says that such technology "could be so destructive that it would endanger world peace and the US decided to keep it secret for a long time".

Possibly I should find a space to squeeze that one in.

Moving slightly away from big news sources but still within WP:RS there's this from Skeptoid: Through this transcript, Witkowski claimed to have learned about Die Glocke. This account became popular in the West when aviation writer Nick Cook included it in his popular 2002 book The Hunt for Zero Point, a tale of the cranks and colorful characters who have tried to invent anti-gravity machines. Since that time, you've been able to find all you want on the Internet about Nazi flying saucers.

And more scathingly from Fortean Times: Exceeding even the rich imaginations of Michaels, Rose and Hyland is the much-publicised book The Hunt for Zero Point (Century, 2001) by Nick Cook, a notable freelance aviation journalist who has written for the very respectable Jane’s Defence Weekly. In the course of an investigation lasting, we are told, some 10 years, he appears to have been comprehensively misinformed by a whole series of individuals; or perhaps by individuals acting on behalf of a group with a specific agenda. It seems that for all the informants he gathered along the way, none of them ever warned Cook that people with an investment in making the Nazi regime (and the SS in particular) look good are quite happy to use deception to do so.

Without going through Cook’s oddly directionless book in any detail, it’s worth noting that his primary source about Schauberger was a Polish gentleman named Igor Witkowski. Witkowski, apparently, volunteered to drive Cook around, showing him sites where Schauberger had worked for the Nazis, constructing and testing ‘The Bell’, an experimental device with two cylinders spinning in opposite directions. Cook was told that this glowed blue and destroyed plants, birds, animals, and sometimes humans. Internet searches for Witkowski bring him up in conjunction with the loopy, ‘1930s-crashed-saucer-back-engineered-by-the-SS’ end of Polish ufology, and he has self-published six or more separate items with titles like Hitler’s Supersecret Weapon.

Witkowski told Cook that his extraordinary information came from an unnamable source, which Cook seems to have accepted without question. It seems that a “Polish government official” phoned Witkowski, inviting him to view documents and take notes about the development and concealment of extraordinary Nazi technology as given in a record of “the activities of a special unit of the Soviet secret intelligence service.” Witkowski’s evidence, together with a visit to Schauberger’s grandson, leads Cook to reproduce the material about imprisonment by the US after the war, and the apartment being blown up by the Russians, together with various unlikely claims about Schauberger being offered massive sums of money by (right-wing) Americans in the years before he died. Cook also informs us that Schauberger’s designs had been stolen by Heinkel in the early part of the war; that he had worked on secret projects for the Nazis from 1941-45, sometimes using slave labour; that he had created, specifically for the SS, disc-shaped machines with engines so revolutionary that even Cook, an aviation journalist, fails to explain how they worked.

Finally after doing a book search there's plenty of stuff like this: As noted at various points throughout this book, the "Legend" of a Nazi origin of many wartime and postwar UFO reports received a big "credibility boost" when a researcher and reporter for the prestigious Jane's Defence Weekly, British reporter Nick Cook, wrote a book on anti-gravity and quantum zero point energy research called The Hunt for Zero Point.[1] which I've avoided adding since we are trying to be very strict on source reliability, though it does back up Skeptoid's point. Artw (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Farrell, Joseph P. Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & the Cold War Allied Legend. Adventures Unlimited Press. p. 276. ISBN 1931882398.
Uh ... you probably don't want to cite books cranked out by Adventures Unlimited Press headquartered in that publishing mecca of Kempton, Illinois. This is not exactly what one would call an (ahem) "reputable" publishing house (though Editor-in-Chief Childress' book on "practical psychic teleportation" was ... interesting to say the least ... [6]) DocumentError (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're going to be, but there are rather a lot of book hits like that, so there may be something to the claim that Nick Cook is the popularizer of the current generation of nutso nazi UFO theories. Artw (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I can't deny that's at least a very novel/unique argument for an AfD. I'll even go so far as to say that if the "keep" argument is changed from "b/c he's an awesome journalist" to "b/c he's a nazi UFO theorist" as you suggested, I might likely change from Delete to Keep. A few weird articles here and there are what keeps WP spicy. DocumentError (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply In my opinion, DocumentError, when you use a POV pejorative like "trade rag" to describe a respected publication like Jane's Defence Weekly, then you detract from your own argument. There really ought to be nothing amusing about a self-employed person working out of a home office. In my view, he is a notable journalist who went off the rails and is now a notable crank. Bottom line: he's notable, and this encyclopedia should have an article about him. Improve the article if it gives a false impression that his home based business is highly "illustrious". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trade rag isn't a pejorative. It's a common phrase used in journalism to difference between a consumer magazine and a non-consumer magazine. Here are a few examples of it being used: by the UPI [7], by the Daily Telegraph [8], by Business Insider [9], etc. Trade rags often even refer to themselves as such. It's a very, very common term in English-language journalism and has neither positive nor negative connotations. Since this is an AfD about a journalist, I assumed those choosing to participate might be familiar with some of the basic terminology used in the media and publishing industries. If I should not have assumed that I, of course, apologize. DocumentError (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote for a trade publication for over 20 years and never once heard that term used straight, as opposed to in a mocking fashion. The piece from The Telegraph is packed full of mocking terminology. You chose to pipe instead of linking directly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the right person, and this (a Wikipedia AfD) is not the correct forum, to analyze your personal experiences.
  • Straits Times - Trade rag The Hollywood Reporter raved about the "beautiful" performances - calling Zhao the Chinese Juliette Binoche - but had issues with the plot. [10]
  • Register - Technology Review, the tech trade rag affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reports that the Institute of Computing Technology ... [11]
  • San Francisco Chronicle - The farm trade rag, Western Farm Press, reports there are more than a million acres of alfalfa... [12]
If you want to continue to fire-off accusations against me, kindly move it to my Talk page and off the AfD. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am making no accusations about you at all and of course assume that you are acting in good faith. My perception is that the phrase carries negative connotations and you clearly disagree. That's OK and I see no reason for you to get upset about me expressing my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're continuing to use the AfD to defend your accusation that I was using a "POV pejorative." [13] If you want to continue impugning my NPOV, move it to my Talk page or ANI. This isn't the place for it. Second request. DocumentError (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if it helps here's another bit about the company in the NY Times[14]. It's pretty similar to the others so I haven't included if for now. Artw (talk) 01:42, 28 November 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