Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wolsey

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Wolsey

Barely has enough notability to survive a speedy deletion, but the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO. --Hetar 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable podcaster/conspiracy theorist. NawlinWiki 03:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he seems to be an important figure in the 9/11 conspiracy movement with his connection to 911truth.org - a site cited as a major source for the 9/11 conspiracy theory article. He also represents a leader in local conspirracy movements. --chemica 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Hetar, please explain how "the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO". I would like to know exactly what you consider a "violation". Thank you. Visibility911 12:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promotional, possible vanity; fails WP:BIO Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• comment see also Visibility 9-11 Podcast. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subject does not meet criteria for inclusion laid out at the WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 14:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. Alternatively userfy to Visibility911, who is (at least in part) obviously the subject. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attention to this article and for taking it to AfD for further discussion.

Quoting from the 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". However, I do believe Michael does fall into at least two of these categories and if there is a dispute about this, I ask that the following be considered along with the previous statement from the WP:BIO.

Michael has "...made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field". Despite the fact that mainstream media will not cover alternative views on 9-11, its remarkable that he has gotten so much recognition, especially in Colorado. Two cover stories have been written in local, highly visible, alternative newspapers (The Rocky Mountain Bullhorn and the Boulder Weekly) as a result of Michael's work. One featured Michael and although he was not quoted in the second one, he was interviewed and appeared in the photograph that accompanied the cover story.

Michael is also well known for his radio appearences both locally in Colorado and nationally. He has made numerous appearances on several radio stations in Colorado and guest hosted many times for the program Words of Freedom with George Flynn.

Michael was recognized nationally when he was asked to serve on the board of directors with 911truth.org, which as noted previously, is a major component in the 9-11 truth movement.

Michael's work is also featured prominently on 9-11 related websites with great regularity.

I believe, as others do, that Michael has indeed made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field".

For the reasons stated above, I also believe that Michael is also a "Person[s] achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Certainly, the events of September 11th are newsworthy and it is obvious that Michael has been recognized for his work.

By the way, yes, I do know Michael and I am the one who saw your huge section on 9-11 conspiracy theories. I think Michael should be included in the section with all the other Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. If this is being viewed as a vanity article, please help me to re-write it or give me suggestions so that it conforms with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Visibility911 00:14, 1 August 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.