Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Beter

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, default to Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Beter

Peter Beter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I searched the NY Times historical archives, Google Books, EBSCO databases other such library sources that would normally have material on a person of that time period, if he was notable. I'm coming up empty, aside from one letter to the editor (doesn't quite meet our standards for sourcing) that he wrote and his book. Also spent significant time looking through Google search results, looking for reliable sources and only found very few which discussed his theories regarding Jonestown. There are simply not enough reliable sources to support the article, nor enough/adequate sources to indicate he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I'm not satisfied with the web links provided as sources, which provide mainly "primary source" material. (Beter's letters, etc.) In summary, I don't think this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, nor are there enough reliable sources to support the article. --Aude (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Aude.--Dcooper 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am changing my vote because the article has been completely reworked with proper references. Although his notability is borderline, I think the new references show that he is notable enough.--Dcooper 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Aude's excellent nomination. Mark Lane he isn't. Heather 19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Aude's well-researched and fairly-written nom. I must admit to surprise that Beter was not from Louisiana and this was not sourced to an unpublished monograph, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the fact that he testified before US Congress and had Fort Knox opened to the public. -Eep² 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

He also has ties to Bob Dobbs and Cosmic Awareness (in-progress) and has influenced prominent conspiracy theorists of today via his mentioning of robotoids (of who David Icke is a proponent of, is referred to by Robert Anton Wilson[1] and Michael Tsarion), and other people (the band Wanderers song Peter Beter). If anything, he is notable in the world of conspiracy theory. I will be researching him more. -Eep² 11:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

More references to Beter in various books as found on Amazon.com (for the link visit-challenged, The Syndicate: The Story of the Coming World Government by Nicholas Hagger, Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Weyler, The Source: Journey Through the Unexplained by Art Bell and Brad Steiger, and Alternative Rock : Third Ear - The Essential Listening Companion by Dave Thompson (same one who wrote the allmusic Wanderers article). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eep² (talk • contribs) 12:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

• Keep While I agree that the sources for this page are appalling and unacceptable, the man himself is highly notable and it is entirely possible to source this page to full wikistandards using reliable third party sources. Contrary to what User:Aude has stated, there are many resources that discuss Beter. Simply skimming google is not a good way of judging somebody's notability. I hold that Beter is a notable figure both in the world of politics and the world of conspiracies and is mentioned in any number of publications, you just can't expect to get a huge amount of google hits on somebody who was notable 30+ years ago but who has since fallen out of the public eye. For example Beter's beliefs in conspiracies are discussed in Lewis' "Controversial New Religions" ^[1] and Hudnall's "The Occult Connection II: The Hidden Race" ^[2], Lee's "Libraries in the Age of Mediocrity" ^[3] and he also makes an appearance in Hailey's "Overload" ^[4].

Beter's public and political career also makes him notable. For example, in 1952 he was appointed to the US court of military appeal and he spoke before congress on numerous occasions including the when he spoke to the Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing at the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations committe for 1975, and in 1960 he was the chairman of the public welfare committee of the federation of citizens associations. He's been around and has certainly built up a biography of notable events and references.

Beter was also assigned as General Counsel to the Export-Import Bank of the United States. In this role he believer that US gold reserves had been secretly siphoned off to Europe and he forced an investigation in which the central US gold repository was fully audited. This grounds for inclusion in itself.

perfectblue 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue97 - You said on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal in reference to this AFD, "trying to delete as much paranormal/conspiracy content as the can"? and accuse me of "not bothering to check their notability first", and here suggest I only "skimmed google". It appears you really did NOT read my nomination statement and misrepresented my nomination. I spent a long time yesterday looking at various databases that would cover someone of that time period, Google Books (which has lots of full text, old content), etc. Anyway, Beter is mention on just two pages of "Controversial New Religions", one page which talks about him in reference to Jonestown, and just one page mentions him in "Libraries in the Age of Mediocrity". As I've mentioned on Talk:Peter Beter, if the material is adequately referenced, he can be mentioned on the Jonestown page in discussion of such "alternative"/"conspiracy" theories. The second page of that book is simply a bibliography listing. Beter is mentioned on one page of "The Occult Connection II", in reference to his audio letters, and one page in "Overload". These references are simply not enough to go with. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV, we need more reliable sources than Beter's own words (which give only one POV). There's not enough material out there to do that. --Aude (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Aude, searching using {{find}} produces Find sources: Peter Beter – news, books, scholar, which indicates sufficient sources. Addhoc 23:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability in a subculture doesn't cut it. Jefffire 12:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, where do these comments come from? I wasn't talking about the senate from Star Wars, I was talking about the US Senate. It's not part of some sci-fi convention subculture, it's an significant part of US democracy (FYI, it might be an idea to rephrase your comment, especially near any members of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. You're just implied that no figure in modern African-American culture is notable). - perfectblue 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Notability is relative. Plus, it's not even a Wikipedia policy, but a GUIDELINE (and a disputed one at that). Try again, wiktators. There are so many niche people who have articles on Wikipedia it's freakin' ridiculous. Seriously, how many damn cricket players need their own article?! Gimme a freakin' hypocritical break... At least Beter was influential; how many cricketers are famous outside their sport? I can't even think of one--but then I'm from the US where we couldn't give a shit about cricket for the most part. ;) Oh yea--how's THAT for relative notability, eh? I'm so tired of this "notability" copout argument... -Eep² 13:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The consequence of the poorly used sources in this article is that the article is filled with misinformation, most of it making Beter seem more notable than he is. The article previously stated that Beter coined the term "stagflation" and that he initiated the Fort Knox conspiracy theory. Both statements appear to be false from a quick google search.--Dcooper 13:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for that. perfectblue 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment:More importantly, the article should provide a trustworthy citation that Beter coined stagflation and initiated the Fort Knox conspiracy theory. If you want to know who is believed to have coined stagflation, you can check the dictionary [2] or read the sources Eep2 found on Talk:Stagflation. I don't know any reliable sources for the Fort Knox conspiracy, but I did find these pages, which attribute the conspiracy theory to Edward Durrell: [3], [4].--Dcooper 12:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That blog link you gave says "access from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:articles_for_deletion/peter_beter has been denied" but it's just a copy of the apparent original article by Herb Lazarus (who, according to http://mpelembe.blogware.com/blog?cmd=search&keywords=Herb+Lazarus used to write for http://gold-guru.info/, which is dead, and maintains some free websites at http://jobsearchaid.com/ and http://makeawiseinvestment.com/). Dunno about that guy as a credible reference... The other site you mentioned, from the American Patriot Friends Network, needs researching too, I think. -Eep² 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: More research on Lazarus (who I doubt is this one, president of Carsey-Werner, or this one from a folkfale, but you never know...) seems to indicate he posts his articles on various "article archive" sites: [5], [6] (no direct URL to search results, and I can't figure out how to get the form POST/GET syntax to work, but there are 3 articles by Lazarus), [7], [8], and others via a Google search —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eep² (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

That's why I said I couldn't find any reliable sources. The important point is that we shouldn't say Beter started the theory.--Dcooper 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There are MANY sources that attribute the Fort Knox conspiracy theory to Beter. You found *2* questionable sources that attribute the theory to Edward Durrell. -Eep² 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Aude's well-researched and absolutely accurate nom. Notability is not relative and giving testimony before congress on one occasion does not a notable political figure make. National Airport 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

He was appointed to a senior fiscal position by JFK and he spoke before congress on multiple occasions. - perfectblue 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why doesn't testifying before United States Congress make someone notable, National? Gimme a freakin' break. -Eep² 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Many government bureaucrats and other folks testify before congress, but don't have articles here. See all the FBI officials [9], State Department [10], Health & Human Services [11], Food & Drug Administration [12], Treasury [13] and so forth. The heads of these agencies would probably have enough press coverage and reliable sources to work with in creating a Wikipedia article about them, consistent with WP:NPOV and other policies. But, Beter was the General Counsel, and not the head of the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank. The General Counsel's Office is the legal office (presently 25 attorneys) for Ex-Im, and falls somewhere on the organization chart below the Ex-Im Chairman. --Aude (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what Beter's position was, all of his combined actions and influences on other conspiracy theorists is notable as I've mentioned in previous comments. You really don't know until you start researching him even MORE thoroughly than you have. You can't just go with official so-called "reliable" (mass media) sources because most of these people work in the underground, away from the attention OF mass media. I've been researching the origin of the term robotoids for the past few hours and, while Beter clearly didn't mention it first in 1979, his audio tapes have influenced alleged spiritual/psychic channellers (like Cosmic Awareness) and conspiracy theorists as mentioned in previous comments. If anything, all of this research will expose links between these people that are not otherwise apparent in a gloss-over of their biographies... -Eep² 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep ... notable Conspiracy theory figure. J. D. Redding 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Aude is right, and most of the opposition is arm-waving. Note also possible vote-stacking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, which should plainly be renamed WikiProject Anti-establishment. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an insult. Time for a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG? Don't be a hypocrite... -Eep² 06:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the list of references for the article, I see no reliable sources. We should delete this. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks to Addhoc for improving the article, particularly the references. If this article is kept, it must be stubbed right down to something that is supported only by reliable sources. That is, not conspiracy books and websites. --Tony Sidaway 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

However, Beter's influence on conspiracy theorists is notable. -Eep² 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for the lack of reliable external sources. — BillC ^talk 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I've added references and tried to remove the bias. Addhoc 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -Everyone, Dr peter beter has done so much for the good of this nation, it would be a shame from us to delete his entry just like that. many of us worked hard to build this article. please don't just delete it and ignore a distinguished person like dr peter beter. thank you everyone...Grandia01 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• If there's an argument to policy in there I can't find it. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Aude. >Radiant< 07:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC

• Delete per nomination, fails BIO. --Minderbinder 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is wrong with you people?? this article has MUCH better references than MANY articles on wikipedia presently. what's up with these justifications?? 3 "delete"s per aude?? at the time he wrote this comment many references MAY have been unreliable, but after all these edits and improvements this article is still badly referenced?? what kind of a joke is this?? you guys make it seem like dr peter beter is a fictional character who achieved nothing noteworthy in life, and facts prove otherwise.cmon...Grandia01 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm also struggling to correlate the delete arguments with the current article references. Possibly the closing admin could review this. Addhoc 09:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway for an admin to judge??i'm pretty sure that her/his opinion will be much more reliable than most of us here. its just pathetic man, nominate an article for DELETION like its nothing but a bunch of crap even though history and facts prove otherwise. if all of us take Dr Beter as an example then i sincerely believe that we could be of much greater benefit to our community, and hopefully stop this immature nonsense...Grandia01 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

everyone, it doesn't look like we're going anywhere: the article is now just a stub referenced with reliable citations. besides, this "poll" apparently didn't make a difference anyway, i'll delete the delete tag from the article if no changes happens, its just useless now, i highly doubt that anyone is paying any attention even to this delete situation.Grandia01 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you wait for the role of the closing admin to determine whether there is any consensus to delete, based on the arguments presented. Addhoc 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. This AfD (not a poll) will be closed by an admin, and at that point we'll see what the closing result is. Please don't declare AfD's over or remove AfD tags from articles while the AfD is still open. --Minderbinder 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter? The admins are all biased anyway and tend to gang up on AfDs/CfDs/etc. What kind of checks-and-balances system is that? It's not... -Eep² 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, this page is for discussing potential deletion. It's not the place to rant about how The Man is keeping you down. --Minderbinder 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok so what do we do now?? now some of us are disagreeing to have an admin close this case. should i just go and delete the delete tag??Grandia01 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a process going on here. You can learn about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do NOT remove the delete tag from the article again. An admin will eventually review it and make a decision.--Dcooper 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Cosmic Awareness and Bob Dobbs references? The Cosmic Awareness primary source is only used to show that Beter is mentioned in the newsletter and on the website--see for yourself--and the Bob Dobbs source mentions Beter:

Bob Dobbs is an expert on communications theory and was a colleague of Marshall McLuhan at the Center for Culture and Technology in Toronto, Ontario. For several years during the mid-'80s he was the personal advisor to investigative journalist Bob Marshall, who hosted a radio show on CKLN-FM called the International Connection. The show regularly featured the information of groundbreaking conspiracy theorists such as Mae Brussell, Sherman Skolnick, Dr. Peter Beter, and Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Adam Vaughan, the manager of the station, fired Marshall early in 1987 for broadcasting Dr. Beter's "antiSemitic rants" against the Rothschilds. The fact that Beter railed against the Rockefellers just as much as the Rothschilds apparently went right over Vaughan's head. Dobbs later replaced Marshall on the air, and has since followed a rather interesting career trajectory. According to him, he's taken over the Earth. -Eep² 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - well referenced and should be given the opportunity to grow and be brought up to par with wikipedia biography standards, if anything just mark it as a stub (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

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.