Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Tapper

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tapper

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article falls so far short of WP:GNG as to make its existence a borderline WP:BLP violation. The only facts that we can cite about this man are:

He exists.
One time, three years ago, he was one of "several people in the community" who stood up to say a single sentence at a single city council meeting.

Note that most of the stuff our article says cannot be cited reliably.

He is a chiropractor from Nebraska: this is cited to his own website.
He was "responsible for 65% of COVID-19 anti-vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories on the internet and social media": the the Guardian article we're citing does not say his name a single time. "Ben Tapper" appears only in a link from that article, which is a non-peer-reviewed PDF from a political advocacy organization. He is one of twelve people listed in the PDF, and of them he is number eleven.

This is really stretching the limits of what can be considered notable; a news website two years ago mentioned a PDF from a think tank that itself mentions him alongside eleven other people? jp×g 02:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning weak delete) there's more than just the Guardian discussing the disinformation study; it seems at least the AP [1] (already in article through a republishing) and National Post [2] had their own independent write ups that mention his name, along with The Independent article already in the article. It does not quite fall under WP:BLP1E due to #3 since I think the general anti-vaccine movement during COVID-19 is a significant event although perhaps so since his role is fairly minor. Skynxnex (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning week keep per WP:BASIC). FYI – Ben Tapper himself claims on LinkedIn that he was catapulted to nationwide fame based on the video of his testimony at that Omaha City Council hearing which went viral – supposedly with 3 million views in the first 24 hours – but that isn't stated in any reliable independent secondary source and it's now impossible to verify as the original version of the video appears to have been taken down (because the YouTube account which posted it has been closed). Added an academic journal article in the Online Journal of Issues in Nursing which discusses The Disinformation Dozen report, specifically focusing on the six healthcare professionals who were part of the twelve (including Tapper). Also tried to balance out the article with multiple perspectives citing the Independent, Associated Press, etc., to make it compliant with WP:FRINGEBLP. (Possibly too balanced?) Seems like the bio is still very topical given the 2023 lawsuit against the Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, and the BBC, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (also now mentioned in the article). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in the Guardian is fine [3], then it's down the rabbit hole. The Anabaptist World [4] and he's mentioned as appearing on OAN [5]. Second seems iffy, third mentions OAN which is no-no site for reliability. I'm not seeing enough RS for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the question is: Is there enough RS discussing the person while also putting his pseudoscientific claims into context. For now, have added the Media Matters for America link discrediting his claim on OAN that childhood vaccines contain "aborted fetal cells" etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This was a very confusing AFD as an editor came in and changed the deletion rationale to a positive argument for Keeping this article. I have reverted the discussion to before their edits, I apologize if anything has been removed. Besides that disruption though, we need more strong opinions on what should be done with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was attaching articles in relation to the person. It was not disruptive.

Dr. Tapper is the executive producer of the film, "The Time is Now." The article written above is attempting to discredit Dr. Tapper and the work that he does. 97.107.199.114 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

97.107.199.114, you can participate in this discussion but don't alter other editor's comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing that is significant enough to qualify for a Wikipedia biography at this time imo. If you look at the category American chiropractors you can see those with biographies have more significant and lasting achievements. WP:TOOSOON applies here. 5Q5|^✉ 10:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he isn't a notable chiropractor. But is he a notable conspiracy theorist? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, strictly speaking for the sources, we only have one really good one (Guardian) and a bunch of iffy ones. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2023 (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.