Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Cooper

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 redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. (Edit conflict with relist) There is rough consensus to not keep - the WP:BLP1E rationale has remained unrebutted - but no clear consensus to delete, which makes a redirect to where the matter is already covered the obvious WP:ATD. Sandstein 05:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper

[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)

Article was just created on 3 September 2024, and only because of his appearance with Tucker Carlson where he said some controversial stuff. This is a WP:BLP1E - person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. WP:NOTNEWS also applies here, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Conservatism, History, Military, Politics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the traffic figures on the page prove the subject is notable. Users are looking for this info. Deleters seem to have a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairmanmeow (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t necessarily mean they are interested in Cooper personally, just Tucker’s interview with him. The interview seems to be more notable than the man himself.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Deleting Cooper from Wikipedia will just help cement the well-deserved reputation Wikipedia has for censoring the right. This man is brilliant. Those that wish him to be silenced are irrelevant little creatures. 70.125.248.138 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC) — 70.125.248.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as per nom. Xegma(talk) 07:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just curious, is it Huffpo, Haaretz, or TNR that you think is a subpar source?~~ Googleguy007 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xegma, we are more interested in what the sources say than in your opinion of the subject as a person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All three. None of those three sources directly and explicitly state that Cooper is a "Nazi apologist". Please see WP:HEADLINES - News headlines are not a reliable source. So since they fail to verify a contentious claim about a BLP, that makes them subpar. Those eight citations in the lead sentence are a classic example of WP:REFBOMB. For a BLP, Wikipedia prefers high-quality sources that actually verify the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz? You're using a clear biased source on the subject. Watch the interview - nothing you have written is even remotely true. It's just more ADL nonsense against someone who is merely questioning the narrative. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's "ADL nonsense"? AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is ADL? Gusbenz (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADL = Anti-Defamation League. An American based International born from the Jewish nationalists the B'Nai Brith in the wake of the death of convicted child murderer & then leader of the local Brith faction, Mr Leo Frank. 61.69.242.203 (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Leo Frank was the victim of a lynching, and historians today largely agree that he was wrongly convicted.2604:2D80:7186:600:0:0:0:1CAD (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, but I apologize for the immature and unprofessional way I acted in the above comment, I should have been better than that Googleguy007 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic BLP1E. You don't meet notability requirements on Wikipedia by appearing on a podcast. Not do you meet notability requirements by making abundantly false and disgusting comments. AusLondonder (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, "false" and "disgusting" according to whom? Questioning the narrative is neither of those. Everything Cooper discussed was referenced from various sources and this can be seen in his Substack. Truths you don't like doesn't make them false or disgusting. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do follower counts impact notability? I'd say so, but I'm unsure of Wikipedia's policy. Has 260k on Twitter (https://twitter.com/martyrmade) 111k on Substack (https://substack.com/@martyrmade). Not a fan of some of his comments but the deletion seems biased. Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC) — Cosmokiwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Seems like this Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion Cosmokiwi (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC) — Cosmokiwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We generally don't assign notability based on social media followers alone. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Abundantly false and disgusting"? Have you listened to the entire interview or have you ever listened to one of Cooper's podcast series? He does NOT deny the Nazi's murdered Jews. In fact, his "Fear and Loathing In the New Jerusalem" series covers Nazi atrocities to the Jews in great detail. This is classic 'cut and paste', intellectually lazy mob reaction. He currently has the most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts due to being one of the most intellectually rigorous historians regarding these subjects (he read 80 books and 1500 articles for his Israel series). It will likely grow. 160.2.133.235 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either."

Indeed, sir. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the views that Cooper has expressed regarding the Holocaust and Hitler are "truths" you shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia. See WP:NONAZIS. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper did not deny the holocaust. Who wrote this wiki? 78.70.226.184 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What are the "sub-par sources"? See WP:RSPADL. I think most people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the ADL. When I nominated the article there were eight citations in the lead sentence that I considered sub-par, they have since been removed. And people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable, only if they meet the criteria outlined in our policies and guidelines for notability. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK so irrelevant now. I know that editors have discussed standing up special notability guidelines for journalists/writers/etc. as we have for academics and some other groups, but I don't think that's actually happened yet. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the WP:BLP1E material in the last section, the sourcing is primary or passing mentions not meeting WP:SIGCOV. I don't see a pass for WP:AUTHOR or other creative professional categories, either. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "notable for one event" and "low profile individual":

I can see the argument for item 1 (Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event) or taking issue with the sources in general, but there's really no justification for deletion considering "each of three conditions" have not been met by a mile (you really don't cover points 2 and 3 enough at all) Clearly, the warning "often misapplied in deletion discussions" applies here: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile," and this clearly fits the bill. Suggesting otherwise suggests that perhaps your emotions or personal views are getting in the way of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wikipedia should include information about this person and their broad reach / cultural impact, particularly now that he's been all over the news. If available information is currently limited, this article should be flagged in some other way, not marked for deletion. Again, the phrasing of "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable" is extremely clear, even for the average user. 24.34.221.193 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should provide some published reliable sources that have significant coverage about this person who is actively seeking out media attention to establish his notability, other than just headlines and in the news items that have been recently reported in the 24 hour news cycle. Looks like to me the news cycle has left this person in the dust and moved on to Russian disinformation. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response seems a little confrontational, and you're very much mistaken about this matter being left out of the news cycle / "left in the dust": 2 articles in the Wall Street journal (one opinion, one not), the Washington Examiner, and the Week just came out today. There was also an article in the Washington examiner and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Almost every major paper has published stories on this, and your contention that every single source is unreliable doesn't really add up. Tucker Carlson is hugely popular and influential, and he referred to this person as one of the most important popular historians in America. I understand this might spark strong feelings for many people, but deleting this page is really not the answer. 24.34.221.193 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious [WP:BLP1E] issue. Having "notoriety" on twitter doesn't change that. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Tucker Carlson interview with Darryl Cooper. Cooper himself is not notable because of BLP1E, but this interview definitely seems to be notable because of the controversy it has brought Carlson and Musk. The White House has now weighed in with a denunciation. See [1]. However, it’s telling that the condemnation focuses more on Carlson "giving a microphone" to Cooper, than it does on Cooper himself. There is precedent for articles about specific interviews, see the article for Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin. The Cooper interview has caused a similar amount of controversy, even though unlike the Putin case, the guest was someone who is not otherwise notable apart from the interview.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:E890:70AA:7E06:BEF4 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1014:B08A:AA77:E890:70AA:7E06:BEF4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, he is only known for his appearance on Carlson's show. There are insufficient reliable sources to describe his career. It would be helpful for example to know if someone Carlson calls a historian actually has a degree or any published work in history. TFD (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A historian? I see no credentials. 2603:7080:5000:A807:4DCF:3EE0:5E8B:C122 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need credentials to be a historian? He publishes his work for all to see. Most popular historians do not have PhD. 136.242.8.20 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be considered a historian, a person typically needs to have at least a master's degree in history, demonstrate strong research skills, analyze historical evidence, and be able to communicate their findings effectively through writing and other mediums. It seems that Cooper fails this consideration, particularly in his apparent inability to "analyze historical evidence" and "communicate their findings effectively". Cooper's "findings" are basically his opinion and conspiracy theories. There is no criteria for a person to be considered a historian when the only appellation is an introduction by Tucker Carlson claiming that Mr. Cooper is “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Tucker Carlson was simply trying to provide credibility and puff up his guest so his listeners would believe Cooper. Cooper isn't a historian. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of vids of him on YouTube interviewing on many popular podcasts, about 10 months ago, re: Israel/Palestine, where he seems to receive generally and glaringly positive comments from all political spectrums. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into Tucker Carlson, is WP:BLP1E, is more about tucker platforming racists than anything. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Merge into Tucker Carlson.

If this information about Cooper is worthy of being recorded in Wikipedia, it should be included in the Tucker Carlson page. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Merge into Tucker Carlson. Wyattroberts (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sounds sane. Gusbenz (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a Merge into Tucker Carlson. I fully agree that this is a WP:BLP1E worthy of mention in the Carlson article, but not a separate page for Cooper, who (at the present time) passes neither the WP:LPI nor the WP: SIGCOV bar. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator that he is only known for this one distasteful appearance on Tucker Carlson. That shouldn't pass notability; it should barely merit a mention on Carlson's show page. --FeldBum (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct. Let's delete this folks? Gusbenz (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He had been on many popular podcasts about 10 month ago, where he was widely praised by all political spectrums for his analysis of the Israel/Gaza conflict. Simple search on YouTube can find the vids and glowing commentary. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would feel less arm-wavy if you were to link to such praise and provide a sample quote from a reputable SME. "Just Google it" is insufficient, especially if the end result is random YouTube comments. NapoliRoma (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the "praise" is coming from mainstream media outlets, YouTube videos aren't reliable sources per WP:SELFPUBLISHED. seefooddiet (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources already in the article plus those from our longer article in German prove notability, provide sufficient biographical information and are reliable enough.John Z (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the sources on that article, and they're all primarily about his appearance on Tucker Carlson. The articles are largely about the views from the context of the interview. I don't really believe that it's enough for notability. If he had more continued notability across time then I'd be convinced, but so far it's just more of the same. seefooddiet (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German version was created at the same time as the English version, and only because of Coopers appearance with Tucker Carlson, so the German article is also a BLP1E, as evidenced by the amount of content dedicated to the Carlson interview. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This source mentions that Cooper attracted some attention in 2021 for defending Trump’s election fraud claims. Whether that’s enough to avoid the BLP1E issue, I’m not sure.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC) {{subst:SPA|2600:1014:B08A:AA77:7590:7A20:426C:1D6E}[reply]
I don't think it is. It's a two-sentence mention of a previous instance (a Twitter thread). seefooddiet (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take the word of the Washington Post.--Kriddl (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single appearance on a streaming talk show, no matter how controversial, does not establish notability for the subject, nor do the other passing mentions. WP should not be in the business of promoting obscure personalities.- Donald Albury 18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He appeared also in regard to the Big Lie[2] It was not a single event. --Kriddl (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how a niche article about a delusional Twitter thread establishes notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Washington Post niche?--Kriddl (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how is that relevant? Lostsandwich (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The public attention he has created several times makes him notable. I also question the motives of the deletion request. Holocaust denial and praise of Hitler is is not controversial and must not be described as such! Also I have to say that I'm outraged that a Wikipedia editor has the guts to claim that it's other Wiki authors who "describe him as a Nazi apologist". As if this is a question? Again! Cooper has engaged in Holocaust denial and praised Hitler! Please don't accept this deletion request, when it looks that politically motivated! Greetings from someone who has studied history in Germany! Andol (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andol, I don't know whether or not your being serious but your comments don't make a lot of sense. Please present an argument based in policy after a careful review of the sources, don't offer your personal opinion on the subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides his media notoriety which others have mentioned, it should be noted that he has a rapidly growing audience and was recently the #1 podcast in the world on the iTunes charts, so his relevance is very likely to grow to the point that he will have to be re-added soon anyway. HonestManBad (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then things should be addressed when it is prudent to do so, not "just in case". Lostsandwich (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepJust came across his name because of a statement from members of the House of representatives criticizing Tucker Carlson for giving him a platform. This mere fact makes him notorious enough in my opinion Kimdime (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a WP:BLP1E. There's simply not enough reliable sourcing to construct a proper biography of this individual without having to rely on self-published sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please do not get sidetracked by whether or not Cooper is famous or infamous, what his views are or Tucker Carlson or how many followers he has on Twitter or your opinion of him. Notability, and whether this article falls under WP:BLP1E, relies on sources and I'd like to see a source assessment table or some effort made to go through the sources to state which ones might provide SIGCOV. Please focus on policy and not Cooper's personality or political opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 12 September 2024 (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.