Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Berger

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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Berger

not notable, possible vanity page A2Kafir 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even mentioned by the article in the movement he is supposedly "prominent" in. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Changed my vote, he is mentioned on there. However, he is only linked from there with little contextual mention. This gives him at least some degree of notability. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep prominent in the 9/11 Truth movement, just as the article says. The easiest proof for that is hím being choosen as a commentator by CNN. --Striver 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A friend of mine was on Fox News to talk about Amtrak. She doesn't have her own article. One TV appearence does not notability make....A2Kafir 03:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not notable for being on CNN, he is notable as a member of the 9/11 truth movement, and being on CNN is a proof of that, not the other way around. --Striver 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Circular reasoning. A2Kafir 03:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Circular reasoning = A => b => A. That is not what im saying. Im sayin Notable => CNN, not CNN => notable. Get me? --Striver 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Googling "Michael Berger" brings up a voice actor, an artist, a karate trainer, and a physics professor by that name on the first page, but no mention of this particular Michael Berger. He really doesn't seem to be notable outside his role in the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews, and even in that context, his importance is questionable. I don't even see any evidence that he's even a notable member of the 9/11 truth movement. --Hyperbole 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Try [1]--Striver 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable...at all--MONGO 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established by one television appearance. -- Samir (the scope) 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Hyperbole. (man, that sounds odd) --Mmx1 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Me follow what MONGO say. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, again, he is not notable for being in the television, he is notable for being the Media Coordinator of 911Truth.org, and that is so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement. Does it get more notable than that? --Striver 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

...so notable that CNN choose him for the job of representing the 9/11 movement.. In other words, he's notable precisely because he's a media representative, i.e., being on television, not because he's on television. Right, got it. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. And that is not the case. He was and is one of the prominent figures for one of the most prominent parts of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It was due to that he was invited to CNN. He was prominent and notable in the movement before that, and not the other way around--Striver 07:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you are saying he was a nobody before the CNN thingy. Got it in one. And all your handwaving about how prominent he is inside your walled garden doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, one interview on an entertainment news magazine != notability. Striver has conveniently neglected to mention that Showbiz Tonight airs on Headline News, not CNN. It's an important distinction, and I don't doubt that this is an intentional distortion. Striver is the same user who billed Morgan Reynolds as George W. Bush's chief economist, when he was actually the Department of Labor's chief economist. Rhobite 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Will you quite assuming bad faith?! I take offence in your accusations!--Striver 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: don't assume bad faith. I see absolutely no reason to assume that the HN/CNN mixup was anything but an innocent error, and every reason not to. --Hyperbole 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not after the Morgan Reynolds thing. Striver is either being willfully deceptive, or he lacks the attention to detail required of an encyclopedia editor. Rhobite 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all above.--Jersey Devil 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, one TV appearance as an advocate of a kook organisation does not an encyclopaedic article make. Proto||type 09:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely nn. --Terence Ong 11:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above, nn --Deville (Talk) 12:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content to List_of_people_questioning_the_official_American_911_account, and delete this article (no redirect). JeffBurdges 12:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, nn, nn. Eusebeus 13:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. Deizio 17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn walled garden attempt. We all know 9/11 was orchestrated by Aliens anyway. I mean, the PLANE HAD NO WINDOWS !!!!eleven!! - Hahnchen 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement. Fishhead64 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Fishhead64. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, let me change that. Move to Michael Berger (9/11 Truth Movement), remove the redirect, then merge and redirect to 9/11 Truth Movement. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, here is another radio interview with him:

29/3, CJBK--London, Ontario--10am Eastern. Listen Here: http://911truth.org/911truthmedia/Audio/CJBK%201290AM%20Talk%203-29-06.mp3

His been in Showbiz Tonight, and has been interviewed by CJBK, both times as a representative of the 9/11 truth movement, he is the media coordiantor of one of the bigest 9/11 movement groups, and you call him non-notable? C'mon, he is far more notable than a whole bunch of the guys in wikipedia and easly fullfills WP:BIO:

• Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage
• A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
• Name recognition
• Google Test , michael berger "9/11" 557 hits
• audience of 5 000

Its simply wrong to delete him. --Striver 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First, if you quote his name, it's only 557 hits [2] Reply: Yeah, sorry, i just saw that you commented before i corrected it. --Striver 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is why the "5000" is a guideline, not a rule. I've been quoted in several papers with a daily publication of several million; I get a few hundred ghits (and I have a non-common name), and I've been quoted on Fox News. I'm just a dopey college student and I don't rate a wiki article. Getting quoted in a paper is not alone a sign of notability, regardless of how popular the paper is. Hell, they quote the neighbors in the New York Times when a building burns down. Are they notable now? --Mmx1 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Im not debating your notability, and further, he has not been simly quoted, he has been called as a representative of a nation wide movement, and also given time to talk long about his issues on both TV and Radio! His notability is being the media coordinator of a nationwide movement, deleting him is a blatant violatioin of the spirit of wikipeda. --Striver 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He's the media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement" I'm using myself as an example why his credentials aren't that impressive. I know I'm not notable, yet in my uninteresting undergraduate career I'm still managed to pretty much match his media credentials. And I'm not even trying to pass myself as the rep for some movement. I'm sure I could get an hour on Art Bell with that claim.--Mmx1 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You dont need to have any education to begin with in order to have notability. Have you been invited to talk on both national tv and local radio? If you have, then you are also notable according to WP:BIO, SPECIALY if you are the "media coordinator for a website the purports to front for the entire "9-11 Truth Movement"! Again, have you been called to talk in both radio and national TV? Do you have a large number of people you represent? Are you the media coordinator of the prominent website of a group? Are you working on a movie that is being relesed 9/4/06? Bereger has all of this, and you are deleteting him as nn?--Striver 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is he less notable than: P. J. Abbott, Achille Valenciennes, Adélaïde Dufrénoy, Adrien René Franchet or Bernard Picinbono ?--Striver 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have something against the French ;-) And yes, I was quoted on Fox News because I couldn't get an interview taped before the story broke. That's a bit more significant than Showbiz tonight. He does NOT represent the movement, he only claims to. Who represents the Anti-War movement? Lots of people claim they do but I doubt you'll find consensus.--Mmx1 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? And it does not matter if he is truuly the representative of them, he was there as the representeative of the 9/11 movement. Further, i challenge you to find one single 9/11 movement activist rejecting him as a notable and prominent representative of the movement. angain, he was not quoted or taped, he was there live on both the tv and now, yesturday, on local radio, and he is working on a movie that will break in 10 days. --Striver 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you was only quoted, maybe posibly taped, but where you there live? Clearly, the really important question to ask is exactly how many angels dancing on the head of a pin makes the pin notable. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont know if it maters, but he also has "his own plastic recycling company and movie production company": end of tape--Striver 23:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More Michael Berger: [3], deleting him is just wrong! --Striver 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, anyone can start a blog in 30 seconds. You're beginning to sound like Sollog. A2Kafir 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to the 9/11 Truth Movement. Stifle 23:48, 31 March 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.