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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended ( talk) 12:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Brett Kimberlin

AfDs for this article:
Brett Kimberlin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural deletion request based on VRTS ticket #  2018022310001561. Excerpts from the request are as follows:


  • Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia page violates its own policies. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
  • This page was originally put up by people associated with Andrew Breibart in order to smear me and deprive me of being able to receive funding for my non-profit organizations. Moderators initially removed it because of WP policies regarding living persons. Finally, the Breitbots, led by Breitbart/Sputnik reporter Lee Stranahan, began a pressure campaign to force WP to keep the page over my strong objections. At the time, Stranahan also launched "Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin" to further that smear campaign. I eventually sued the whole lot of them in federal court, and more than a dozen settled the defamation/invasion of privacy claims by removing content and paying me money. I do not fit the description of a "notable person" since the crime I was accused of was local and it was 40 years ago. Even the Breitbots I sued were unable to convince any judge that I was a "public figure" under First Amendment analysis. If I am not a public figure, then I should not be deemed notable by WP.
  • Parts of the WP read like a tabloid with sensationalism and total disregard for my privacy. I have been the subject of a right-wing smear job that lasted years because of my work running a progressive non-profit. Right wingers have used this WP as part of their toolset against me, knowing full well that anyone who considers working with or funding me will consult WP first. If I were living in Europe, I would have a right to be forgotten and left alone for things that happened 40 years ago. Why should I be treated differently in the US? The right wing uses this WP as a Scarlet Letter to whip and shame me in the public square even though I have spent the past 20 years devoting my life to progressive causes, kindness, and justice. Enough is enough.
  • In short, the entire WP falsely portrays me, my life and my work. The WP relies on dead links, people I sued and won cases against, and asserts that the criminal trial against me was somehow legitimate when it was based on hypnotic testimony that has since been banned from all federal and state trials in the US and Canada. In fact, my case was the last federal case in the country to allow hypnotic testimony.
  • What is left in the WP after disregarding the above is non-important. Who cares if I was arrested for a marijuana conspiracy 40 years ago? It's legal now and WP does not have articles on every person who was arrested for marijuana conspiracies decades ago. Who cares if I have been involved in litigation or got arrested as a teenager for perjury? And why in God's name does WP talk about a perjury conviction that occurred when I was a teenager and was based on things that occurred when I was a juvenile. That juvenile record was expunged yet WP dredges it up and puts it in the first sentence describing my criminal convictions. Have you no shame? Is that what WP thinks is "right?" Is that not an invasion of my privacy? I was a juvenile for God's sake.
  • On a final note, recently Twitter, Facebook, Medium and other social media orgs have begun proactively removing fake news, disinformation, bots, trolls and other data from their platforms. Most of this information was generated by Russian operatives and right-wing operatives who use these tactics to harm their targets. As noted above, my WP page was started by Breitbart/Russian operatives to harm me with disinformation, innuendo and smears. This has become abundantly clear of late with Lee Stranahan now working for Sputnik after working for Breitbart when he started the WP page. That alone should be enough for you to remove the page. You guys got "had" by these right-wing smear artists. Now it's time to make things right by refusing to be their bludgeon any longer.
  • In short, please delete these pages. I am not able to do so myself because of all the WP coding required and I do not want to give the right wing trolls another opportunity to smear me more.

There is more content, mostly of the "fix this" nature and concerns about BLP violations on the talk page, but these are not entirely relevant to this AFD and will behave been posted on the talk page only if this deletion nomination fails. Primefac ( talk) 14:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- Get for real. Just hit the GNews link above to see that this guy is beyond notable. If there are BLP considerations they can be solved by editing, but TBH, I don't see any in the article, which is extraordinarily well-sourced. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG by a long long mile. Although a quick scan of the article does seem like it may have an over-reliance of primary docs (including court records) that should probably be aggressively pruned, this article is no where near WP:NUKEIT. FWIW, I think he is materially misrepresenting the outcome of some of those court cases above. ResultingConstant ( talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • keep Meets basic WP:BIO criterion. Most of the subjects reasons for deletion either are both false and irrelevant (e.g. the claim that the marijuana is legal now). Individual is also not BLP1E since there are a whole bunch of things they've done that have gotten attention. There's a substantial argument that the article has weight issues, and much more emphasis should be placed on Kimberlin's current work. I will note that the previous AFD was closed as keep by SNOW Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Kimberlin. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG. and basic WP:BIO. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable with in-depth coverage spanning 40 years. Deletion is not cleanup and nor does it seem that the article is in such a sorry state - it seems fairly decent and well sourced. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    I know, but it was this or continue a non-productive discussion at OTRS. I have posted the full range of concerns on the talk page, and hopefully this will spur some folk to make some inroads on the more egregious of the concerns. Primefac ( talk) 16:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    So you admit that you started this AfD to get a discussion going at the talk page. AfD is not a clean-up service. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    No, I admit that I started this AFD because the subject of the article was unable to do it themselves. I posted the full request at the talk page because it is clear that the nomination will result in a "keep" result, and I don't want to forget to post the full thing when it closes. Primefac ( talk) 17:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It clearly says: This is a procedural deletion request based on OTRS ticket... Therefore this is procedural, and Primefac really can't be accused of using AfD as a cleanup service. This had to happen, however obvious the outcome. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 17:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
No fault to procedural nom. And it is ok for the BLP (or someone saying they are) to request this - it won't be the first AfD to SNOW - and it will be the issue and request to bed, for a time. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Just piling on now. The subject seems to be a serial litigator but that problem is something for the WMF to worry about. The article is well sourced and there are numerous additional sources to support it if needed, dead links are routinely archived by archive.org and we can use their copies as sources if needed (unless they are removed by court order of course). I suggest Kimberlin gets back to suing the Breitbots if they are damaging his reputation, because other than improving the article to have a better balance, there isn't much that we can do here. Prince of Thieves ( talk) 16:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • It is not possible to damage the reputation of a conspiracy nut like this guy. Ditto for the reputation of a murderer. He is a criminal,

and his reputation inherently reflects that fact. I think you should also avoid the parroting his terms of insult. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Just his tone of attack on other people makes me want to keep this article. It is well sourced and shows his long standing role as a disruptive litigator. Assuming the claims of forcing bloggers to remove content on him are ture, it shows that current civil procedures are not as protective of the First Admendment as they should be, and also the success of lawfare, the waging of war through civil litigation, where the process become the punishment, and the fact that most people would rather save money than stand for principals leads to victory. I am leery of over-coverage of conspiracy nuts like Kimberlin, but his involvent in highly publicized murders alone is grounds for coverage. The rest of his activities amount to noise, and Tottenburg does not suprise me as the one who broke his bizarre story, considering the hateful things she spewed on the airwaves. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We shouldn't even being discussing this. The idea that someone can campaign to have their own article deleted because it contains defamatory, i.e. accurate, information about them is absurd. Ruthfulbarbarity ( talk) 05:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. See definition "chutzpah". Kimberlin is a convicted bomber, a convicted drug smuggler, and a convicted perjurer - all acceptably sourced. He is also a vexious litigant who has filed pro se scores of federal and state lawsuits to suppress reporting of his history and activities - see multiple entries patterico.com by assistant district attorney P. Frey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ln1965 ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems self-evidently notable. Subject's concern seems principally to be that people won't give him money if they read the article and learn he is a sociopathic criminal. Oh dear. Kremlintroll ( talk) 08:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Best solution to the awkward fact that when everyone can edit, awkward situations will arise. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that personal opinions of Kimberlin aren't particularly relevant to this discussion. For example, describing Bret's psychological condition-which is unattainable to people who aren't currently treating him in a professional capacity, is immaterial. Other facts, e.g. that he is a convicted criminal, are part of the public record, and I don't see a problem with pointing them out during this discussion. A bigger problem, from my perspective, is the ability of someone to absorb the time of Wikipedians with a pointless debate over whether we should remove accurate-but highly unflattering-information about the complainant. Much less, delete an entire article about that person because he feels it might encroach upon his ability to raise money for himself. This seems like a flagrant abuse of this process. If we didn't acquiesce to Jimmy Wales when he wanted to delete information that he felt was unflattering to his public persona-information that was much less critical to the article in question-I don't see why we should accommodate someone who has contributed nothing of value to this website, other than to consume the time of volunteers in a pointless debate whose outcome is foreordained. Ruthfulbarbarity ( talk) 02:44, 20 March 2018 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brett_Kimberlin_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137648173"