Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cole (journalist)

David Cole (journalist)

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

Tagged for PROD by User:Reddogsix: "Non-notable journalist lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. The original article made a number of spurious unsupported statements which I removed." Nomination per PROD tagger's reasons. Calton | Talk 02:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well this is a humdinger of an article in The Guardian: Hollywood conservative unmasked as notorious Holocaust revisionist ] (read to the end, it only gets worse,) but it doesn't make him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty sources to be found on this person: see Talk:David Cole for some of them. I wouldn't say all of them meet WP:RS, but I do not believe notability would be a problem here. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In sum and according to The Guardian, he is a self-promoting "Holocaust revisionist". A very minor one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Very minor" yet "notorious," according to The Guardian. That is rather confusing, I must say. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his views clearly fall under the guidelines of fringe, which requires care to make sure the subject is well covered in reliable sources, which is not at all the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While he represents the fringe, he is certainly controversial enough, with substantial coverage, to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I do agree with John Pack Lambert above, that the coverage needs to be improved with reliable sources, but there seems to be a lot of coverage out there on this guy, and his inclusion in Wikipedia seems to be justified just based on his coverage. Ann Coulter (who is known more for her viciousness) is on the fringe too but she gets enormous coverage on Wikipedia. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]