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 keep. Nomination withdrawn Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texe Marrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails notability test. He is known as a critic of the Catholics and the Freemasons. The only sources that give any information about him, beyond just passing mentions, are blogs published by the two groups. If he was really notable other sources would have taken notice of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigJim707 (talk • contribs)

• Delete: closest this topic comes to "significant coverage" is the NYT piece, which is primarily on taxpayer subsidisation of non-profit postage, secondarily on Marrs' newsletter as one of the more bizarre examples of this, and only tertiarily on Marrs himself. I would also suggest that the further out on the WP:FRINGE a person is, the more careful we should be that we have solid coverage, not just a few sensationalised and bizarre claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides the fact that you're just being dishonest by underlining part of your rationale that was not underlined before without noting it in a comment, your interpretation of WP:FRINGE is simply incorrect. WP:FRINGE is a guideline for fringe and conspiracy theories, not for articles about people. The article in question is about Texe Marrs, not about any of his theories. If you wish to make the case this article is not notable, you must make the case Marrs himself is not notable based on WP:Notability (people), which is the appropriate notability guideline. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I think you're correct that the WP:FRINGE guideline is for theories, I think in a round about way that's what he is getting at. Hrafn is a long time editor so let's not accuse someone with a with a good track record of being "dishonest" when there's no grounds to do so. Basileias (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For the record, I'm not accusing the user of dishonesty because of his interpretation of WP:FRINGE. I'm accusing him of dishonesty because he changed the formatting of his !vote in a non-trivial way hours after he posted his !vote and hours after multiple comments and !votes had been already been posted by various editors without leaving a comment as to why he changed the !vote. 149.160.45.225 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (same editor as 81.23.57.177)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. Looking at the appropriate contributions search, Hrafn originally stated he wanted the article deleted, and later simply underlined his problem with the article to update his views. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. The NYT reporter obviously didn't take him seriously. But more questionable is the fact of him being called antisemitic being sourced to the two blogs mentioned. I think that is a problem with BLP policies, besides the general unnotability of the the guy. As the Times said everyone has a right to express their opinions and lots of people do. Borock (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he's pretty well known in the conspiracy theory world. He hasn't had much news coverage lately but back in the '90s he was getting plenty of coverage, including in USA Today regarding his Oklahoma City conspiracy theory, Fort-Worth Star Telegraph, New York Times, Associated Press, and the Anchroage Daily News. To describe him as simply a critic of Catholics and Freemasons is incorrect: he's a very flexible conspiracy theorist. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added plenty more sources, giving plenty of opportunity for expansion of the article. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As noted before, very notable amongst conspiracy theorists (who regularly cite him) and is fairly well known as a preacher. He's certainly as notable as David Icke for instance.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Marrs is a prolific publisher of his own books and has opened an internet-based congregation (Bible Home Church) for like-minded folks. He has been a frequent guest on fellow conspiracy theorist's Alex Jones' radio show (and sells a number of Jones' DVDs on his ministry's website), and has spoken at a 2009 conference for the far-right American Free Press. He is also a publisher and seller of books on various conspiracy theories, as well as an author and seller of anti-Semitic material (the website for his ministry, Power of Prophecy, offers such books as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Michael Collins' The New Jerusalem — Zionist Power in America, Brian Alois Clèraubat's Holocaust revisionist book A Greater "Miracle" Than The Lost Ten Tribes Discovered... — The Dead "Six Million" Uncovered...!, Jüri Lina's Under the Sign of the Scorpion, Marrs' own book Conspiracy of the Six Pointed Star and the DVD Off Your Knees, Germany!, which defends Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel). He has published and provided the forward for Edward Hendrie's anti-Catholic book Solving the Mystery of Babylon the Great and Andrew Carrington Hitchcock's The Synagogue of Satan: The Secret History of Jewish World Domination. I believe his entry should be kept primarily because his ministry is a notable source of conspiratorial and hate literature, and he himself is well known in conspiracy theory circles. Unidyne (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - While not as well known today, he used to be a popular source for the new age exposé until he was accused of plagiarism. He did at one time have best selling books from a major religious publisher. If he's been and still is being covered by major news papers, I would leave the article but it does need re-work. Basileias (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails notability test. The only sources that give any information about him, beyond just passing mentions, are blogs published by the two groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-necked Grebe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be following me around today. I think it started with the article here (Tovia Singer). They're copying some of my wording and using it as reasons for deletiing parts here (Michael L. Brown). Basileias (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over his edits, and considering that he did not actually look over the sources given (just parroted another editor's statement from before when the sources were added), he could be a hounding single purpose account, but we should wait for more evidence before treating him as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I assumed good faith and assumed that the sources added by 81 are primarily about Marrs and/or his claims. In the face of a further delete remark on the grounds that no sources met the notability guideline, I decided to examine each newspaper article as best as I could:

-The first page from the NYT's piece is mostly about Marrs's Living Truth Ministries. It is in the opinion section, though. Doesn't establish notability by itself.

-The USA Today article (which is locked) appears to be more about a general conspiracy about McVeigh, not just Marrs's version of it. Doesn't establish notability.

-The Newsday article (also locked) appears to be about Marrs's version of the conspiracy. Could very well establish notability.

-The Energy Publisher is mostly about anti-government/anti-semitic nutjobs, and gives Texe Marrs as an example. Doesn't establish notability.

-The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel piece (although locked) appears to be completely about Marrs. I can only assume it establishes notability until someone who has access to the full article can explain how it's not primarily about Marrs.

-The Sunday Times article won't bloody load at all.

-The Anniston Star piece discusses Marrs at length. By itself it wouldn't establish notability, but it does help in the "multiple non-trivial sources" aspect of notability.

-Atlanta Journal-Constitution is about Hillary Clinton primarily. Doesn't establish notability.

The Newsday article and Milwaukee-Wisconin Journal Sentinel do seem to establish notability, especially with the NYT and Anniston Star pieces behind them.

Additionally, there are plenty more sources on Google Books. Who here bothered to check there before saying there weren't any reliable sources?

-A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun, University of California Press

-Right-wing populism in America by Chip Berlet and Matthew Nemiroff Lyons, Guilford press

-Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies By Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon

-Bearing false witness?: an introduction to the Christian countercult by Douglas E. Cowan, Greenwood Publishing

-Between Jesus and the market: the emotions that matter in right-wing America by Linda Kintz, Duke UP

-On the edge of the future: Esalen and the evolution of American culture by Jeffrey John Kripal and Glenn W. Shuck, Indiana University Press

It seems to me that Marrs has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to withdraw the nomination since more sources have been added. I am still bothered by an article based on sources that mostly don't take the person seriously, but the article now seems to meet the notability requirements. BigJim707 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2011 (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.