Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Bradford Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daryl Bradford Smith

This concerns a "Radio Host from an underground radiosstation called The French Connection which started medium 2005", and as it stands is a POV conspiracy screed. Naturally POV can be fixed, but in this case, is this person notable enough to justify it? While he generates a good number of Google hits, Internet conspiracy theorists have an extremely high cruft multiple, and the hits are mainly from websites similar to his and sites redistributing his 'underground radio'. None look like independent, third party sources. That may be because the mainstream media and other potential reliable sources are in on the conspiracy, or because he's non-notable. You decide. For my part I vote delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep There is no sense in deleting an entry for a person that is having a significant effect on the 9-11 movement. Google the name and you can see how many people are talking about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.166.211 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Daryl is either stupid or an infiltrator, but in either case, he is notable: [1] --Striver 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepDaryl Bradford Smith is to known force to be neglected and his audience is growing. His radioshows has many listeners all over the world and he has many known guests. You don't have to agree what Daryl says, much more important is what his guests have to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.35.49.130 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete for now. The number of Ghits, even accounting for Blanning's Cruft Factor, seems above average for this sort of thing. However, what worried me as I scrolled through the list is that there are no "mainstream" sources about this guy. It all looked like blog posts, torrents, podcasts, and the like. I don't want to throw out independent media a priori, but if the only people discussing this delightfully idiosyncratic guy are other delightfully idiosyncratic guys, then it's a walled garden scenario. I'm open to change my opinion on this if someone can point to mainstream, or even mainstreamish sources for this guy. I didn't find any because I got tired of scrolling, but I accept the proposition that they might be down there somewhere. --Deville (Talk) 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont get that. Does Wikipedia criteria for inclusion demand that a mainstream source mentions the subject?--Striver 14:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia criteria for writing stuff demands that it be based on a reliable source. Conspiracy theorists are pretty much the opposite of reliable. All the Google hits in the world don't help us write a verifiable article. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so you mean that there are no reliable sources that establish his existence?--Striver 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources establish my existence, but I don't deserve an article saying "Samuel Blanning exists" and nothing else any more than this guy does. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
So, the issue is notability? His notability is established. --Striver 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable crank and anti-Semite. Brian G. Crawford 14:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - now he's spamming his links all over the articles. Keep - I think he's barely notable as a conspiracy theorist, but I don't want to favor those who are better at self-promotion. I don't want to selectively ignore the anti-semites among the conspiricists, because that makes the whole group look less anti-semitic than it is. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete MONGO 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we can be clear about the fact that this is not a "common" guy at all. Common guys are not requested to be a guest in other radio shows. Also are "common" people not discussed in radio programs as subject of discussion. Why I should even spend one second of my time for changing that article about him and writing this message if it was just a common guy. Many persons also mentioned in this encyclopedia fear, hate or love this guy. This guy, an his thoughts have some significant influence on society. And only for that reason he must be in this wikipedia. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.35.49.130 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Significant influence? I doubt even your walled garden thinks you have that much influcence. --Mmx1 16:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The guy is a idiot in my view, and he spreads hat for Jews, but that is no criteria for deleting. Even if he was only notable in a "walled garden", that would still not be a arguement for deleting, the sciontolgy church is a closed society, and still we have articles about them. I still have not seen on single valid reason to delete. --Striver 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, not convinced that he's notable. And he's certainly not a "significant influence on society". Marcus22 20:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. RGTraynor 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remember that Alex Jones (journalist) and Jeff Rense are both in this list too, those are not more notable than mr. Smith. Further all those persons had a radioshow on the same radio network GCN. Mr. Smith has many good guests in his show as Rabbi's, Professors, Secret Service Agents, Pentagon Insiders, Writers, Bush Insiders. Why should all those persons go to a non-notable person? Of course we are not so interested in Smith's life, we are more interested in his Radio Show. But that the same for Jones, Rense, Icke etc.—This unsigned comment was added by 84.35.49.130 (talk • contribs) .

Ah, what the heck, delete the guy, i dont like him anyhow, he claims Alex is a infiltrator, Sheen is a infiltrator and he is a anti-semit. The 9/11 truth movement won't mourne him not having a article. --Striver 23:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and above users.--Jersey Devil 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He claims that Alex Jones could be an infiltrator. But if you claim something without evidence than you have a theory. Smith provides at least some serious information that supports his claim, and more pleasant information that we can all check. I don't say I like Alex or Daryl or somebody else, I simply listen to them what they have to say. Listening is one of the most important aspects of life. We can listen to different opions, Daryl attacks Alex, Wing.TV attacks Alex. Wing.TV attacks Daryl. Daryl attacks Wing.TV. But it happens all on a decent way. Because they all know each other.—This unsigned comment was added by 84.35.49.131 (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete for now. I've been keeping an eye on Daryl Bradford Smith, and while he's holding steady at about 15,000 hits per day (compare, e.g., my site [www.thhp.org] which gets ten times that many), he doesn't seem poised to get much more, and he's getting more and more unhinged as the weeks go on. He's not a well man.

More information available on him at: http://www.bluwiki.org/go/Leugner


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.