Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathias Bröckers

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. -Splash - tk 23:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathias Bröckers

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non notable conspiracy theorist who wrote two books about his theories. Striver cruft! Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Peephole 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 85,700 Google hits [1]. Is considered a notable journalist by the German-language Wikipedia [2], which lists nine books he's published - I can't say what they're all about, because I don't speak German. If anyone does, some of that information should probably be translated and merged into the English article. Calling anything "Striver cruft" strikes me as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and certainly suggests that this nomination has an agenda behind it. --Hyperbole 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment While the coining of "Strivercruft" is not something I agree with, I can sympathize with the frustration that caused it to come about. With no disrespect meant to Striver, and casting no aspersions about his good faith, he has inflated the number of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles to an unmanageable level in an effort to gather support behind a wikiproject dedicated to the 9/11 "Truth Movement." So while it should be noted that there is an agenda behind nominating a great many of these articles for deletion, there is not neccessarily anything sinister or even wrong about said agenda. The agenda is simply keeping the granularity of Wikipedia on certain subjects in line with the notability of said subjects.--Rosicrucian 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is established.--Jersey Devil 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Tbeatty 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Abstain Current English Wikipedia article shows no notability, not even close. CWC(talk) 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Neutral, because article might establish notability if expanded along the lines suggested below. CWC(talk) 01:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability not established in article. - Crockspot 14:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Violates WP:NOT, WP:BALLS and Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Morton devonshire 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notability established by google hits, and this AfD has an obvious POV/WP:NPA agenda.--csloat 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per csloat and Hyperbole EyesAllMine 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a journalist for an online news service like taz or Telepolis is bound to get a lot of ghits, not that the presence or absence of google hits speaks to notability. Checking on Google News, there appear to be very few reports about Bröckers as opposed to those written by him. Writing lots of stuff is not a sign of notability, being written about is. Seems to be a run of the mill writer and journalist, with no obvious claim to notability per WP:BIO. My German isn't the best, but I didn't see anything which would form the basis of a non-trivial biographical article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll go with keep on the basis of Blathnaid's hard work. But the refs need to be added to the article so we don't end up here again in six months. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Undersourced, and difficult to get reliable English-language sources to even begin to bring the article up to snuff. I can acknowledge that international press coverage can be used as a gauge of notability, and I can likewise see why he'd be on the German-language Wikipedia. However, reliable English-language sources are a basic requirement for inclusion in the English-language Wikipedia, independent of any other articles in the other Wikipedias.--Rosicrucian 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, there is no such requirement. WP:V requires that Wikipedia content be verifiable but reliable sources don't cease to be reliable because they are in a language other than English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that citing a foreign language article in an English Wikipedia article was bad form due to it being inaccessible to the intended audience. Was I mistaken?--Rosicrucian 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: From WP:RS: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources. In any case, policy is clear that it's not up to AfD nomintors and voters to dig out sources. --Aaron 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:OSTRICH may not be policy, but it is good advice for editors at AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:V. There are only two cites in the entire article, one of which is to an blog article written by the subject, and the other is a link to the subject's own website. --Aaron 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: He is a bestselling author, and is famous/notorious (depending on your POV) in Germany for his conspiracy theories and advocating hemp legalization for industrial purposes. He has published at least 20 books over 20 years. [3] [4] He was a journalist and features editor for Die tageszeitung (taz) in the 1980s, before taz started its online service. He also wrote a book about that newspaper. He is regarded as an expert on cannabis (no sniggering please :-p). He promoted the legalization of hemp growing and he has written a lot of books about cannabis, and one about Albert Hofmann. Here is an article in Der Standard about Brocker's research into cannabis. I also read that he established the first business in Germany that distributed hemp products, but I can't find a good source for this fact. His 9/11 book Verschwörungen, Verschwörungstheorien und die Geheimnisse des 11.9 is a best-seller and has sold 100,000 copies in Germany [5] and has been translated into English. Here is a very negative review of the book in Die Welt. This piece in the Telegraph says that his book is on the German bestseller list. Here is a recent article by him called "Confessions of a Conspiracy Theorist" in Frankfurter Rundschau, and an interview with him in die tageszeitung, all mainstream newspapers. Here is an extremely negative view of him in Der Spiegel (in English). This article is very negative about his research methods. Here are more articles (about 14) in Die Welt that mention him. I think this is enough to meet WP:V and WP:BIO. My German isn't great, but I can add the sources to the article over the next few days. Bláthnaid 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per research by Blathnaid, author seems to have plenty of notability in his work as an author and well the man likes herb, what more can you say. --NuclearZer0 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per excellent research by Blathnaid. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in Germany; there was an article in mass media about his book along with two others being the sensation of the Frankfurt Book Fair (world's largest) in 2003, i will post link to the article (Deutsche Welle English). Unfortunately the infallible mainstream media spelt his name wrong as Bröckner though JPLeonard 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: JPLeonard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep If someone is named "The Red Baron of Eurohempsterism" - see the Canadian Mag "Cannabis Culture" [6] - he might be notable in an English Language Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.97.5 (talk • contribs).— Possible single purpose account: 85.178.97.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete per Peephole. Akanksha 04:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• KeepHere is one of Broeckers' recent essays translated into english: [7]; at recent the "Wizard of OS" - conference in Berlin he was a speaker and is mentioned as "in charge of taz online, about the largest alternative daily newspaper an how it became a cooperative". [8]So it seems not apropriate to reduce him to a role as "conspiracy theorist", since he seems a notable activist in some other fields like hemp, open soource and cooperatives.Sirius23 09:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Sirius23— Possible single purpose account: Sirius23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep He is famous for his criticism on 9/11 and journalists.--Oneiros 14:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Folks, I am German and have been reading a lot about Bröckers, the TAZ and other Jounalists in Germany. Bröckers is important to the german press and he is a conspiracy-theorist, he is investigating (his work is about) conspiracies. An last but not least he is becoming more and more important to the american press because of his ties to Daniel Hopsicker (Author in Florida)--Orange-DE 14:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.73.187.233 (talk) .— Possible single purpose account: 88.73.187.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Comment Blathnaid, you're quite the sleuth, hats off! Those will make good external links. If you need any help about German I'll be glad to oblige. JPLeonard 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep he is an bestselling author —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.73.78.148 (talk • contribs).— Possible single purpose account: 88.73.78.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• keep Martinwilke1980 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep. He is not well known in America, but is famous in Europe. American notability is irrelevent; this is not the American Wikipedia. · XP · 15:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Blathnaid.  ALKIVAR™ 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but the references from Bláthnaid have to be put into the article. *Sparkhead 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep best-selling author. see no policy- or precedent-based reason whatsoever to delete; fails neither BIO nor V. stated reason seems to be a distaste for the content of his books. Derex 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Blathnaid. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article says he wrote at least one nonfiction book that was a best-seller in Germany; that's a sufficient assertion of notability. JamesMLane t c 14:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Strothra 22:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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.