Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Guy Carr

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Guy Carr

William Guy Carr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nomination: Back in October of last year, I prodded this article on the grounds of lack of notability. The prod was disputed with the edit summary "remove {PROD}: conspiracy nut or not, notable". The resulting discussion stated that Carr's notability was due his impact on other conspiracy theorists, and conspiracy theory in general. I commented (see Talk:William Guy Carr#Why is this person notable?) that while this might be a valid reason to keep the article, the article did not, in fact, discuss this aspect of his life ... it barely mentions his impact on conspiracy theories (the article cites only one conspiracy theorist influenced by Carr, and that in passing). I asked that this information be added to the article. I recieved no reply, nor was the article edited to include this information. Now, after waiting several months, I re-submit the article for deletion based on several grounds: Notability (Dispite the reasons for opposing the prod, no evidence has been presented that he has had any great impact on onther conspiracy theories), WP:FRINGE (his claims are definitely on the loonier side and do not meet the criteria for inclusion), as well as WP:RS and WP:V (the only references are to Carr's own books; other statements are completely unsourced). Blueboar 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

weak delete there is some reference to effect on conspiracy theorists inside the article, but that should have been sourced much better in the last few months Arnoutf 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I de-PRODded because my Gsearch turned up points like these:

• Pawns in the Game has a reasonably good sales rank and number of reviews at Amazon, and it is impressive in itself that the book is still in print after more than 50 years, especially since there is no shortage of fresher conspiracy books to choose from.[1]
• References to his influence on Ted Gunderson like this one: "Ted Gunderson told me that he too, was totally unaware of the NWO agenda-even though he worked for the FBI for 28 years(retired in 1979)- until someone gave him the book Pawns in the Game by William Guy Carr."[2]

Note: I don't think this one counts under WP:RS. Blueboar 01:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Carr is cited in Eustace Mullins' Secrets of the Federal Reserve.[3]

All this led me to believe that he has indeed left a lasting mark in the conspiracy theory world, and meets the notability threshold. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, lacking sources and citations don't make me usually vote keep. The subject of the article is definitely notable for his (believed) conspiracy theories that get quoted over and over again. The article fails to show that, and lacks neutral references. Alf photoman 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The absence of any independently verifiable sources which indicate the importance of the theories and attribute them to the author undermines the majority of content in the article. Tracing the history of the article those who assert notability have been unwilling, or unable, to provide substantiation for this notability. There has been plenty of opporunity to demonstrate it and there has been plenty of opportunity to avoid the need for AfD.ALR 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: After reading the article, it seems the only notability is his WWIII claim; he was alive during the actual two wars and served, so those statements are undeniably accurate. However, the WWIII claim sounds just like Nostradamus or any of a hundred other predictors of doom (Revelations, even), and therefore, there's no assertion of notability. A lot of people don't know things until they read books; that alone does notr assert notability. MSJapan 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, well, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelation and several of these other "predictors of doom" also have articles. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Evidence of the mainstream recognition of Carr's importance:

• Google Books shows that Carr is mentioned in several books, such as Daniel Pipes' Conspiracy.[4]
• He is included in Political Research Associates' overview of the history of conspiracy theories.[5]
• Paul de Armond of Public Good includes him in tracing the roots of Christian Patriotism.[6]

Also, take a closer look at his non-conspiracy book on his submarine experiences in World War I, By Guess and By God. It is prefaced by his superior, Admiral SS Hall who commanded the British Submarine Service, and published in 1930 by Hutchinson & Co. (a "real" publisher). This site[7] describes it as "a real bestseller of this period" (yeah, yeah, WP:RS), and this used bookseller[8] notes that his copy is a "15th impression," which if I'm understanding it right means that the book went through at least fifteen printings. You can see in the Google Book[9] results, what seem to be mainstream reviews by The Bookman, The Dublin Review, and perhaps even Virginia Woolf. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment - Add the material to the article please. Blueboar 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I've now found copies for sale from the sixteenth printing.[10][11]. Also, WorldCat shows that the book was translated into French.[12] His conspiracy works have been translated into Arabic[13][14] and Japanese[15], showing that his audience has reached beyond merely the local fringe. The last two editions are also pretty recent, showing that foreign interest in these theories persists. I think it should be clear at this point that he meets notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if you add it to the article. It does us no good here. FYI... I have no problem withdrawing this AfD nomination if the article actually is edited to include discussion of his notability and impact on conspiracy theory. This should have been done months ago.Blueboar 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd question who the reprints are by, the Amazon link up above is to a 28 year old version printed by a niche, almost private, press. One non conspiracy theory book does not constitute notability.ALR 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the copies of BGBG are not reprints, but subsequent printings by the original publisher. Nor was Hutchinson some dinky basement press (e.g., they were the UK publisher for The Autobiography of Malcolm X), before they were swallowed up by Random House in 1989. In the US, an edition was published by Doubleday. And while I'd contend that one book can establish notability if it sells well enough, in fact that was not his only book. He wrote more naval books, also published by Hutchinson. His Checkmate in the North was published by Macmillan. Only later in his writing career did he become a full-time conspiracist.

I've also added a quote from a University of Kentucky Press author describing Carr as "the most influential source of the American Illuminati demonology," providing the mainstream validation of his importance that has been clamored for. With Berlet and Pipes and the others I cited above, one had to infer that they believed Carr was "influential" from the fact that they were writing about him; Ellis calls him so explicitly. Some may still not be satisfied, but frankly, I think it's already been demonstrated that he is more notable than many entries. To me, it seems like the skepticism about his notability boils down to the following logic: "His theories are plainly too loony for any person in their right mind to believe. The vast majority of people are in their right mind. Therefore, it's impossible that enough people take him seriously to make him notable." However, the human capacity to believe has allowed many "loony" beliefs to find millions of adherents (sometimes even a society's majority). Carr authored a meme that has lasted fifty years, and looks more prescient than ever to his believers with what is going on in Iraq; how many of the internet memes and the bands that survive AfD by having two measly albums on a middling indie label can say the same? --Groggy Dice T | C 01:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just added two links to the article, about two pieces I've found on how Iraq fits into World War Three, by Henry Makow (designer of the Scruples game)[16] and Abid Ullah Jan[17]. The latter also illustrates how Carr's audience has spread beyond Anglo-Saxons. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The publisher at the link above is not Hutchinson but Legion for the Survival of Freedom, that is hardly a reputable publisher and I rather agree with Blueboar about WP:FRINGE.ALR 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. While I'm sure Pawns has also gone through many reprintings, I was referring to By Guess and By God going through (at least) sixteen printings. By Guess is the hare, that sold widely at the time but is now obscure; Pawns is the tortoise, that had a smaller initial readership, but has seen continued interest for half a century. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn - I am still not quite satisfied... the references that were added are both not reliable under WP:RS (personal websites). The site owners are fringe conspiracy theorists themselves... WP:FRINGE asks for mainstream references to show that the theories are at least notable in the world beyond the Fringe. However, as my main problem with this article is that NO effort was being made to add references, and as there is finally at least an attempt to do so, it is only fair to withdraw the nomination and give people a chance to improve the article. I may bring it up for a second nomination later, but let's give it a chance for now. Blueboar 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Template:!strongkeep I think I showed fairly enough that this page should not be deleted. Eristik 02:02, 4 May 2007 (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.