605:. . . Some folks on the political margins are feeling more maligned than usual these days. "When people talk about conspiracy theorists since Oklahoma City, they're talking about these militia types," says Kenn Thomas, editor and publisher of Steamshovel Press, a small St. Louis magazine. But there are many kinds of political paranoia. "We may all be nuts," Thomas says, "but we're not all the same nuts."
641:. . . . The calendar comes from Thomas's Steam shovel Press, a magazine devoted to making people aware of conspiracies and secret truths of all sorts, including those involving U.F.O.s, the AIDS virus as an escaped weapon of biological warfare, the Shroud of Turin, the eerie similarity of Jesus and Dracula and the role of immortal bloodsuckers through history. . . .
373:
works. Another is multiple independent reviews of his works. He fails all of these criteria. As for "professional research qualifications," he is not a professor who performs research for his university. He is an archivist, and his job has nothing whatsoever to do with the topics in his published work.
372:
I see what I wrote is ambiguous. I am not accusing Mr. Thomas of using a vanity press. I am saying that to be notable, other people must have written about him. How many biographies of Mr. Thomas are available at your local library? A separate criterion for notability is the winning of awards for his
265:
Without meaning to get overly personal, I have to confess that I wonder if this possibly has to do with you're not personally being familiar with Mr. Thomas' work? I've never heard of
Anthony French, but I wouldn't make a similar claim for that reason as I don't know everything or everybody in every
350:
I haven't done any particular searches on what other people think or say about him -- I never knew it was a requirement in order to write or edit an article about a person who is prominent in his field, even if that field tends to be beneath the notice of the mainstream press. I'll get to doing
618:
Thomas thinks of himself as part of the "marginals press," which includes a variety of small magazines and publishers with names like
Paranoia and Feral House. He says he is "uniquely tolerant of the gun-toting right," and will publish "the rant" of one of the two Michigan Militia leaders who
386:
Here's another official criterion "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included." Anthony French meets this one. Mr. Thomas does not.
187:), makes occasional appearances on AM and Internet radio as well as broadcast television, and lectures both in the United States and Europe on a frequent basis -- and he is not a "nut-job" (whatever that phrase may mean to you), but a serious, sober researcher. --
463:, and not just one individual saying the subject seems to be important. As a matter of fact, that seems to be an example in the guidelines of an invalid reason to keep an article. Have you noticed that Davidkevin has not addressed ONUnicorn's question?
546:
I suspect that somewhere in the rules there's one against voting twice on the same issue (this and your initial vote at the top). Even if there isn't, it's certainly a tacky thing to do. I respectfully request that you please play fair. --
134:
He appears to be notable in his field (that field being conspiracy theorists). You may (or may not) consider him to be a nut-job, but that doesn't make him non-notable. Important nut-jobs are notable. He gets 43,000 google hits
167:
page states "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." If anyone finds awards for or multiple independent reviews of his work, I'll change my mind.
564:
Well, I'm new at this, and I was afraid that initiating the AfD might not count as voting, so I wanted to make a formal vote. I do believe there is a rule against vanity pages, which is what this one looks like to me.
242:
Check the bibliography at the bottom of the article: none of the books therein were published by him, they were published by other people who paid him for the works -- again, these are not vanity press
285:, an internationally-published magazine about which there is a Knowledge article, and lectures across the United States and in Europe. How much more of a public presence do you require of him?
141:
are interviews that he's given on various topics. The article is unsourced and that needs to be fixed, but just a cusory google search leads me to think he is notable and should be kept. ~
649:
Kenn may be "small 'n' " notable, but you should consider these cites. I haven't tried to look in other magazines and journals, so this probably isn't a comprehensive list of cites. --
138:, which for some things isn't much but for a conspiracy theorist seems like a lot. A lot of those hits are on Amazon and such advertising his book and his magazine; but some like this
52:. Consider giving the page some time to improve (or attempting to improve it yourself) before reconsidering this decision -- that's my recommendation based on this discussion, anyway.
252:
Mr. Thomas has professional research qualifications through his "day job" as an archivist at the
Western Historical Manuscripts Collection in the Thomas Jefferson Library at the
213:
at one or more universities. There are more than 1.4 million Google hits for "Anthony French" who is a notable professor. Mr. Thomas does not seem to me to meet any criteria of
114:
279:
radio program at least twice that I'm personally aware, as well as on nationally-cablecast television and smaller-market radio programs. He writes regularly for the
480:
Excuse Me For Having A Life. I don't spend all my time on
Knowledge or in research for it, so I hadn't answered his question of me until now -- I remind you of
209:
whether he has published his own works. I've quoted the criteria for authors in my remark above. Serious researchers usually have PhDs and experience as hired
662:
I'm on the edge on this one... Apearing on coast to coast, bylines and books are nice, but I don't see much out there to base an article on - and thats why
505:
It wasn't a personal attack. It was simply a statement of fact. When one side leaves a debate, it could be because they've run out of things to say.
136:
256:
at St. Louis, which I mention only to show those qualifications, with no endorsement by the university of his opinions or conclusions implied.
121:
Subject is not notable. He does not meet the criteria of notability for
Knowledge. The two sentences which claim notoriety are unsourced.
87:
82:
17:
91:
676:
526:
444:
164:
74:
743:
36:
742:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
619:
suggested that the
Japanese could be responsible for the Oklahoma bombing. But he himself is nonviolent. . . .
709:
253:
587:
articles directly address Kenn as a notable person. The first article is directly about him and his work:
728:
714:
685:
653:
569:
551:
537:
509:
488:
467:
434:
418:
391:
355:
298:
221:
191:
154:
125:
56:
704:
181:, contributed to books by other authors, publishes a magazine, writes for other magazines (including
139:
725:
650:
275:
As far as "notable", while it isn't academic, he has been a guest on the nationally-syndicated
672:
319:
him. Obviously you are familiar with him and his work. Can you point us to anything written
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
431:
414:
332:
150:
78:
53:
266:
field. However, I do know that in his field, Mr. Thomas is regarded as a rigorous scholar.
566:
548:
534:
506:
485:
464:
427:
388:
352:
295:
218:
188:
122:
594:
Section 6; Page 19 (256 words) SUNDAY, JUNE 4, 1995; CONSPIRACIES: Not All the Same Nuts
584:
325:
304:
143:
700:
680:
663:
481:
281:
183:
630:
Section 6; Page 36; (207 words) SUNDAY, September 11, 1994; Who Killed the
Calendar?
447:
page which
Davidkevin has addressed? Although that page lists several criteria, any
696:
667:
530:
406:
178:
217:
BTW, I don't believe you should have removed my earlier signature from this page.
108:
410:
70:
62:
525:
since no one has provided an argument that meets the notability standards (
276:
177:
He has written several books from several publishers, none of which are
455:
name one which Kenn Thomas meets. To the best of my understanding
736:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
233:
If I did that, it was an accident, and I offer an apology.
307:
is that the subject of the article have things written
104:
100:
96:
451:of which is sufficient to be "notable," Davidkevin
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
746:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
724:Obviously notable in his field of interest.
666:and other notability guidlines exist. ---
201:is whether there are things published
443:But can you find any criteria at the
7:
430:, but clean up should be included.
405:unless notability established from
351:something like that presently. --
24:
529:), let alone with evidence from
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
527:Knowledge:Notability (people)
445:Knowledge:Notability (people)
311:him. His books were written
165:Knowledge:Notability (people)
729:23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
715:18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
686:05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
654:21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
570:16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
552:09:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
538:16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
510:16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
489:09:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
468:16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
435:23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
419:21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
392:21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
356:09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
299:20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
222:20:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
192:19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
155:16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
126:15:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
57:02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
763:
303:David, one of the primary
739:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
305:notability requirements
254:University of Missouri
583:A couple of short
459:is supposed to be
713:
684:
335:
197:The criteria for
153:
754:
741:
707:
697:reliable sources
670:
531:reliable sources
407:reliable sources
331:
328:
149:
146:
112:
94:
48:, defaulting to
34:
762:
761:
757:
756:
755:
753:
752:
751:
750:
744:deletion review
737:
333:problem solving
326:
151:problem solving
144:
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
760:
758:
749:
748:
732:
731:
718:
717:
689:
688:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
634:
633:
632:
631:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
598:
597:
596:
595:
589:
588:
585:New York Times
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
557:
556:
555:
554:
541:
540:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
473:
472:
471:
470:
438:
437:
421:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
289:
288:
287:
286:
270:
269:
268:
267:
260:
259:
258:
257:
247:
246:
245:
244:
237:
236:
235:
234:
227:
225:
224:
179:vanity presses
172:
171:
170:
169:
158:
157:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
759:
747:
745:
740:
734:
733:
730:
727:
723:
720:
719:
716:
711:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
690:
687:
682:
678:
674:
669:
665:
661:
658:
657:
656:
655:
652:
651:Quartermaster
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
629:
628:
627:
626:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
593:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
579:
578:
571:
568:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
553:
550:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
520:
511:
508:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
490:
487:
483:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
469:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
433:
429:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
400:
393:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
357:
354:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
334:
330:
329:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
292:
291:
290:
284:
283:
282:Fortean Times
278:
274:
273:
272:
271:
264:
263:
262:
261:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
241:
240:
239:
238:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
190:
186:
185:
184:Fortean Times
180:
176:
166:
162:
161:
160:
159:
156:
152:
148:
147:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
738:
735:
721:
692:
659:
648:
580:
522:
460:
456:
452:
448:
423:
402:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
280:
226:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
182:
174:
173:
168:(Netuser500)
142:
131:
120:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
660:Week Delete
211:researchers
71:Kenn Thomas
63:Kenn Thomas
54:Luna Santin
699:and fails
567:Netuser500
549:Davidkevin
535:Netuser500
507:Netuser500
486:Davidkevin
465:Netuser500
428:Davidkevin
389:Netuser500
353:Davidkevin
296:Davidkevin
219:Netuser500
189:Davidkevin
123:Netuser500
726:^^James^^
461:objective
327:ONUnicorn
315:him, not
145:ONUnicorn
132:Weak Keep
277:Art Bell
215:notable.
115:View log
581:NEUTRAL
457:notable
432:DrWho42
323:him? ~
199:notable
88:protect
83:history
701:WP:BIO
695:Lacks
693:Delete
664:WP:BIO
523:Delete
484:. --
482:WP:NPA
453:cannot
411:Stifle
403:Delete
243:books.
92:delete
321:about
317:about
309:about
205:him,
203:about
175:KEEP:
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
722:Keep
710:talk
705:Aude
703:. --
426:per
424:Keep
415:talk
163:The
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
50:keep
681:WRE
668:J.S
449:one
294:--
207:not
113:- (
533:.
417:)
409:.
313:by
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
712:)
708:(
683:)
679:/
677:C
675:/
673:T
671:(
413:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.