Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick siegel

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick siegel[edit]

NN creator of nn video, vanity , WP:AUTO. Only claim to notability is his video 911_Eyewitness currently up for deletion (see AfD for that to see discussion on notability of the video). 451 GhitsMmx1 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm adding this comment on top of page to say that I made some changes on the article and dugg for sources of content that I added to external links. It seems since the video 911 eyewitness got out, several people have been wondering about that guy. IMHO wikipedia should provide information about that guy as it is pretty scarce. Izwalito
  • Delete non-notable author of non-notable video. Weregerbil 10:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment made some edits to the article to try to make it more NPOV and reduce vanity. Not sure how it might affect the AfD (of which I have no opinion at this time). --mtz206 14:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously people have a very difficult time being objective about Rick's page. As he is directly associated with the most important event in 50 years of US History, it would be nearsighted to delete his page. The simple act of filming the events of 911 from such a unique vantage point merits inclusion on its own. Bpd1069 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Since my above comment, the amount of information on the page has been expanded and clearly shows a notable history. I have also read the the page re Deletion of pages. The only possible category this could fall under would be a user page but as this page was not created by Rick himself as stated below, even that category would be a stretch. I believe the problem is Rick's affiliation with the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, and as such there is a knee jerk reaction to deminish his credibilty. Bpd1069 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has made one 1 edit prior to this page.
  • The links here still don't show significant notability. Articles have no indication of his role in the early BBS's, only that he was interviewed for them.--Mmx1 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No problem being objective here. Marcus22 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Non-notable. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."--Carl Sagan. Played with Bob Dylan and Styx? — RJH 16:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RJHall. Well said indeed. Lord Bob 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Slowmover 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, or failing that, Delete. The problem is that there's insufficient proof of notability to support leaving this in the article space. --Alan Au 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
zapruder[edit]
  • NOTE: zapruder is not the AfD, it is Rick siegel. This is a subsection of the AfD for Rick siegel--Mmx1 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm removing the link from "zapruder" above to alleviate any further confusion. Slowmover 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE at least I qualify for Zapruder of this century. Google will list 19000+ entries and msn 180000+ entries mostly me on a search with rick siegel in quotes. I don't need this silly site as some vanity site. I don't know who posted this page and I don't know if I want to thank them. But if it is here I will make sure it is accurate. I do not need this site to validate my accomplishments so far in this life. Ricksiegel 14:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. This is a redirect, so I think a listing in WP:RFD would be more appropriate, but this is a useful redirect to Zapruder film, so I don't see the reason for deleting it. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zapruder is not up for deletion, Rick siegel who thinks he's zapruder, is. --Mmx1 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case this should probably be speedy keepd. Lord Bob 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just noticed that this was actually in the same AfD as Rick siegel, so...yeah...uh...it's not exactly up for deletion, so...uh...don't delete it...anyway. Or something. I'm sorry, I'm tired. Lord Bob 16:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Rick Siegel is more than just the 911 Eyewitness video. That is a video. Just like Zapruder there are entries on him and his film and other aspects. 911 Eyewitness 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    user has twenty-two edit, has exclusively edited Siegel-related articles, AfDs, and images. Lord Bob 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Don't Shoot the Messenger Rick is a 9/11 eyewitness and internet webcasting pioneer. When he started videotaping the burning towers he had no idea they were going to freefall at the speed of gravity therefore proving controlled demolition and government treason. After the fact, his testimony and video/DVD are historical evidence that could and should be used in a court of law to bring the real masterminds behind 9/11 to justice. Is this why he and his DVD are being attacked for deletion?
    unsigned vote by User:True Patriot, user's fourth edit, has exclusively edited Siegel-related AfDs. Lord Bob 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that complicit behavior and obstruction of investigations indicate that top government officials are responsible for 9/11 is not Rick's fault. He is not the one who gave approval to carry out domestic terrorism during US wargame exercise week and implode the first three steel frame structures in history live on television assuming the public would never catch on. Are the concerted efforts to remove an eyewitness to the crime of the century nothing more than desperate attempts to maintain a coverup of the truth?
  • Delete the absurdity of the article did make me laugh though. Eusebeus 18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be a stub article to me (content started to be added 12 days ago). I'd really like to know more about that guy in an unbiased way, and what's better than a wikipedia article for that ? I say let it live its stub life for a while and see what comes out of it before submitting to deletion. Izwalito
  • Keep I think all the edits from anonymous show this has a lot of interest from the world outside of Wikipedia. People do not know your system, neither do we. It looks like a lot of people know about this guy and the film, doesn't it? Someone here thought that man was worthy and created it, we found it. It seems accurate enough, although vacant of the breath of the man. I think Izwalito seems to have a reasonable solution that would allow Wiki to bubble up the content and time will determine. It is POV at this point for any of you to continue claims of "insufficient proof of notability." 911 Eyewitness 20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a) burden of proof is on those that feel the article should be kept to submit proof of notability. none has thus far been produced
b) the flood of anonymous is a result of you putting a link to us on your site and asking people to chime in. --Mmx1 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
about a) I'm trying to contribute in that way but as I said earlier I know nothing about the guy, and am certainly not the most qualified for this job
about b) actually that's how I ended up here. While doing research for working on 9/11 conspiracy theories I found an article signed by rick siegel about agents efforting on wikipedia to silence the most provocative and authoritative documentary yet released. ::: Obviously the guy has no clue about what is wikipedia and how wikipedia works, but IMHO that doesn't make him a phony guy or a bad fellow, and I know very well how wikipedian can react in a stubborn closed-minded way, especially in case like this when one unhappy individual makes bad publicity to wikipedia and use wrong means to try to get what he wants. My guess is this is a typical case of newcomers being bitten, it is difficult to cope with a whole community when you are a single individual or a bunch of individuals. Now I would like to see people **hint**apologize**hint** for their wrongdoing and start working together, not against each other.
please 911eyewitness, don't brandish my name for I am a one man army here. Have a look at the directions I pointed you on Talk:Rick Siegel.
Izwalito
  • Delete per nom - nn. --Khoikhoi 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This article should be kept, but NOT in it's current state. It needs to be cleaned up massively. 69.156.204.249 05:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Bov 21:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable & vanity page nihil 15:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more notable than his already-deleted pseudo-documentary. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Mar. 29, '06 [06:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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/Rick_siegel&oldid=1080022144"