Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Joseph Watson (second nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Joseph Watson

Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for being a colleague of Alex Jones and article cites his relationship to Jones as his only notability. (Please note that his book was published by "Alex Jones Productions". [1]) This article was part of a walled garden of articles about Alex Jones on Wikipedia, almost all of which have since been deleted. My vote is to delete this as well. Aaron 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Few (if any) reliable sources to build article upon. Google search turns up only Alex Jones' websites, Mr. Watson's myspace page, coasttocoastam, other conspiracy and non-RS sites (e.g. illuminati-news). --Aude (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely a stub, and Google search makes evident that finding reliable sources to expand this article to meet quality standards is a sisyphean task. This person is just not notable, and has no published works not churned out by vanity press.--Rosicrucian 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Alex Jones' websites (or whereever that ends up). Seems to be notable only for hosting the websites. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Alex Jones and redirect. --Shortfuse 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Morton devonshire 01:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No demonstration of notability.--MONGO 05:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS NOMINATION OF mAY 11 2006 HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Joseph_Watson AS IT WAS KEPT. kEEP THIS ARTICLE ALTHOGH it can be GREATLY expanded as their is a lot more about him out their. I will help work on it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FK0071a (talk • contribs) 09:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Verdict on that AfD was "no consensus." You can't really cite a "no consensus" AfD as evidence that an article should be kept, as consensus can change. At any rate, regardless of your promises to expand the article, I remain dubious as to how the article can be expanded and reliably sourced to back up that expansion. Such an expansion runs a serious risk of presenting granularity not supported by this individual's notability, and most sources that could be used to expand the article are Alex Jones websites.--Rosicrucian 15:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Crockspot 16:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Sometimes articles go through half a dozen AfDs before they get deleted. ergot 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe that's a clue they shouldn't be deleted? It's just basic statistics that eventually you'll get a delete vote by AFD'ing enough times, for all but the completely unarguable keeps. That's the reason we don't let prosecutors do that, not that a Wikipedia article actually matters.Derex 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Any useful info into Jones' parent. Not enough RS. · XP · 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain The notability claims here are made, but really downplayed (Vanity Fair, major radio, etc.) Because of that, I suspect that they are exaggerated. If those can be documented, then keep it because some people may want to know more about a chap often they hear on the radio. And providing useful information is what we're all about, right? Derex 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hunted down the Vanity Fair thing, and it turns out to be a couple of a paragraphs about Watson inside a gigantic article about the overall conspiracy movement in America ("Welcome to the Conspiracy", by Rich Cohen, May 2004 VF, pp 138-154). --Aaron 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rosicrucian. CWC(talk) 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, et al. -Will Beback 03:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.per nom--Peephole 08:00, 2 October 2006 (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.