Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist)

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 delete. To start with, on a count, there appear to be 16 editors arguing for deletion, 7 arguing to keep, and one to merge. While of course AfD discussions are not a vote, the number is not entirely irrelevant either. The question, then, is whether strength of argument on the "keep" side outweighs those who argue to delete. In this case, it does not.
The general, though not unanimous, consensus is that while this subject is frequently mentioned, those mentions do not go into the level of depth necessary to pass the notability bar. While one individual suggested a merge, this did not receive further support or discussion. The consensus is therefore to delete.
While I don't intend to say any names, and many people conducted themselves well, I also think it appropriate to give a general reminder that the purpose of an AfD discussion is to discuss whether or not an article's subject is suitable for Wikipedia, and not to discuss the perceived shortcomings of editors of that article, the subject of the article, or other participants in the AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Collier (political activist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

David Collier (political activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails our notability guidelines, as of yet. The sole claim to fame is authoring some reports on alleged antisemitism which, as Selfstudier says, is not significantly covered outside of the usual suspects [in Israeli media] that habitually round robin [such] news between them. NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG as evidenced by the sources in the article. Notability is determined by the amount of 3rd party coverage, not by his "qualifications" or by being an expert, and there is tons of such non-trivial coverage, in high quality publications such as The Guardian, The BBC, ,The Times, The Jerusalem Post and others. This is not some "random blogger", but an independent researcher whose work has ben used by the British Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue a scathing report on antisemitism in the Labour party which resulted in high ranking members being suspended or leaving the party, it has been featured in several UK parliamentary discussions, and cited by the US Dept. of State in a report on religious freedom in the UK. The sources listed cover a period of more than 5 years, and include peer-reviewed academic papers which cite his research favorably. This is a clear indication that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply Inf-in MD (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock[reply]

  • WP:NOTNEWS apply to events not people Shrike (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis person is a non expert and non notable blogger (see self description), not a political activist (the page should have been disambiguated at David Collier). Article has 2 incoming links, one from a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard initiated by the article creator (the article appears to have been created merely in order to support a content dispute at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign article) and the other from Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party where the article creator added material that probably has zero weight. Reliable independent sources do not cite this person for his views, his principal claim to fame, afaics, is for attacks on Wikipedia itself (as well as some of its editors).Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply false: [1] Inf-in MD (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blog as well. The usual crowd (4 of the articles 8 refs are the Jewish Chronicle) flogging the antisemitism horse to death. Here he is, at http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11737.Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:NEWSBLOG, written by a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. And there are many other sources in the article, including the BBC and the Guardian, all of them about his anti-Semitism reports, none about his criticism of Wikipedia. You have clearly not read the article before commenting here.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]
You cited a blog, not an expert Here's a different blog with the other side of this not news story (this one is at least semi reliable per RSN)Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a WP:NEWSBLOG. And there are a dozen of other, non blog sources, read the article before commenting here Inf-in MD (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All discussed at the NPOV noticeboard where there is a virtual consensus that this person is non notable, bring your views there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the ToI blog is not a NEWSBLOG as we define it. It's hosted by the paper, but anyone can apply to have a ToI blog and the paper has no editorial control. I think therefore it counts as an SPS, although possibly written by an expert (not sure about the relevance of his expertise). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could be (though I wonder, if a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is not a notable expert on anti-semitism, who is?) , but is a side issue, really. There are nearly 2 dozen other high quality sources in the article with significant coverage. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]
There is not a single source that provides any amount of coverage of the subject of the article. There is coverage of some of his blog posts and the reaction to them. Nothing about the subject of the article. You may not use a supposed biography of a living person as a WP:COATRACK for his opinions. nableezy - 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, ToI very specifically disclaims any responsibility or editorial control over the blogs, making them not WP:NEWSBLOG but WP:SPS, and making moot that entire bit of handwaving. See their terms where it says Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. nableezy - 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously. And possibly block creator per WP:POINT. But to the point of the AFD, we have a biography with no biographical details of the person. We dont have a birth date, we dont have if he went to school, where he went to school, we dont have info on any personal details. We have an editor who wishes to use a random blogger as a source so made this WP:POINT and BLP violating article. Collier himself is not covered anywhere, a couple of his blog posts have been covered. If any of those posts reach our GNG there can be an article on them, but on the person there is quite literally no substantive coverage on him anywhere. Delete, and sanction the creator. nableezy - 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of that stuff actually matters for determining notability. I've written multiple articles on people who are completely anonymous but have had their work covered enough to be notable. Mlb96 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we make articles about non-notable bloggers now? The only thing that this article can ever be is a platform for promoting Collier and his opinions. Bob drobbs created this article with the comment "David Collier is notable now" when faced with multiple opinions at NPOVN that he isn't notable. Bob drobbs needs to learn that notability leads to articles, not the other way around. Zerotalk 14:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when and how you came to your determination that he's a "non-notable blogger". I did find it very strange that you and others were declaring him a non-notable blogger in the other discussion, especially as RS described him differently. So I went out and reviewed more sources. It was based on that that I came to the conclusion that he's now notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meet WP:GNG per sources presented here and article. WP:NEWS doesn't apply as it not event Shrike (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial mentions in a dozen publications do not GNG make. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not trivial mentions, but full-length stories covering his reporting, in depth [2] [3] [4]. Take the time to read before posting obviously false information. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
The Algemeiner is neither a trivial mention , nor is it an unreliable source. I don't know if it is the best soruce among the more than two dozen in the article, but it clearly disproves you claim that all mentions are "Trivial mentions" or from unreliable sources. This would be a trivial mention (not used in the article). This is not. I think the difference is clear. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Here's one for you. One of his reports was the focus of a Jerusalem Post article. That's clearly not a "trivial mention". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: And please do not misrepresent what is said in the list of perennial sources. Nowhere does it say that Jewish Chronicle is not considered reliable post 2010. The text is: "There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting.. It also says that there's general consensus that it's biased on topics like this one, and that in line attribution is recommended, but it doesn't call for exclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Nableezy said, they do not speak about him at all. Do we know any damn thing about the subject? Any random report on antisemitism has its usual coverage in Israeli media. What is special about this case?
Nobody is misrepresenting anything. Is this news pre-2010? In-line attribution is as good as exclusion, as practice goes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Not reliable" is strictly correct if one needs to attribute. Is there an Irish report about the Irish report? Or a report from anywhere apart from the usual suspects that habitually round robin the news between them.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the page in good faith based on the idea that coverage about him and his research collectively passed the bar for notability. He's obviously not a "random blogger". My vote is in part based on this from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." He's got lots of mentions, to varying degrees of depth, in lots of different sources. Collectively, I think he definitely passes the bar. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - I edited my original comment for clarity and to reduce verbosity. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That there are so many descriptions ought to tell you something. And none of those match your OR "political activist". Reports by experts are one thing (for example, Mark Rich is considered an antisemitism expert) but reports by an "antisemitism researcher" don't carry the same weight.Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source offers any coverage of David Collier at all. What's his birthday? Did he go to college? Does he have brothers or sisters? Where was he born? Where does he live? What does he do for a living? There is literally zero information about David Collier in the article or in any of the sources. This is just silly, and even if he were "notable", he still is not a reliable source and this is not going to change if his blog gets covered in any of the places you want it covered. A WP:POINT violation and an utter abject waste of time. You did not "encounter info" about any person, because there is literally no information about the person on that page besides he has a blog. You dont even have a source saying that this is his real name. nableezy - 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that seems relevant to me here is to what degree RS speak about him and his work. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do not speak about him at all is the point. Do you think this is actually a biography? When you have zero biographical material other than him saying he was born sometime in the 60s? nableezy - 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Collier is tight-lipped about his own life. But, as one of the few critics who have analysed his modus operandi noted, he is known to make profiles of human rights activists present at conferences where Israel and Palestine are discussed by raking up 'info', quoted out of context, that casts them all as anti-Israel ergo anti-Zionist ergo anti-Semitic. These 'proscriptive lists' then spread through the internet, poisoning the well of rational analysis. Of course he would be delighted to have a page on wiki to attest his notability, despite the fact that he despises it as full of anti-Semitic types. One of his criteria for defining an anti-Semite is, apparently, the use of the word 'apartheid' in the context in which Israel is discussed. By that criterion, the three major NGOs, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tselem are, as of 2020, anti-Semitic. When a blogger defines anti-Semitism that narrowly, everyone comes under suspicion as a potential 'Jew hater' simply for worrying about things like the demolition of 50,000 Palestinian homes over the last decades, while immigrant settlements on stolen land flourish.Let him blog away, but his views are not notable, at least to serious scholarship of the kind an encyclopedia covers. There are a million frenetic and frantic conspiratorial thesis pushers blogging out there, seeing bad faith and evil under every suburban rug. This junk posturing has a polemic function, but has no durability, unlike the work of people like Daniel Staetsky ('Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel,' Institute for Jewish Policy Research 2017, who, unlike the Colliers of this world, found no significant correlation between concern for human rights in Israel and anti-Semitism. Staetsky is a sociologist, not someone who blogs 'indefatigably' and asks for funding. Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Bob drobbs: Editing your own comments after they have been replied to and without any clarification is not the done thing, it creates a false discussion because people replied to what you wrote originally.Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Besides being non-notable, the article is horribly unbalanced. Lol: "has been described as an independent researcher, investigative journalist, blogger, and pro-Israel campaigner" ...he has been described in many, many other ways, too, "somewhat" less flattering. Alas, I cannot repeat many of them here, as I risk violating our BLP-rules. (Can I mention the word "toxic"?) The creator of this article should be topic-banned from the IP area, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those descriptions come from RS: The Jerusalem Post called him a "investigative journalist", Algemeir called him a "pro-Israel activist", and op-ed in the Middle East Eye called him a "citizen journalist". If any RS spoke about him in "less flattering" terms, then it seems those could and probably should be included too. I don't understand your claims of bias when the article seems to accurately reflect how RS are describing him. Your complaint seems rooted in the idea that criticism from completely non-reliable sources isn't included, and thus this article is unbalanced?? If you have any RS that speak about Collier in less flattering terms, please share. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you used Middle East Eye, now. It contains the following remark:

"'Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights," Collier blogged. "It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence." This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as "showing everybody how toxic our enemies are".Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018

The word 'Palestinianism' has since Edward Said's day been used to describe the Palestinian struggle to have their national identity recognized, and their rights to their land accepted (as they are in international law). Collier describes that national desire, perfectly mirroring the Zionist aspiration for the recognition of Jewish rights in IsraelPalestine, 'a disease that is anathema to freedom one that 'infects' people with anti-Semitism. I see your paraphrase totally ignores this extraordinary absurd statement. In Collier's words above, it is normal for Jews to desire to have a national home: it is pathological for Palestinians, who existed there prior to Zionism, to have the same feeling. That statement is notable for its asinine failure to reason logically. This is the intellectual level of the blogger we are asserting is notable. For whom? Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: What does any of that have to do with this AFD? if you prefer to word "disease" instead of "cult" and "ponzi scheme" as currently written in the article, then take it to the talk page for the article or just edit the article. Don't drag these sorts of squabbles in here!
And it is 110% inappropriate for us to make judgments about deleting a page based on our interpretations of a living person's "intellectual level" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about the British Parliament? This official report reject most of what Collier claimed about a so-called "an anti-Semitic event in Parliament", Huldra (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize, that whether the British Parliament accepted or rejected most of his claims the very fact that they were the subject of an official report is evidence of his notability. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It was only because the Israeli ambassador Mark Regev accepted the Collier rubbish, that the British Parliament took it seriously, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming, ad argummentum, that you are correct, that only further establishes his notability - So notable that the Israeli ambassador took his report seriously, and took it to the UK parliament which also took it seriously, and got them to investigate it. Not exactly "some random blogger'. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to assume, you can read the report. The UK parliament is obliged to take seriously any rubbish that an ambassador to St James's spreads; that doesn't make the rubbish (or the rubbish-maker) notable. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should try that, yourself. From your link above (my emphasis): "The Ambassador did not identify an individual alleged to be in breach of the Code; his letter was about the event. Therefore the letter could not be treated as a formal complaint". Think your argument through, you are only making the case for his notability stronger. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]
My case stands: when the Parliament receives a complaint that "“very anti-Semitic with the usual comments made about non-Israeli Jews”; was an “anti-Jewish litany and holocaust deniers’ rant”; it would be outrage iff they did not investigate it. Alas, the things reported in David Collier's blog were found not correct. Now, this is a man you want to use Wikipedia to present to the world as a "an independent researcher, investigative journalist, blogger, and pro-Israel campaigner"? Huldra (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rather doubt that if a "random blogger" sends a complaint to Parliament they engage in the kind of investigation you linked to, doubly so when even a letter by the Israeli ambassador is explicitly rejected as a complaint worthy of such investigation. My opinion of the man has nothing to do with his notability. Some very awful people have Wikipedia articles, because this is not "Model-Personpedia" . We go by notability, as measured by covered in reliable sources, not by the moral character of the subject as evaluated by Wikipedia editors. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Again: no. The investigation was due to suggestions that "Baroness Tonge breached the Code of Conduct"; the result was, incidentally, showed that Collier's blog was not to be trusted. And I agree that many awful people have a Wikipedia article, the difference here is that the existence of this bio is used as argument that his views are "notable", Huldra (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt what determines notability. Notability is significant coverage of the topic of the article in reliable sources. Is the topic of the article Collier? What sources provide any significant coverage of him? Would be great if you could quote one giving for instance where he went to school. Or his birth year. nableezy - 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the topic of this article, and I created it, it's David Collier, his activism, and his writing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So youre admitting to making a supposed biography of a living person as a coatrack for his political activism in his blog? Exactly why you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE. nableezy - 22:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:COAT and stop making threats implied or otherwise!
If most of an article about an astronaut speaks about his work, because that's how RS covered him, then it's NOT a coatrack. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unaware of any threat Ive made. A biography of an astronaut would have his birth day. Hey look, Neil Armstrong was born on August 5, 1930 in Wapakoneta, Ohio, and he had a younger brother and sister. He joined the Navy, and went to college, and became a test pilot. You know how I know that? Because there is an actual biography of him. Not a shrine to his blog. But yes, see WP:COAT. See how it describes the article and the motivation for its creation. nableezy - 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independent coverage on him (rather than occasional mentions of his reports) is too sparse and most of the article is his opinions from SPS. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another day, another AfD which is really just a PIA dispute featuring the same participants as always. To me, this guy looks notable. Sigcov in The Times and the Herald Scotland are pretty good. The distinction between biographical information and information about his work seems to cut in favor of keeping, as the latter is much more important for establishing notability than the former (in fact, I've seen many editors say that biographical information is worthless trivia). The article definitely has major NPOV problems, though. Mlb96 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable figure, and we cannot submit to those who would remove from Wikipedia details of people they find politically offensive. In case it matters, I am a socialist who agreed with Corbyn on other matters, but could not fully support him because of the levels of Jew-hate which festered within his movement. I don't agree with Collier on everything either, but his activity is significant enough for an article here. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quite aside from the deep incivility inherent in presuming that one cannot possibly object to this article save out of biased political motives, what "details" about Collier are you claiming exist here, save for those he supplies himself through his blog or quotes from him in interviews? Ravenswing 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: I didn't see any implication in RobinCarmody's comment that he was speaking about everyone who disagreed. "Those" is simply plural. But I do think he's probably right that some people here might be more motivated by a dislike of this guy, than any fair minded judgment of his notability. Just look at the two comments directly below this. Do they have anything at all to do with Collier's notability? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; you all should be aware that Collier use his blog to WP:DOX any Wikipedia editor he doesn't agree with. And editors are using the existence of this bio as argument that his views are "notable" Huldra (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jane Jackman (University of Exeter). "Advocating Occupation:Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (the esharp paper mentioned in the article) contains interesting references to Collier. Notable is his description of the UN as a "a rabid Jew-hating forum", of UNSC Resolution 2334 as "[f]odder for the anti-Israel lynch mob" and "BDS is an umbrella group under which all Israel haters unite"to "smear Zionists as bullies and Nazis". I'm all for freedom of speech but keepers would do well to actually scrutinize some of the material in the blog, for example, <suppressed>, which I would put in the same category as Holocaust denial.Selfstudier (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pol Pot has a page. I don't think this guy has bad views is quite the argument you think it is when it comes to determining notability. But if there's well sourced criticism of the guy, just add it to the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt the place to debate whether or not Collier's views are evidence of a well formed psyche or not, this is a place to debate whether or not a biography of him meets our inclusion requirements. Irrelevant details distract from, not enlighten, that process. I dont give a shit what he writes about. There simply is no significant coverage of him to merit a biography here. That is the reason to debate, not that he has a doxing streak on his blog, or that he espouses views I consider asinine. nableezy - 00:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not now about to edit a page I think should be deleted. Most of the article has been added since this AfD went up, with every bit of trivia that can be dug up in a web search and very little that establishes notability.Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would the material on his blog affect this AfD in any way, shape, or form? I don't need to read his blog to analyze whether he satisfies WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Collier is his blog, little else is known about him apart from what's on it. Ask yourself whether that blog (ie Collier) is an RS? Selfstudier (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to determine nobility for that person. Where are the reliable sources devoted to that particular person? Not this one. -->[5] That's not about him, he is mentioned there with the description of an investigative journalist. Can anybody show me RS devoted to David Collier, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 01:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what? This isn't RSN, it's AfD. Whether his blog is reliable or not has no bearing on this discussion.
@GizzyCatBella: Check the Times and Herald Scotland sources I mentioned earlier. Mlb96 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlb96 - Okay, let’s start with this. How old is David Collier? And maybe one more to start before I move forward. What town was is born at? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better question: What do either of those have to do with his notability? Shall we delete our articles on Satoshi Nakamoto and D. B. Cooper as well? Or how about Tommy Wiseau, Dream (YouTuber), and Tank Man? I can name more if you need me to. Mlb96 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can just check his CV...Oh, wait. Linkedin? Nope, blog is it.Selfstudier (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about any source that provides in-depth coverage to the purported subject of this article? The Times is an opinion piece by Melanie Phillips, not reliable for factual material so throw that one right out. The Herald does not cover Collier in any depth at all, it only supports that he was to appear in a debate and the opponent refused due to not wanting to legitimize somebody who had participated in a smear campaign. It provides no detail about Collier besides that he is a blogger. nableezy - 02:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald article is dedicated entirely to describing Collier and the things he did and said; how much more in-depth do you want? Your criteria for sigcov are so strict that anything short of a book-length biography would qualify as trivial. Mlb96 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is very much untrue, it describes one encounter that didnt occur because the person found him too objectionable to appear on stage with. It does not describe Collier himselg in any significant detail though. Which is why you cant say where he went to school, or if he has siblings, or really anything besides he has made a number of blog posts. nableezy - 04:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable authority on antisemitism with signifjcant coverage of his activities in reliable sources. Free1Soul (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
An authority on antisemitism would have a resume and some academic qualifications and have citations to his work in other reliable sources. Please dont make such baldly untrue statements. nableezy - 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The blogger evidently does not consider himself notable, since he is hyper-careful about keeping from the public record anything about who he is, (birthdate, birthplace, education, qualifications, employment). What he does do is publish details about other people, profiling them as antisemites, which, in his view, appears to be tantamount to anyone critical of human rights abuses in Israel’s occupation. I can only find one RS, other than the usual community chat papers, that mentions him, and I say that as someone who follows closely the serious scholarship on antisemitism and anti-Zionism, where he simply does not figure. Nishidani (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is likely that the subject of this article is following this discussion, given his stated interest in Wikipedia. Separately, I find it odd that such an inconsequential discussion has attracted so many accounts which look like WP:DUCKs. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quackery begets quacks. This is all too predictable Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. So far I have not seen any significant coverage of David Collier himself, only of his works. It is possible for a book to be notable without its author being notable (examples where we have an article on the book but not the author: An Atlas of Fantasy, The Plains Across, Colder Than Hell etc). And so Collier's works, even if notable, don't automatically confer notability onto Collier himself. If someone finds sources that do demonstrate Collier himself meeting GNG, please ping me.VR talk 08:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to add that in the scientific research world, its common for a researcher to have papers with a dozen citations. Some of these citations give in-depth coverage to the content of the paper (experiments that validate the paper's findings, dispute the paper's findings, improved upon the paper's techniques, compare the paper to another one etc). But we wouldn't have an article on the author just because their papers got a few citations.VR talk 09:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    VR, your argument would lead more logically to a conclusion of Rename (as a blog) rather than Delete. Headhitter (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article creator comments on the article talk page I wouldn't particularly describe this article as a biography either, as his work is far more notable than he is as an individual.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the article creator is saying that Collier the person is not notable: indeed there appears to be little information about who he is, but what he writes is notable. Well it isn't, except for the rabid smearing, doxxing, and hyperactivism in conducting a witchhunt by insinuation such that institutions like SOAS ban Jews, and are rabid hotbeds of Islamic activism. Oh really? Multiple such absurd claims and you get what Collier is 'notable' for. And the wiki page becomes just one more venue for showcasing the froth of social media shouting matches.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice selective quoting. Here's the rest of it:
... his work is far more notable than he is as an individual. That's possibly by choice. But for a wiki page, that's okay. See: D._B._Cooper
Unless you're also going to argue that the D._B._Cooper, with zero biographical details, needs to be deleted, your strongest argument in favor of deletion seems completely gone. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that your statement is my strongest argument for deletion? I admit it's quite a good argument for deletion but it's not mine, it's yours.Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's sources including The Times, The Guardian, and the Scottish Herald, so appears to pass [[WP:GNG]. The argument that his work is notable but he isn't strikes me as a bit off, that would mean we should deleted the pages of many artists because it's they're art that is notable. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You've fallen for it. There is no mention of Collier in The Times article. Like most of the page, what is happening is that Collier kicks up a fuss, an aftermath of media havoc ensues somewhat related to some position he advanced, and editors stack the page with news articles that never mention Collier. I.e. Jane Jackman analysed Collier's activities in a peer-reviewed academic paper. A scandal (of 'antisemitism' or of censorship) was created that never mentioned Collier. We cite all of these general articles on the Jackman affaire, which mostly ignore Collier, for Collier's page, while suppressing any reference or link to Jackman's article. I guess most have not accessed The Times article: but it mentions the controversy as Glasgow over Jackman as far as one can see, and it has yet to be shown that it includes any mention of Collier. So the 'impressive' number of articles cited in the mainstream press are not about Collier, but incidents which, on Facebook or Twitter, Collier had a position. Source gamesmanship, potemkin village jerryrigged referencing to give the impression he is notable.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fallen for anything. The Guardian mentions him in a more than passing way, the Herald is about him specifically, the Huffington post is about his work, the BBC article again is about his work, as is the Telegraph article. I'm not interested in the details of the scandals, or this individual, he's in multiple reliable sources - he passed GNG. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now. Seriously? The sum total of the Guardian piece's mention of Collier is "David Collier, a pro-Israel campaigner, who was referenced in the paper and who published a rebuttal on his website, described the removal of the apology as “an act of cowardice”." The sum total of what the Herald piece says about him is "Mr Collier is a UK businessman who lived in Israel for nearly 20 years and whose blog is dedicated to "researching anti-Semitism inside anti-Zionist activity"." These are the very definition of casual mentions that do not meet the GNG's requirement of significant coverage. Ravenswing 07:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald article is entirely about the individual, or about reactions to him. I just don't see how that is 'just a passing mention'. The Guardian is the weekst of the five I mentioned, but those two where not the only ones. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In writing, 'you fell for it', I alluded to your citing the using of The Times artiole to prove he is often mentioned. You didn't examine the article, which does not mention Collier. I.e. you fell for it, taking on trust that since another editor had cited the times as evidence for his notability (inappropriately), the article you hadn't read must have mentioned Collier. The strength of Wikipedia is that numerous editors who don't know each other from a bar of soap, relentlessly check and cross-check things like this before making a call.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, I only perused the Times article when I should have been more detailed. Your comment made me go back and read the others more fully. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by claims that The Times doesn't mention Collier. The article, I'm looking at begins with the words: David Collier is a British Jew who devotes much of his life to chronicling the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attitudes... [6] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the Times that we were discussing did not mention Collier. The new one you bring up is by Melanie Phillips, who, after writing a paranoid tract on the Muslim takeover of Londonistan, used the Times to eloquently boost Collier, using language he himself is not averse to, i.e. 'cesspit' etc. The Times used to exercise editorial control to guarantee quality reportage. Alas, no longer, save for the TLS. Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'm surprised about the level of extreme bias in the article, I think his report makes him notable enough to be kept as a article. Dunutubble (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One shouldn't be surprised by the 'extreme bias' in the article. That is what the subject is 'notable' for. In the Jackman case, he 'replied' to her careful documentation by a blog spitting fury, using words like 'cesspit', 'gutter' and accusing her of smearing him as someone 'recruited' by Israel. She wrote no such thing. To the contrary, she described him with an innocuous and accurate descriptor as someone engaged on a 'self-appointed mission'. A blogger who consistently distorts sources to stir the witch's brew of toxic commentary is 'notable' only in so far as 1000s of similar types in the infinite web of social media chitchat are, but none really cut mustard as 'researchers'. They only count as a quantifiable mass of group influencers via meme replication in social media.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are what appear to be reliable sources provided, they do not present meaningful coverage of the subject itself, instead detailing wider activity regarding anti-semitism investigations in the Labour Party. Invariably, they include his name in passing but no additional information Dexxtrall (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one RS which goes into depth into one of his reports and mentions Collier 13 times[7]. Some of the 35ish secondary sources are trivial mentions, but by no means all of them. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well. There's 45 minutes of my life I won't get back. But I've just reviewed all the sources in the article and there's no there there. Almost everything mentioned about Collier himself is a casual mention at best, and the couple sources that say anything more are either quotes from Collier or sourced from his blog. Neither, of course, can count towards supporting the notability of a subject. The various keep proponents have the requirements for the GNG only half right: there must be reliable sources, but those sources also must cover the subject -- not his work, not his blog -- in "significant detail." Instead, the sources -- however reliable -- don't cover him in any detail at all, and are thus debarred from supporting notability. Having read the subject's blogpost slamming this AfD and crying conspiracy, I can certainly appreciate why Collier would not want biographical details available to the public. The consequence of that, of course, is that he doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article.

    Beyond any of that, a drum some of the keep proponents are also beating is in the importance of the work. So stipulated, but what about this article is necessary to memorialize it? We already have Jeremy_Corbyn#Allegations_of_antisemitism, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party, Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel, 2021 Meron crowd crush as representative articles. Ravenswing 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to an article an Collier's reports. Not sure what the article should be called, but it's clear the article subject isn't notable enough outside his writings on antisemitism. The writings are definitely of encyclopedic interest , though, based on all the sources. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 18:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of encyclopedic interest? On his blog he makes no distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, a distinction that the best authority on the subject, Kenneth S. Stern, who wrote the international definition of the latter, thinks cogent. Collier finds an antisemite under ever critic of Israel's policies and thinks UK campuses are infected to the point every Jewish student feels 'unsafe'. Stern did a massive review of that meme as applied to US universities, where the same insinuation was insistently harped on in a certain vein of political rhetoric, and came to the opposite conclusion.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Similar feelings to Ravenswing above. I've checked the sources on the article and done my own sweep. There simply is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject himself. Mujinga (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's just not passing the notability test, for me. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - A critical op-ed has been added to the new Criticism section. It walks through one of his reports, but also gives an analysis of his approaches, goals, and views. I think this helps, to some degree, addressing the problems of sources saying little about him and NPOV. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unconvinced. The "Criticism" section consists of a single source to an op-ed piece that's frankly a heavily biased polemic on Why Everything Collier Posts Sucks. This AfD should not and cannot be a referendum on Collier's positions. Its sole purpose must be to answer whether the subject meets the GNG/WP:BIO. I do not believe that he does, and I don't believe this one source adds anything of merit. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Ravenswing 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see this part of WP:BIO:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"
And I didn't say that this new op-ed solve any problems. But point-by-point, as there are more-and-more sources talking about him, there's a greater chance that he passes any bars for notability. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware of that, thank you; I have several thousand edits at XfD over the years, and am well up on notability standards. I remain unmoved, and stand by my comments. These sources do not talk about Collier -- they just talk about his allegations, and most of them falling into predictable editorial lines depending on the politics of the speaker. Ravenswing 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assertions like ' highly regarded antisemitism expert' require RS evidence, particular from ' highly regarded antisemitism experts' (for which there is, as far as I can see, none) who actually have a strong record as scholarly authorities in this field. This is a complex technical call in wikipedia terms, and there is some evidence of attempts to influence the vote with some 'keep' editors having a very low record of interest in wikipedia. Your 523 edits just scrape by the ARBPIA qualification rule.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Is there really any doubt at this point that his reports are notable? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way to find out is maybe try and fit them into the above mentioned article and see a) whether you can and b) what the reaction to that might be. I assume that editors with a specific interest in the subject watch that page and will have an opinion on their encyclopedia value. It's difficult for independent researchers because there will questions about their authors qualifications to write such reports. I'd say it would depend on the amount and type of secondary coverage of the reports that exists, the best kind being known experts in the field commenting in reliable sources.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is another possibility.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I think there's a total misunderstanding of Wikipedia's practices if editors here, or elsewhere, are making judgments about a researcher's "qualifications" or expertise, and using that to decide if material should be included. The only question should be "notability", should it not? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with article content. Reliability and verifiability do. Notability is about whether a topic is suitable for an article here. Reliability is about qualifications. And this blogger has none. He has never written a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject. He has no known academic qualifications. He has no known expertise on literally anything at all. nableezy - 22:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are totally misunderstanding wikipedia's policies and practices, and I don't care how many edits you have. It is not your role to judge Collier's "qualifications". You cannot do that as an editor, then use your personal opinions to make judgments about content inclusion. NO ONE is advocating that we treat his website as a RS. But, if secondary sources speak about his reports, then we look at the reliability of those sources, period. It is 100% appropriate to include his opinions as opinions, if it's covered by RS, irrespective how you feel about his qualifications. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. But of course we judge qualifications of sources, that is literally what WP:RSN is. Of course we consider their credentials, that is what WP:SCHOLARSHIP is about. And for a non-notable blogger with no qualifications, we do not include his opinion as his opinion just because a source includes it. That is what WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) and WP:WEIGHT (unqualified bloggers merit no weight when their views are not widely covered as having some import) are about. You can keep thinking I am the one misunderstanding Wikipedia's policies and practices, but that is a personal problem for you. nableezy - 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the last sentence of what I wrote? Reports in and of themselves are not "notable". I think we have exhausted the angles here, I see no need to discuss it further.Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, his reports are not notable. As a topic, there are no reliable sources covering his reports. Including sources covering different reports as one topic is OR by SYNTH. nableezy - 20:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. coverage of his reports is not the same as coverage of him as a person. Amisom (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he is a significant figure in the British Jewish community and a leading contributor to the continuing political debate in the UK about the extent of antisemitism. Headhitter (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'a leading contributor to the continuing political debate'. Debate? Where has he ever debated anyone in public? Nishidani talk) 21:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's tried to do so, but he's been no-platformed: <suppressed> Headhitter (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So he is not a contributor to the debate, since debates don't take place. The link doesn't work. Getting people 'no-platformed' appears from his blog to be precisely what his blogging attacks consist in. GB's Jewish community has strong, highly literate, incisively readable and distinguished analysts of anti-Semitism, sociologists, philosophers and critics, as one would expect. Collier does not rate among them.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now corrected the link: it's <suppressed> Collier has received coverage in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/10/glasgow-university-retreats-over-antisemitic-label-for-journal-article and The Daily Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/04/jeremy-corbyns-leadership-has-radicalised-labour-members-attacking/, both of them WP:RS. Headhitter (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The 'coverage' he received in the Guardian states in a sentence the same meme we find mentioned in several other reports on the GlasgowU backtracking fiasco. Nothing new, except further proof of journalistic laziness. Meme replication across numerous breaking news articles is one of the greatest problems in the encyclopedic representation of the conflict. By the way, the repeated mentioned in those sources of Collier's 'rebuttal' has the same function. No one seems to have thought it worthy of a counter-rebuttal, -not notable again-though it is full of cheap smearing (Jackman's co-supervisor,Ilan Pappé apparently is '‘a conspiracy theorist' and ‘liar’) and embarrassing ignorance about Israel. Jackman referred to 'mowing the lawn' with a source he contests.This is either faux naïf or he doesn’t know, aftere 2 decades in Israel, that ‘mowing the lawn’ is a standard IDF idiom for its periodic onslaughts on Gaza. He demands an academic reference for it, since Mouin Rabbani in the London Review of Books, whom Jackman cites, is not in his view, reliable. I.e. he is unfamiliar with Rabbani's background, work and qualifications, thinks the LRB unreliable, and doesn't known enough Hebrew to recognize at sight a phrase that is attested to endemically in RS and throughout the net, often directly cited from named Israeli figures like Naphtali Bennett. He claims that the peer-review system failed. Try sieving his blog with peer-review methodology and one would realize why he blogs and does not go through that process to get published in serious scholarly outlets.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kathryn Hudson, the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, referred to David Collier in her report on Baroness Tonge in 2017: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldprivi/142/14205.htm Headhitter (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you not get that "referred to David Collier" is not "coverage of David Collier". This is textbook COATRACKing. nableezy - 21:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And quite aside from Nishidani's comments, there's a notion a number of people seem to have at AfD generally: that if there's some excuse for a subject not to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, the provisions of the GNG and WP:BIO are somehow suspended in their favor. This curious notion has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The way we know that someone is a "significant figure" in any community is for reliable sources to say so. Ravenswing 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject of this article has tried to canvas people to this AfD. Not linking the page since it contains personal attacks on individual editors, publishing timestamp on article is 2021-12-03T09:02:38+00:00 for reference when closing this AfD. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked, and saw that he names me as a vitriolic 'antisemite' about whom he 'has written about .. both several times before – and there can be little doubt they know it.' News to me -I've only read two screeds on that blog in the past few months, when linked by editors to them: I don't read blogs, twitter, facebook, social media, as is news to me the 'fact' I apparently work 'behind the scenes' to 'get his wiki bio erased. Conspiracy-mongering again. No person profiled on a wiki bio owns that page. To the contrary. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Birds of a feather, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israellycool refers. (Someone is thinking of resuscitating it, I see).Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - This page has been EC protected right around this time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re eSharp I have not voted in this debate, mainly because I am unsure about the usage of the eSharp article, which contains a scholarly assessment of Collier's output:

...David Collier, a blogger under the banner heading Beyond the Great Divide. Given that his posts are frequently recycled and applauded on Facebook and Twitter, he is highly regarded among grassroots Zionist supporters. His writing, however, is peppered with inflammatory language. For example in January 2017 he referred to UNSC Resolution 2334 as ‘[f]odder for the anti-Israel lynch mob’ and the UN itself as ‘a rabid Jew-hating forum’ (Collier 2017) Collier’s self-appointed mission is to attend and report on pro-Palestinian events and academic conferences. He refers to these as ‘hate-fests’. He told his embassy audience in November that ‘BDS is an umbrella group under which all Israel haters unite’ to ‘smear Zionists as bullies and Nazis’. 2 His posts frequently single out prominent supporters of Palestinian rights such as Ilan Pappe and Ghada Karmi to name-and-shame. Overall, Collier’s blogposts exemplify the discursive categories typical of an extreme ideological perspective. These include outright denials of Israel’s human rights violations beginning with the displacement in 1948 of the indigenous Palestinian population (Pappe 2006); the shifting of blame for the conflict through discourses that claim (for Israel) the right to self-defense, and which imply that Palestinian violence is a random expression of Arab anti-Semitism rather than resistance to decades of dispossession, discrimination and humiliation; dehumanization of Palestinians as a people who routinely sacrifice their children in order to kill Jews; a strong antipathy for anyone supporting Palestinian human rights; and frequent resort to ridicule. When the Al Jazeera documentaries aired, Collier was quick to deride the series, downplaying the seriousness of Israel’s tampering with British public opinion, and citing Marcus Dysch, Political Editor at the Jewish Chronicle, who on 12 January attacked the series as ‘harassment of Jews dressed up as entertainment’ (Collier 2017b). Similarly, Collier reproduced the remarks of fellow blogger Jonathan Hoffman, whose piece on the Zionist website Harry’s Place summed the films as ‘voyeurism for anti-Semites’ (Collier 2017b). It would be easy to dismiss such social media exchanges as inconsequential hot air. But propaganda thrives on the repetition of catchy slogans such as these, and the constant exchange and recirculation of misleading information - Collier’s comments reappear across a range of social media - arguably spreads and entrenches already strongly held Zionist beliefs, inflaming antagonism towards pro-Palestinian supporters and muting their messages. The possibility of free and fair debate is severely limited.

As our article currently explains, Collier did mount a campaign to have this journal article buried, and the resulting editorial cover page on the article would suggest he was partially successful: "But along with such debate comes the responsibility for articles to be rigorous, well-balanced, and supported by evidence. This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data, which promote what some would regard as an unfounded theory regarding the State of Israel and its activity in the United Kingdom." This cover note has been in flux and the one here is dated September 2021; it is not clear to me whether this version is the final product of the ensuing debate. The academic community, in the form of 500 scholars signing a petition, had described in the opposite terms: "The paper was accepted for publication following the standard process of double-blind peer-review. The article is an academic account of public relations, lobbying, advocacy and information management, which is a well-established area of academic study." I am not entirely clear when this petition was delivered. Either way, the debate between the editorial team and the wider academic community was around whether the picture painted of the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom was fair. It had nothing to do with the article's description of individual bloggers or similar.
The way I look at this AfD is that if the eSharp article is admissible, we have a proper academic analysis of Collier and his activities on which to base this article. If it is not, we have only scraps and asides in sources focused on other matters. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone else's info, this article as linked to by Onceinawhile includes this disclaimer:
"This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data"[8]
The article now has other criticism. It doesn't need a a graduate student paper that's been disavowed by the publisher. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs: please explain why you duplicated text I already had in my post above, with a statement suggesting I had not already quoted and addressed this? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Uni had to save face after being caught with its pants down by 500 scholars. Thus the revised screed minus the antisemitism nonsense. The crucial part is "some would regard as an unfounded theory" which basically is the same as "All minus "some" would not regard it as an unfounded theory" along with the fact that the paper is still up.Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, why do you refer to the antisemitism charges as "nonsense"? Wikipedia should be WP:NPOV. Headhitter (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original screed claimed the paper contained an "unfounded antisemitic theory" a claim removed when 500 scholars pointed out it it had wrongly conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism and undermined academic freedom, while damaging the reputation of the author as a result, "nonsense" for short. I can say that, this isn't an article page. I call lots of things nonsense, rubbish, twaddle, if that's what I think it is. Selfstudier (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth casting an eye over Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. I had quite forgotten about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive294#ZScarpia (the complaint was filed by a blocked sock and actively supported by 2 others).Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Education?

Question Does anyone know what education Collier has? Usually, you are only called a "researcher" after getting a phD; so what does Collier have? I haven't even seen that he has O-levels; does he? Huldra (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Apparently anyone can call themself "independent researcher", or "investigative journalist"; even if they only scraped through elementary school. That is why I want to know: what is Colliers qualifications? Anyone? Huldra (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an interesting exercise to put up a page on Asa Winstanley for the keepers here to nominate for deletion, heh. Then we could say that everything he has to say about subject is "notable". In fact I can think of a whole raft of bloggers that will get a page should this one make it through.Selfstudier (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again; why hasn't anyone answered my question? Does Collier have any formal education whatsoever? Does he have O-levels? A phD? Did he even pass his 11+? What? Or can you take anyone just off the street and call him/her "independent researcher," or "investigative journalist"? (And yeah, if he is notable, then so is Asa Winstanley (who, incidentally, routinely refers to Collier as a "racist")), Huldra (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something of a mystery, bit like subject's time spent in Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon his return to the UK, David went back to university to study Management (BSc) and Ethics (MSc - distinction)" has been added to the self description at ToI blogs. I think it is a new claim, at least I have not seen it before and I don't think it is on his own blog either. Maybe we can find a reliable source in confirmation. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is new. He submitted that blog post yesterday, in the full knowledge of this discussion. I have confirmed this by google searching a short string from the text of this new standardized biography box: "Management (BSc) and Ethics (MSc - distinction)". It comes up only once in all of google, i.e. in his blog post yesterday. Presumably he believes that having a wikipedia page will benefit his career. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is unacceptable, and shouldn't be included unless an independent source exists. If one has such achievements, where they were gained should be noted. (I live in a country where, for example, politicians have bought postal degrees in Albania and passed them off as the result of tertiary qualifications. Not that that necessarily is the case)Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should AGF, and all that, but I recall the example of Yousef Al Otaiba -where the official UAE page used to claim that he "obtained a degree in international relations from Georgetown University in Washington, DC". Alas, after The Intercept showed that wasn't true (and after paid editors didn't manage to remove that from the Wikipedia article) the official UAE page now says he "studied international relations from Georgetown University in Washington, DC". Lol!
Anyway, not to fill up this page with stuff: I am hatting it, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break starting from Bob drobbs' sources table[edit]

Sources table: We don't have a clear consensus yet. And as painful as this process has been so far, I would HATE to have to go through it again in 6 months or a year. So here's a first pass at a source analysis table. And as a reminder, WP:BIO does not require any one source to go into depth: "... multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a clear consensus yet Why do you think that? Selfstudier (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least five sources on the list are often contested at RSN. (Israel Hayom, Mondoweiss,Middle East Eye. the Times of Israel and Tablet blogs etc (The Tablet has some good stuff, but it hosts also some of the most toxic journalistic cant I've come across on I/P issues). This is the only time in the past few years where I have seen Mondoweiss, funnily enough, cited positively from a 'pro-Israeli position' perspective. The pro-Israeli position led to its deprecation on Wikipedia. MEE is also deprecated frequently by the same editing group as a source. (the point is consistency: one cannot argue that newspapers are not reliable sources at RSN, and then cite them as reliable sources in a wikibio of a person who would probably regard them as odious sources of antisemitism).
The funniest anomaly is citing the Alliance for Workers' Liberty page. Sources like that have been rigorously rejected by pro-Israeli editors from virtually all articles covering the British Labour Party anti-Semitism accusations topic. One cannot absolutely use it to cover the left position on Corbyn, but it is fine to note Collier's notability. What's good/bad for the goose should be good/bad for the gander.
Despite what you say about bios not requiring depth, the technical issue raised by Ravenswing remains cogent: the coverage is invariably en passant, and several sources all cite the same language and the same incident. We don't know who David Collier is (not that one is interested to know), from these scattered sources: the reports all regard incidents covered in several Wikipedia articles. Therefore this page only justifies its existence to remind readers of the fact he bloigged a few reports on anti-Semitism, that were noted at the time. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found the Alliance for Workers' Liberty inclusion bizarre too. I didn't look through the edit history to see who added each source. I just documented them. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections/comments re table": "Antisemitic conspiracy fantasy in the age of digital media: Three ‘conspiracy theorists’ and their YouTube audiences" is scholarly article not book, has passing mention in footnote ("O’Keefe achieved mainstream media attention in 2017 after the now-notorious Palestine Live Facebook group was infiltrated by researcher David Collier.") "Labour can't see its cesspool of antisemitism": is an opinion piece, 8 mentions but all about report not him. "'Hitler had a valid argument against some Jews": couple of citations and brief mention ("In 2018, independent researcher David Collier (2018) published evidence showing that Corbyn had been an active member of a secret Facebook group.") "Labour to act on antisemitic member posts": 1 passing mention only. US State Dept: quite brief mention only ("In July Member of Parliament (MP) John Mann, leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, called for action to be taken against “racists,” following the publication of a report written by pro-Israel blogger David Collier and funded by Jewish Human Rights Watch citing links between the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and anti-Semitism in Scotland.") "Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has radicalised some Labour members into attacking Israel and Jews": Four mentions, all about report not person. "Glasgow University retreats over 'antisemitic' label for journal article": Brief citations plus quote, calls him "a pro-Israel campaigner". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction and filling in some of the blanks. I've updated the table. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bob drobbs secondary sources analysis
Secondary Source Analysis
Source Title About Collier About his work Notes
Jerusalem Post "Comprehensive report exposes antisemitism in Ireland" Mention in first sentence, 7 times total, no details Entire article about his report
Scholarly Article "Antisemitic conspiracy fantasy in the age of digital media: Three 'conspiracy theorists' and their YouTube audiences" Referred to in footnote -
Jewish Chronicle "Antisemitism researcher locked out of Twitter" Article centered around him being locked out of twitter -
The Guardian "Glasgow University retreats over 'antisemitic' label for journal article" Brief mention about him, sharing his opinions Brief mention of his work
The Times "Labour can't see its cesspool of antisemitism" First paragraph discusses him; 7 more references just name him 8 mentions of report
Herald Scotland. "Israel apartheid debate in Glasgow cancelled over Labour anti-Semitism investigator presence row" Article is centered around him ?
Ynet "Inside the BDS lions' den" Four paragraphs about Collier -
The Daily Beast "U.K. Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn Was in Secret Anti-Semitic Facebook Group". Very brief statement on him 3 paragraphs speak about his report
Algemeiner "The Top 100 People Positively Influencing Jewish Life, 2017" Long paragraph about him
Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism "Labour's Leaked Report: Who Is to Blame for Antisemitism in Britain's Labour Party? Trivial mention Brief mention of his work
Middle East Eye "Labour's anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity" Analysis of Colliers viewpoint Analysis of one of Collier's reports
i24 News "UK's Corbyn member of anti-Semitic Facebook group before elected Labour leader". Trivial mention Some details from one report
Discourse, Context & Media "'Hitler had a valid argument against some Jews': repertoires for the denial of antisemitism in Facebook discussion of a survey of attitudes to Jews and Israel" Couple of citations and brief mention ?
Book "Why Do People Discriminate Against Jews?" ? ? I don't have the book
The Times "Labour to act on antisemitic member posts". Passing mention ?
Huffington Post UK. "Jeremy Corbyn Was Member Of Facebook Group At Centre Of Anti-Semitism Investigation". Trivial mention Gives Collier credit for unearthing info about Corbyn
BBC News "Labour launches probe into anti-Semitic Facebook claims". Two brief mentions
The Guardian "Labour suspends party members in 'antisemitic' Facebook group" Brief mention Brief mention
The Algemeiner. "New Report Exposes Scottish Palestine Solidarity Activists as Purveyors of Holocaust Denial and Antisemitism" Brief mention Central focus of the article
Alliance for Workers' Liberty "Jackie Walker's questionable allies". 4 brief mentions Lengthy discussion
US State Department "2017 Report on International Religious Freedom: United Kingdom" Brief Mention Brief Mention
Jewish Chronicle "Labour members radicalised into attacking Jews and Israel after Corbyn became leader". 4 mentions, no details Discussion of multiple reports
Telegraph UK "Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has radicalised some Labour members into attacking Israel and Jews" 4 mentions ?
Jerusalem Post "Corbyn turns Labour members against Israel and Jews" Collier is mentioned in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd paragraphs. 7 times total. No real details. Detailed discussion of report
Times of Israel "UK Labour members 'radicalized' on Israel since Corbyn's election, report claims" 13 mentions; no real details Lengthy analysis of report
Israel Hayom "Report exposes pervasive 'top-down' antisemitism in Ireland". Brief mention Focus of article
Algemeiner "New Independent Report Demonstrates 'Horrific' Levels of Antisemitism Present in Ireland, Dublin Pro-Israel Activist Says". 3 mentions; no real details Focus of article
Jewish Chronicle "Pro-Palestine Israeli academic pays damages after libelling Irish ex-minister Alan Shatter". Brief mention Brief mention
Times of Israel Blog "Comments on David Collier's Outstanding Report on Antisemitism in Ireland". 3 mentions, including title, no details Focus of article
Jewish News. "Amnesty International accused of 'obsession' with Israel in new damning report". 4 mentions; no details Focus of article
Jewish News "Report reveals anti-Semitism shared by Palestine Solidarity Campaign activists"". 4 mentions; no details Focus of article
Jewish Chronicle. "Lag b'Omer tragedy greeted with outpouring of antisemitism". Brief mention Brief mention
The Guardian. "Glasgow University retreats over 'antisemitic' label for journal article". Brief citations plus quote -
Algemeiner. "University of Glasgow Journal Revises Apology for Promoting 'Unfounded Antisemitic Theory' After Petition". 3 brief mentions Focus of article?
Book "Contemporary Left Antisemitism" Brief mention 1 page? 2 pages?
Mondoweiss "'BDS is a terrorist movement' – exposing David Collier". Mondoweiss". 62 mentions; analysis of his views and methods details analysis of a report
Book Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel Unclear; at least a short description of his views - I don't have the book
eSharp Advocating Occupation: Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK 3 paragraphs discussing him - Excluded from article as it's been disavowed by publisher as not meeting their academic standards. Unsure how that impacts notability
  • Merge, perhaps to an article on British anti-Semitism. Fails WP:ANYBIO. That said, this article was clearly created in good faith and I find the tenor of this discussion, especially the topic ban call, disturbing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential discussion re editorial dispute at ANI
Good faith? Perhaps. Nonetheless, after several months of disagreements with several editors on multiple pages, (I can't recall whether he opined on three erratic calls for sanctioning Huldra over trivia at ANI etc over the past few months) Bob decided to write a wikibio of a blogger with a record of regarding Wikipedia as a breeding ground for anti-Semitism, where editors here are named and defamed. Purely coincidental, perhaps, but one is not obliged to be naive. The topic ban call was inappropriate, but not, in these contexts, to be jumped at to make the fourth case this year for sanctions against Huldra, a long-standing editor who has single-handedly created at 500 articles with notable historical depth, and unrhetorically factual. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless nothing. There is no excuse for the kind of rhetoric displayed here. The purpose of an AfD is to discuss the notability of an article subject, nothing else. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for Coretheapple. @Nishidani:, what's your point? Bob's behavior, one way or another, has zero bearing on Collier's notability or lack thereof. If you have complaints about him, make them in the proper venues. Collier's own actions and opinions of Wikipedia have zero bearing on his notability or lack thereof. For pity's sake, there's enough inflamed rhetoric going around without pouring more fuel on the fire. Ravenswing 17:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall making any inflammatory rhetoric about Bob. What I stated above was simply intended to contextualize the environment (which cannot be assumed to be known to all - Huldra said something unwarranted. Huldra, 15 years at the rockface during serious work, has been hauled consistently to arbitration in frivolous cases all dismissed, by four relatively new editors in the I/P area. She was exasperated. We're adults here.) alluded to by Coretheapple,who spoke of the tenor of this discussion being disturbing. I can't see that, yet perhaps that is because I've seen far worse for a decade and a half in this area, and generally I think the input here has been fairly balanced between opposed positions. Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, as you say, "The topic ban call was inappropriate ... Huldra said something unwarranted." And you can make equivocations based upon the actions of others, but this was not based on any history between us, or anything I did to her. My line in the sand was crossed when she continued acting without civility outside of this AFD, and continues to show no indication that she understands she did anything wrong. As her supporter and/or friend, have you tried to calm down tensions on both sides, by letting her know some of her behavior wasn't okay and she should not repeat it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for that. Had I been 'sensitive' to every slur and ran to the Mummy of arbitration at every irate comment thrown my way, I'd have a massive record of several hundred cases to my (dis)credit. In principle over 16 years, I have refused to use such a recourse, because (a) at school, the word 'dobber' was loaded with infamy (b) it has historically been an instrument for ridding pages of editors considered adversaries.(c)This is an often extenuating area of the encyclopedia which requires a thick skin, with an extraordinarily high level of motivated disturbance by socks and meatpuppets. One must learn to exercise great patience with, remain unperturbed by, the fact that the nature of these pages means one will have to waste regularly weeks of time arguing with editors who have no encyclopedic interest whatsoever, but are here for at tritional purposes, to get a bunfight going or to stir trouble, mostly by provocative refusals to use commonsense, apply the rules of evidence fairly. You have an equable voice so I for one see no problem, but, just on personal grounds, I take frivolous recourse to ANI/AE (which has occurred in Huldra's case several times recently) as 'disturbing', and it would help generally if editors here of whatever profile, exercised more restraint. We're grown ups, and must avoid the kindergarten recursiveness of whingeing at every perceived hurt. I've said that persistently to all sides. Enough of this, and back to focusing on the content issue.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources I added two sources to the source list. One was a book added to the article by Selfstudier. The other one is the eSharp article. It's not included in the article because it's publisher has disavowed it as biased and faulty research, but I'm not sure if that has any impact in regards to notability. Notability is determined by source's existence, not inclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still trying to "puff it up", are we? I would rather cite the published and still up eSharp paper, double blind peer reviewed, than anything by subject, who has not had anything published, peer reviewed or otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can find seven sources from Bob drobbs's sources table that together I regard as amply satisfying the WP:BASIC criterion for bios and so I don't regard delete to be a defensible outcome to this discussion. However, there are some issues with the article that means simply keeping it may not be ideal:
  • As Nishidani has noted, Collier has been campaigning against Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Zionism in a manner that, through his large Twitter following, has resulted in harassment of Wikipedia editors. While I do not think that Collier is personally engaged in this, equally he is not condemning this harassment or taking steps to prevent it. From what I can see, the harassment has not distorted our coverage, but it is quite possible our coverage has been affected in hard-to-see ways, such as editors choosing not to edit this material.
A good, i.e. verifiable, sufficiently in-depth and well-balanced, article on Collier would actually be an asset against this harassment, since it would cast some light on what is going on. We are not there yet, however, and it occurs to me that draftspace might be a better place to sort out this article than articlespace.
  • This is a new article that arguably should have been created through the AfC process. It's not clear to me that it is well-named, since we might as easily qualify his name (amateur historian) or (Zionist). These categorisations do matter, since they are so prominent, and while there is no reason why these couldn't be handled with an RfC, this issue is more conveniently handled at the draft stage.
I'm inclined against merge, since there does not seem to be one article that is the obvious best place for all the encyclopediac content that could go in the dedicated article, but I think draftify, on the grounds that the article should have been created in draftspace, might be a better result than keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chalst: just on your statement that "I do not think that Collier is personally engaged in this...", that should not inform a view in this debate, which is solely a notability question. I would like to correct it for the record, though. Unfortunately some of his posts have intentionally doxxed editors with their real names. Other examples of harassment from his blog (which I have redacted) include: (1) I believe I am close to uncovering [redacted]’s real identity. The account holder may be [redacted] and connected to [redacted] University (possibly [redacted] campus – so if you know of an anti-Israel academic activist there – probably with [redacted] background – let me know).; and on a different editor: (2) From his edits [redacted] appears to be a raging antisemitic conspiracy theorist with a major fetish for the Nazi Occult. He also seems to have a soft spot for radical Islamists (and may well have converted in about 2007). More generally, his blog posts show a consistent inability to understand the idea of a balanced narrative, as if the coins in his pocket only have one side, and they imply a belief that editors writing anything less than pure Israeli government propaganda are "online terrorists", and he encourages his readers to treat them as such.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
I agree that "merge" is an imperfect solution, but ordinarily when a subject is part of a larger phenomenon but not clearly notable in their own right, that is the solution. If deleted, the article creator should be encouraged to re-create this article if the concerns expressed here are addressed. Though tbh an article on this subject is likely to be a battleground regardless of what happens here. That said, your analysis is a good one and I tend to agree that "delete" is harder to justify than som eother outcome. "Draftify" does seem tantamount to deletion however. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has come a LONG way[9] since the AFD was put up. At least some of the bias has been corrected in the criticism section and people from all sides have contributed to improve the page. As for draftiying, if the existence of this page becomes conditional on documenting harassment, it seems to be an intractable problem: Collier's report on Labour is notable. Collier's issues with a handful of wikipedia editors is not notable, and will probably never be notable.
Discussions about a new name[10] began 10 days ago with little input so far. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing produced so far has changed the fact that he is largely a self-published blogger, and has not emerged from the "blogosphere" in a meaningful way. That and the absence of RS coverage on him. I note too that the criticism section relies excessively on another blog, Mondoweiss. So that is why I lean toward merger. If at some point he becomes notable, we can revisit. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have held off from voting as this has not been an easy one. I didn't want my vote to be influenced by the individual's anti-Wikipedia crusade, his clear interest in self-promotion, or the fact that the two main authors of the article have account histories with WP:DUCK-like characteristics and have previously appeared at WP:SPI (this one was declined because the account had gone stale [it should be reopened now...] and this one was closed as unclear [interestingly two of the three opposing editors at the SPI have both since been confirmed as socks].the second has just been confirmed as a sock [edit: 18:27, 10 December 2021])
I think most editors here would agree the coverage is marginal per WP:GNG, but what pushes me to the delete side is that for such an obviously controversial person there is no WP:RS coverage on the critical side. If the eSharp article is not allowed as a source, there is nothing with a critical assessment of Collier and his more "unusual" characteristics. That would leave us with a WP:PUFF article based mostly on primary sources and a few articles written by his journalist contacts (Melanie Phillips and Aaron Bandler in particular). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once, 10 years ago someone accused me of being a sock. The discussion ended with the the person who posted the query retracting it, and saying let's stop "further protracted persecution" of Bob. You really want to bring that up as part your of argument that this page should be deleted? ;-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are virtually no sources about Collier himself; the article is essentially strung together from passing mentions and WP:PRIMARY sources for his views. This isn't sufficient to support a biography. Furthermore, the article (even with the edits by the banned sockpuppet removed) essentially reads as a WP:COATRACK intended more to argue for (or about, if we include more criticism) the focuses of Collier's activism rather than Collier itself - and the lack of sources actually discussing Collier makes it unlikely that it could be rewritten to fix this problem. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply does not have enough in-depth sources about the man himself. Like a lot of political commentators, he seems to get quoted a lot, but that isn't the same thing as biographical sources about him. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2021 (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/David_Collier_(political_activist)&oldid=1133281988"