Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter LaBarbera

Add links
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 was no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter LaBarbera

[edit]
Peter LaBarbera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced BLP of someone who is essentially a blogger who has received very little coverage in reliable secondary sources. A search of google news turns up some articles in the gay press, but all in the context of his group/blog Americans for Truth, which does not have its own article. Since the vast majority of his mentions in the news comes from his group suing a hotel, this is covered under BLP1E and a good candidate for deletion. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 14:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Keep. First off, the fact that he has been a reporter for the Washington Times among other papers means he is not just a blogger. He has been published in actual publications. While there is not currently a wikipedia article on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, this does not really answer if it is notable. However he has also been connected with two other organizations, which HAVE articles in wikipedia, so you have to consider the full scope of the articles about him. Also, even a search of the homosexual publications will show that LaBarbera has been attacked on multiple occasions. The very vehemence of the hate some throw at him would suggest he is someone of note.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before any decisions are made people should at least consult how the article differs with its most recent edits. Mr. LaBarbera is not "essentially a blogger", but is in fact hated by many bloggers. The hate does not just stem from his recent actions, he has been hated and denounced in the homosexual press for years.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep digging up more stuff. LaBarbera was spoken ill of in a book published as far back as 2000. The hate against LaBarbera is no fly-by-night phenomenon, but has been a perpetual hate-fest on the part of the homosexual movement for years.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since, as I have demonstated in the article, a death threat against LaBarbera appeared on a blog that has been praised by Duke University 2 and a half years before the law suit against LaBarbera, and there are other issues connected with him going much further back, the biographies of living people rule cited to try and delete this article really has no relevance.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom I'm on the fence about this one. His notability is marginal; if you read his website, himself and others publish their opinions on current events in what is essentially a blog (with comments disabled), so I doubt he could be called a legitimate journalist. So, he is a controversial blogger. But, if this closes as keep and is no longer an unreferenced BLP, then I won't be terribly disappointed. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep ignoring the fact that he has been behind several physical publications. Also, you ignore the fact that he has been a reporter for the Washington Times. Notablity is not just what is going on now. Also, if he is so "non-notable" than why was I able to find two books that denounced him for his activities in the 1990s?Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While many people will mock and attack Americans for Truth, they admit it is an organization. This is one quote "Peter LaBarbera, President of an organization predicated on hate and lies ironically named Americans for Truth," it comes from www.annoy.com. Your attempt to claim that LaBarbera is "just a blogger" is not in line with the widepsread denunciation of his "organization".Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The format for AFTAH is very blog-like (except for lack of comments), not a news website. A person who runs a blog-format website is a blogger. As for your other concerns, not everybody who is a legitimate journalist meets our criteria. According to the criteria laid out at WP:AUTHOR:
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
I contend that LaBarbera does not meet any of these guidelines, and thus does not cross the threshold of notability on Wikipedia. He is not regarded as an important figure, his journalism is not widely cited, he has not created a new concept, his work has not been the subject of a book/film, or multiple independent periodical articles, and his work has neither won significant critical attention nor a spot in libraries. With reference to your above link, a place that has a phrase such as "morons like Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera" is hardly a reliable source when it comes to the BLP subject. Anyway, I have quoted the relevant guideline for this article, so i'll let the rest of the !voters here decide whether or not the BLP subject meets the above criteria. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 04:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure "author" is the correct category for him. He's well known as an anti-gay activist. Are there other activists who have their own articles? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards delete Marginally notable. See this Google Books result and this one. These sources are not written neutrally but they should be reliable since they are published by reputable publishers. On the other hand, these sources provide little biographical context and are mostly about his role as an anti-gay activist. Perhaps this should be relisted to generate more discussion about the sources? There are many sources on Google News Archive. Many were passing mentions, but there may be some more substantial sources that can be used to construct a balanced biography. Cunard (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very controversial for a long time; his mention here and here are enough for me. He is much more than an author so limiting him to WP:AUTHOR misses the point a bit but even if stick to that criteria his work has certainly "won significant critical attention" in that it is mentioned in text books. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - bloggers aren't inherently notable, journalists aren't inherently notable, and lobbyists aren't inherently notable. However, this fellow has apparently been engaged in sustained and extremist lobbying at a medium to high level over a significant period of time, to the extent of attracting ire from those of opposing viewpoints, and as such I think he's able to demonstrate both discussion by peers and independent secondary sources, and an impact (albeit small) on our socio-political landscape. Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep We have long had a problem with journalists and the like, because the profession rarely writes about each other. To some extent this may be relevant here too--but in this case there is some material written about him. The article, obviously, needs a POV check. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if there are more relistings that can be done to generate more information on Mr. LaBarbera. Also, I am wondering if some of the publications mentioned in the article would merit there own articles where they do not currently have such. I am thinking yes, but I am not sure I want to be the one to start such articles.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like another week of debate might be useful for this article; the sources here need to debated to see if they are enough to exceed the "only-a-passing-mention" requirement for the sources. NW (Talk) 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_LaBarbera&oldid=1138223288"