Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 11 March 2009

Aaron Klein

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article fails our policies on verifiability and on biographies of living people because it does not have adequate sourcing. Although there are citations, they don't provide the level of information we require for BLPs. There are articles written by Klein, but none written about Klein. There are discussions of controversies Klein has been involved in, but nothing at all about the man himself. Many of the sources (e.g. the New York Post reference) only mention Klein in passing. Under some circumstances this might all be harmless, but this article has been a continuous battleground and has been used to host BLP-violating attacks on Barack Obama and others. Best to just nuke it. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete agree with nominator above. (S)he said it perfectly. TharsHammar (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete, just another bloviator, whose noteworthiness seems limited to having been thrown out of somebody's office (rather minor, I'd have thought). -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete WP:AUTO concerns also. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete inadequately referenced, full of non notable information. Mfield (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this man isn't notable, despite what he may think. Grsz 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - more sources have picked up on this guy and his world of idiocy. Do I think he deserves the attention, absolutely not. Grsz 03:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the Yeshiva University controversy as well as the later career. As for the later career, there's documentation from the Jerusalem Post , & UPI, in addition to the incessant publicity from the places he works for.DGG (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Both those articles you referenced are behind a paywall. Could you please provide some details as to how they discuss the subject? My cursory reading (including the Jerusalem Post abstract) is that there might be a case for a (marginal) article on Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans - to a Jew! (which could include a discussion of the JP article from which it apparently derived) - but not enough info for an article on Aaron Klein as a person. *** Crotalus *** 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Weak Keep per DGG, plus recent international publicity, plus a number of book cites. I agree that a lot of cites within the existing article are WP:LARD and it needs improvement. But this isn't a BLP1E. THF (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• NB that I've changed my !vote; upon further examination, many of the book cites are to Aaron J. Klein, who, confusingly enough, also writes about terrorism. THF (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Update. I have now cleaned out the WP:PUFF mentions of individual appearances on radio shows and added a couple of cites. THF (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. While it should be irrelevant to anyone's keep or delete suggestion, note that this deletion nomination is going to be perceived by and covered by the outside world as retaliation against a reporter who criticized Misplaced Pages. THF (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Misplaced Pages entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below) Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of that going around. THF (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages controversy should be discussed in the Criticisms of Misplaced Pages article, not presented as a biography of a non-notable critic. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"taged a phony scandal" - perhaps, but the same thing happened to me just recently, including on my talk page, and indeed I experienced the reported problem on the reported page many months back; it was so bad that I just quit editing that page -- so when I read Klein's article, I knew he nailed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - clearly notable given well-covered notoriety. Any BLP problems are of the subject's own making, and thus, not cognizable under BLP policy. We deal with problems here, rather than deleting them. There is enough encyclopedic material in the article to salvage, even if as a stub, and enough reliable coverage to write a proper article. Further, the lack of known details about the person's personal life is no reason he is not notable. Many articles about journalists, businesspeople, etc., cover only their professional lives. Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, "keep to punish the article subject for hating on Misplaced Pages" has already been rejected with other subjects, such as Daniel Brandt. Secondly, the BLP problems are not limited to Klein - this page and its associated talk page have been used as a platform to launch BLP-violating attacks against Barack Obama. It's just not worth the trouble for a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My argument goes strictly to notability. BLP problems are dealt with as BLP problems, not by nuking the forum where they occur. If he is truly non notable then his article should be deleted. I don't think he is - plenty of reliable sources report on his professional accomplishments, such as they are.Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources found by DGG and THF. While the subject might have messed with Misplaced Pages entries like Barrack Obama, that is not a reason to delete the article of that person if they pass our guidelines. It's almost like editors are trying to "punish" the topic. Deal with the bothersome editor the standard ways like with warnings and blocks, not with an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, was also profiled and interviewed on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor. --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. to call the article's subject notable would be a stretch. as a side note, the fact that the article's subject might have written part of his own article, and another article, but then cried to fox news about wikipedia's bias, is just a testament to the fact that the editor in question should not be here. whether such speculation is true or false is irrelevant to this particular article, because the article's subject doesn't appear to be notable. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fascinating. What's your opinion of Dcourtneyjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post? THF (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

sure, it's okay to cry to the huffington post, or fox news, or wherever. it's also equally ok to ban them from wikipedia forever for this exploitative and exponential degree of disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's no "stretch" to call someone notable when they're the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As a matter of fact, that's the core criteria of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The Fox News profile/interview referenced above had nothing to do with Misplaced Pages but about his journalist work in the Middle East .--Oakshade (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs)

you mean the link to the youtube video]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The source isn't youtube but it's Fox News which is a reliable secondary source. It's linked here to demonstrate he was profiled and interviewed on Fox News. Just because the piece was uploaded to youtube doesn't magically mean the piece doesn't or never existed.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete An auto-biography that is far from notable even if it were to be cleaned up. I don't see any independent verification that he is a journalist or media personality of any significance whatsoever. Writing for a single fringe publication does not mean you inherit its notability. If it wasn't for the wiki drama this person has stirred up, there would be no question about deleting this. Steven Walling (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Being the subject of Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and UPI are indications of notability, even if we may have the opinion he's just some "fringe writer." --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Important person because he is a controversial, publicly noted and critical reporter and Misplaced Pages editor. This means critical as in criticism and critical as in critical thinking. Don't delete people just because you have disagreements with their edits. If Misplaced Pages continues to censor unpopular views and persons in at the expense of objectivity then it will lose its credibility. 66.91.255.120 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to have been notable for years until this controversy... Hill of Beans (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, he's unethical, not non-notable. Much of the puffery has been removed (thanks to THF and others) and more can be done (I favor a good bit of trimming but have not the time to do it.) KillerChihuahua 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Article now referenced by Wired. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikigate-1.html Seasoup 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.32.130 (talk)

  Being mentioned in a blog is NO reason to keep. KillerChihuahua 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  Is the author of the article one of the Wired writers?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The original author of the article on wikipedia is Jerusalem21, who is mentioned in the wired article as an employee of Klein, for more info see this article from gawker . For more info on the history of Klein's socks / meats with this article please see the SPI TharsHammar (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing the writer of the Misplaced Pages article, but the writer of the "blog" at Wired.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you just joined this discussion I will point out who Aaron Klein is, he is a author who wrote an article yesterday about Obama's article on wikipedia being censored that got picked up by drudge. The wired article was a commentary on Klein's article, and the wired article contains an email from Klein about Jerusalem21, who created the article being discussed here, Aaron Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I might be confused, so if you are asking about the blog on wired, it was written by Kevin Poulsen a senior editor at Wired News. TharsHammar (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you were confused but I think you now get my point. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was that if it was written by one of the Wired columnists (now we see that it was), the fact that it is a "blog" should not take away from contributing to Klien's notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable conspiracy theorist/journalist. Merely having your articles published doesn't make you notable. Delete for failing WP:Note and WP:BIO.--Sloane (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and further source, as lack is no reason for deletion if they are available. Not liking a conspiracy theorist is no reason to delete. He passes WP:AUTHOR (Google Books) and WP:BIO (Jewish Press). Schmidt, 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Also, delete - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to main Worldnetdaily article - I did some searching and found some articles criticizing Klein, but I don't think they're enough to establish notability for him as a person. Instead we could cover that within the context of the WND website. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the idea to merge into WND. WND is, for whatever reason, considered an unreliable source. So the suggestion to move Aaron Klein to the WND page is a clever way to say Aaron Klein is an unreliable source. You can try to prove that, but it should be on his own merits, not by attaching him to WND. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The effort to delete this article appears to me to have more to do with politics/propaganda than with Misplaced Pages policy adherence. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

By coincidence, Klein's story is being discussed THIS MINUTE on WOR 710 AM right now, the Michael Smerconish Show. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notable before this Obama situation he orchestrated, moreso because of it. rootology (C)(T) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as notable and subject does not object to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- Not sure if Kos is considered a reliable source or not, but here's an article on him from them: . With added bonus- it refers to the shenanigans he's pulled here. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per KillerChihuahua. A journalist for a well known publication isn't inherently notable, but the controversies he's been involved in tip the scale to notability. AniMate 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates