Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Christison (CIA)

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Christison (CIA)

Former CIA man turned conspiracy theorist, doesn't seem notable. Peephole 04:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. And I thought the well was close to dry.--Tbeatty 05:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If he's notable the article doesn't mention it. Banish this to Area 51 and Loch ness. Arbusto 05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Little online presence despite the controversial nature of 9/11 conspiracy nonsense [1], and nothing implying notability through reliable sources. As for his work for the CIA, doesn't appear to be enough to meet WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Noting the post below this one, he does indeed appear to go by Bill rather than William. However, I pretty carefully studied the first 60 of the 181 unique hits I found using this new Google search [2] which eliminates a few false positives and puts 9/11 into the search (hard to imagine many articles about this gentleman which wouldn't also have that term). I found nothing I would think of as a reliable source that implied notability. The only thing I did find was that he was an interviewee in a film (imdb profile) on the 9/11 conspiracies. I also searched a number of newspaper archives and found nothing but a mention of him as appearing in the foregoing film in the New York Times ([3]). Thus, I reaffirm deletion. Willing to review again if further sources are provided that would meet WP:BIO--Fuhghettaboutit 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Take out 9/11 and put in CIA; this will also filter out the farm stuff. The guy is mentioned on the CIA's own site, he is quoted in an Ottawa newspaper; he is cited in Counterpunch, he is in a film that is reviewed by the New York Times. I realize he's not Donald Rumsfeld or something, but he's clearly notable.--csloat 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How does this meet WP:BIO? The only basis I can see that we can try to fit him in is: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. He's not the primary subject of the film, nor of counterpunch nor of anything else cited. What we find is a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy sources citing him, but when we get to reliable sources, we find almost nothing and what there is, is peripheral. I Simply don't think he meets the criteria.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The above google search is profoundly misleading. Try this one - same thing but use "Bill" instead of "William." 111,000 hits. I think some folks might want to reevaluate their votes. Sure, there are a lot of junk sites in the hits, but there are also plenty of notable sources including the CIA's own website.--csloat 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If we furthur refine the search by eliminating results with the word "farm" to get rid of the family farm advocate with the same name that number comes down to 94,000 out of which 206 appear to be unique. See [4] GabrielF

I'm with you to 94,000 - can you demonstrate why 206 are "unique"? My "Bill Christison" + CIA search below gets 77,000 hits. Thanks.--csloat 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You might find this interesting: Wikipedia:Search engine test.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This helps, yes, but it doesn't tell me how we got from 94k to 206.--csloat 02:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you click on page ten or so you'll see that Google omits search results after a certain number (last time I checked it was 206, now its 400-something) - if you display those results you'll see that there are pages and pages of counterpunch articles where Chrisiston is not mentioned but an article of his is linked to in the sidebar. For example if he published an article on January 1, every article after that will link to his until there are enough to push him off the sidebar. GabrielF 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. --Aude (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, fails WP:BIO...just another example of a disgruntled former federal employee.--MONGO 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable kook. Gazpacho 07:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. CWC(talk) 10:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN (not established). Lacking reliable sources. - Crockspot 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More 9/11 nonsense. This conspiracy theorist (who appears to fail WP:BIO) says American Airlines Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon? I guess it flew to the Bermuda Triangle then. Delete per nom. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Endless reserves of conspiracy cruft advocacy stuff out there I guess. Violates WP:BALLS, WP:SNOWBALL, and Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Morton devonshire 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but expand to include his notability aside from the conspiracy "cruft". A google search gets over 77,000 hits, many from established news sources (e.g. Counterpunch, biased of course but not a weblog or wikipedia copy) as well as the CIA's own website. He's a member of VIPS, all of the members of which have wiki pages (some that only say they are members). It would help if people responding to AfD's did so based on open minded searching for info rather than a bandwagon-approach to anything someone labels "conspiracy cruft."--csloat 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- if you are relying on the strength of the VIPS article to support inclusion here, that's a poor choice, as the VIPS article is poorly sourced itself (blogs like Commondreams for example). Conspiracy-theory articles are fine, so long as they rely upon mainstream reliable sources and summarize those sources and not the wild fantasies of CT'ers who come to Wikipedia to promote grand illusions of controlled-demolition-the-Jews-did-it-and-10,000-federal-employees-colluded-with-Haliburton-Peak-Oil-Cheney-is-a-Reptillian-Humanoid-LaRouchian-fantasy ideas are slapped together here on Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, VIPS is a bad article, but the organization is certainly quite notable, it has been cited in numerous print newspaper accounts, and of course its members have testified before Congress. Again it's not just VIPS for this particular article, however, it's the CIA's own website, as well as over 77,000 google hits. I totally agree with you about people promoting their own bizarre conspiracy theories through wikipedia, but that is not what we have here. Due to a bad google search above (this guy goes by "Bill"), I think a lot of people jumped on the deletionist bandwagon.--csloat 00:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Fuhghettaboutit's wonderful research in narrowing down the google search and digging through the blogs. The fact of the matter is he is not the subject of items that have his name included and is not notable by himself. The 9/11 conspiracy theory sites just inflate his google popularity, but those fail WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 20:43, 13 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.