Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth O'Keefe (2nd nomination)

This man has renounced lawfully N V http://www.worldcitizen.uk.net/renounce_document_2.jpg on more than one occasion and leaving behind a prestigious life style and family V. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGODNIJaQg. U.S. has refused to recognize and the states do not own the people as the people own the States. In all due respect to our U.S. Declaration of Independence that coincides with our U.S. Constitution N RS. A man in the U.S. is free to choose what makes him happy and not what makes government happy N V http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html. This man has acquired resources of which must not be unrecognized nor denied V N RS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZIOo-P1b4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbGODNIJaQg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLz9VzS1V-Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmjSVrjJa5U Representative of District 6 in Oahu, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbRXF64YotE. Individuals refusing to recognize these resources and various others are expressing the actions of vandalism RS. Of which must not carry any credibility in denying this mans credentials V. This article has been debated by me who resides in Texas USA and any other participants to this debate for this man have their own independent responses V. All those who accuse others of additional accounts may be doing this action themselves and therefore should be investigated. People who are willing to vandalize a viable account must not be recognized as credible N. A prestigious and honorable site must not be seen as one who will take the word of vandals N as those in this process of vandalism against this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairlegality (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kenneth O'Keefe
• Articles for deletion/Kenneth O'Keefe (2nd nomination)

Kenneth O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a BLP disaster. The vast majority of the sources are utterly worthless. Often, they are O'Keefe himself. Some that look like a good source (NY Times) don't mention him at all. Or, they may have passing mention of him. Or, they're original legal documents. I don't see any reliable source providing serious biographical material. There's so many junk sources, it's possible there's a gem in the mix here. But, I haven't seen it. Being one of a bunch of protesters in a number of notable protests, doesn't make one notable, in my view. There needs to be substantial coverage on him specifically. A number of biographical claims, such as his nationality, need particularly good sourcing, but lack it. Interviews of a person, even when done by major media, where he states facts about himself, serve as proof he said something, but don't proof the truth of what he says. I didn't read fully all 59 junk sources, and I don't think I should have to. If somebody wishes to keep it, they need to fix it. I considered stubifying to the basics, but I couldn't get a decent source to say one thing that makes this person notable. While this was previously nominated, I think Wikipedia has significantly raised the requirements for a biography of a living person, particularly in terms of requiring reliable sources, which are still lacking several years later. --Rob (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Your argument is apparently based on V, and there is ample, painfully obvious V. NTW, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC. A BLP doesn't have to be comprehensive, that's just a good idea. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Which serious media outlet has provided serious coverage of O'Keefe, giving substantial biographical material? Please give me one example, that's not a single sentence, or his own words in an interview, or a story that doesn't even mention him, or a legal document that's a primary source, or a YouTube video of himself. I think people are being blinded by the mass of citations which give an extremely false impression. Nobody is going to actually review all 50 or so sources closely, so people just assume that there must be something in there somewhere. If somebody can find a kernel of good in the article, maybe restarting with a stub, then sure, let's keep it. I tried and failed at that. But, please, let's not repeat the same mistake done last time, where people said it was fixable, and years later, it's still total garbage. --Rob (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

    I have done just a little work on the article so far, but his involvement in the Mavi Marmari and human shields in Iraq has been noted here among other places, he has been on BBC's HardTalk and al-Jazeera, CNN and the Guardian covered his recent troubles with a convoy to Gaza, etc. I'm by no means a fan of the guy, but notable is notable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Notbility has been set by the media. Using autobiographical material for verification of biographical information is not discouraged. Primary sources are also welcome for verifiability. The nominator is confusing notability with verifiability, a common mistake. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • When did primary and autobiographical sources become acceptable as the sole source of contentious significant claims? As an example of the harm of relying on non-independent sources, notice where it says "In 2006 he returned to Hawaii and was elected as a representative of District 6 in Oahu, serving one year in the Hawaiian Legislature. " In fact, that is completely false. The only source is a web site of a group that self-proclaimed themselves to be the "resinstated Hawaii Government". This is a hugely important point in the article. Now, I would love to clarify the article to say what the facts are. However, I'm aware of no reliable source that explicitly covers what if any public office's this man has ever held. Or any sources saying how exactly he was chosen to this "office". There is grave danger in allowing the subject of an article to be the primary source of information. --Rob (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

    You're right about the Hawaii stuff. Almost none of it is sourced (after I removed the non-RS refs) and might have to go. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a forum to determine notability for inclusion, you are still arguing about verifiability of biographical details. People come to Wikipedia to find out which details are accurate and which are puffery. I just realized that Maury Markowitz is arguing the same thing, I thought "V" was the movie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The two (notability and verifiability) are inseparable. Something is notable only if the claims of notability are verifiable. You need to separate out the verifiable from the unverifiable first, and then you can discuss if what's left verifiable, is in fact notable. Being a member of a the legislative assembly would certainly be a legitimate claim of notability if it was actually verifiable. Of course, it's not verifiable, since it's an entirely made up lie, that somebody invented, and Wikipedia published for several years, with no factual basis whatsoever. Apparently, anybody wishing a bio on Wikipedia, can make a web site, claim to be the holder of a public office, and then write about themselves on Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable. No brainer. Christiaan (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Withdraw Ok it's pretty obvious how this is going, so feel free to close up now. I'm not sure the current procedure for doing so. As discussed on the talk page, I'm hoping there'll soon be a reboot of this article. Hopefully, this won't be a pile trash in another five years. --Rob (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As part of the consideration process, I would recommend the reading of the following investigative journalism piece on Mr. O'Keefe's recent convoy trip: http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/12/06/truth-justice-and-peace-nearly-sunk-as-rth-convoy-facts-emerge-and-as-usual-gazans-get-the-worst-part-of-the-deal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaedrusM (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy

• Delete - it looks like the consensus here is clear, but personally I'm not convinced Mr. O'Keefe passes our notability guidelines. The human shield action to Iraq is notable, as is the MV Mavi Marmara; but I don't think Kenneth O'Keefe is. Most of the sources aren't really about him, they're about those events; there are very few reliable sources focusing on him as a person. It's a shame we don't have a policy WP:BLP2E ('person notable only for two events'), as that's basically the case here. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  After re-reading WP:Notability (people), you may have a point. There are interviews with him in a few reliable sources, but most of the stuff mentions him but isn't about him. I'll change my !vote to neutral pending more opinions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly within the spirit of WP:BLP1E, though got his 15 minutes of fame twice.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It is apparent that this article contains more than enough PSTS all of which evidently contain RS, thus, this article does meet the requirements stated in the WPGNG. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this article falls into the category of a SELFPUB as some who oppose it have stated. As a reader, reading both the article and the arguing comments against it, I must assume that those who oppose it, either, genuinely lack the ability to IRS or are intentionally making it a subject of WPVAND. 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true'. As a reader I have checked the materials appertaining to this article and found that they have been published by reliable sources. --Adam Kallender (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy

Page with links to media coverage of Kenneth O'Keefe ---Curtainraiser (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)