Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Webre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Webre

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

Reason Rationalthinker1 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)— Rationalthinker1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. All references in this article are from totally non-independant sources that the subject is associated with or non-credible related individuals[reply]

I don't find any need for Alfred Webre's page to be deleted . On the contrary , i find it very informative and helpful especially considering all the wonderful work he has done . PLEASE DON'T DELETE THE ALFRED WEBRE WIKI PAGE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.42.116 (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — 87.126.42.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


This page is full of relevant information about a public figure. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.74.31 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — 174.7.74.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Alfred Lambremont Webre does meet the Wikipedia criteria of "notability" The information given is correct.(Should not be deleted from Wikipedia).[reply]

Alfred is in the public light and henceforth: any issues rooted from the movement wishing to dis-credit or question the nobility worth should be expressed in the language of this article, to achieve a neutrality on uncertainty and facts based on verifiable primary sources, and not constitute the removal of this article. Egapdotme (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Jason Page — Egapdotme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

--- From Miss m fox . Alfred Lambremont Webre is a valuable asset to these/our evolving times. Please note his years of service to mankind. "The following international news articles feature international lawyer and Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre and constitute independent sources of "notability".

1. Satanic priests in the Catholic Church? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139422.html

2. US accused of crimes against humanity http://www.presstv.ir/detail/145339.html

3. Lawyer likens Vatican to Roman Empire http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/138328.html

4. KL tribunal convicts two former leaders with ‘crimes against peace’ http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F11%2F23%2Fcourts%2F9959222&sec=courts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.82.218 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


From: Lee Dahle....Las Vegas....Nevada Alfred Lambremont Webre is a valuable asset to these/our evolving times. Please note his years of service to mankind. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139422.html http://www.presstv.ir/detail/145339.html http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/138328.html http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F11%2F23%2Fcourts%2F9959222&sec=courts Alfred does many blogs and is a great person with much to teach the world.

Lee Dahle



From: Sharon King... Missouri,... Alfred Lambremont Webre is a valuable asset to these/our evolving times. Please note his years of service to mankind.

"The following international news articles feature international lawyer and Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre and constitute independent sources of "notability".

1. Satanic priests in the Catholic Church?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/​139422.html

2. US accused of crimes against humanity

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/​145339.html

3. Lawyer likens Vatican to Roman Empire

http://edition.presstv.ir/​detail/138328.html

4. KL tribunal convicts two former leaders with ‘crimes against peace’

http://thestar.com.my/news/​story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F11%2F2​3%2Fcourts%2F9959222&sec=court​s

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermellon123 (talk • contribs) — Watermellon123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---

I believe that Alfred Webre earns a Wiki page simply by virtue of sitting on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which found George Bush guilty of war crimes. The page has much relevant information about a man who has become a well known public figure by virtue of a lifetime of work, study and research. His other work is certainly substantiated on many levels. His accomplishments speak for themselves. I found his page to be informative and interesting. The deletion criteria does not apply to Mr. Webre's Wiki page.Monahawk (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Monahawk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alfred Webre is a published author, since 1974. Has worked to provide insight into subjects, which are only now becoming of interest to a world-wide audience. He is notable for his books, radio interviews & public lectures on the subject of Exopolitics. Growing international interest in Exopolitics should be evidence enough to Keep this article. Wiki's own policies and guidlines are fullfilled in the area of Notability, with regard to Alfred Webre. Also, Wikipedia deletion of such a public figure would marginalise Wikipedias' claim to being non-biased. Alfreds Life and history are varifiable, and censorship of this article would only serve to bolster the opinion that Wikipedia neutral stand is compromised. Colourful insults and vague associations are not arguement enough to warrant deletion. Keep Alfred Webre. TrexSwampy (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — TrexSwampy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. No useful evidence of notability in the WP:GNG sense, no substantive coverage in reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be sufficent sourcing here, the only real problem is the way the sources have been listed, its creator seems to have not used the reference template properly, that is an easy fix I will begin now, the article is at a B-class in quality and legnth, I feel a revival of sourcing will be sufficient to salvage the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NoteUser:Rationalthinker1 does not appear to have provided a valid reason, he himself appears to be a SPA and most of, but not all of the unsigned comments above appear to be strawmen accounts of the new user whom proposed the deletion as they very from strong opposition to cult like support but there is no in between for the unsigned accounts, I have launched an SPI and am awaiting results. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I jumped to the wrong conclusion, a checkuser has proven that all of the above new editors have no relation to each other and come from different parts of the globe, my misunderstanding has wasted alot of everyone's time. Note to the closing administrator the above new editors are not socks and did not come to canvass there comments deserve to be heard and weighted properly. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • possible Keep sufficient sourcing for notability. The argument that publication from countries one dislikes doesn't show notability is of course erroneous, as is the apparent corollary , that we source only from major US newspapers. It doesn't matter how far out someone's views are, if they get sufficient attention--even attention for being weird. But the article is disproportionately long, and seems designed to publicize as much as inform, and will need some editing. And though we usually accept claims for routine things like education in personal sources, I'd be surprised if Yale offers a BS in Industrial Administration. He is, though, a member of the DC bar. {http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/results.cfm] I am not sure, therefore, how much of the article can be documented, for Id be reluctant to accept anything he says about his own career. The article will therefore be rather short. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've ported the page to RationalWiki under CC-by-sa - Mr Webre's official comment on this deletion discussion ("My view is that Wikipedia's action continues to be part of the CIA time travel controlled US Presidency's retaliation against me for having exposed Soetoro/Obama's participation in a 1980-83 secret CIA jumproom project") makes him entirely on-topic for that wiki, so the article text won't be lost - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The use of PressTV sources are potentially problematic, not for the reason stated by Hyams above, but because they are a source of questionable reliability since they not infrequently report uncritically on conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs if those beliefs portray the US or the West in a negative light. So we need to be very careful with the sources and their reliability is less than the norm. However, there are other sources as well, and so overall I think there's enough to justify keeping the article. I agree with DGG that we will need to be very careful with what statements we take from Webre about his own accomplishments. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't believe I didn't notice this before, but the main contributor of the article, User:Exopolitica, should not have been allowed to edit under that name or in that fashion, given that Webre's website is www.expolitics.com. I've blocked him for the promotional username per standard policy; to return xe'll have to change usernames and agree to stop the promotional editing. As an additional note, I strongly agree with DGG above that if the article is kept, it needs a solid scrubbing; I've reverted a few of Exopolitica's edits so far, but am waiting for this discussion to finish before removing more (as it's not worth the time if the whole thing's going to be deleted, a point on which I myself am too on the fence to comment, though like JoshuaZ above, I'm inclined to lean just a tad towards keep). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is undeniable off-Wiki canvassing.[2]. "Webre continued, "If you think I do meet the Wikipedia criteria of "notability", please feel free to intervene in the wikipedia discussion. You can go directly to this link and enter your reasons why my entry should NOT be deleted." And that's been widely circulated.[3]. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2012 (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/Alfred_Webre&oldid=1071523334"