Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Walter

[edit]

Was previously nominated and headed for delete until substantially rewritten towards the end of the process. A second trip to the dancefloor seems like the way to go. No vote from myself. Deizio talk 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Walter meets WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial news reports. --Hyperbole 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let me restate the reasons given for deletion from the first nomination:
"Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Fails to cite to reliable sources, violating WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:NOR."
A few Wikipedia:Reliable sources were actually in the article, though admittedly, hard to see under the thick cloud of unreliable sources. The other problems, I suspect, stemmed from that. I rewrote the article focusing on the reliable sources: New York Times, Reuters/Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Der Spiegel, and (with thanks to User:Ohconfucius), ABC News. Notice from some of the most influential media entities on three continents make the person pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) in my opinion. True, he is mostly notable due to spending millions on an advertising campaign, but that is not the silliest thing for which people are notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as previously, an ad campaign doesnt make someone notable, especially since its during the 9/11 rush where everything related to the twin towers had articles about them, including a pizzaria that appeared on channel 9 and the NYTimes. Being mentioned after 9/11 for anything should be weighed heavily, its one of the most publicized events in the US history and everyone down to janitors around the location were interviewed, starting an ad campaign asking for evidence obviously gets you in the news, however it does not make you notable. WP:BIO is a guideline and this person is obviously not notable. --NuclearZer0 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If you want to refactor this AfD nomination to list some reasons why it should be deleted, please do so. Otherwise, it just passed AfD on the same criteria, there's no valid reason to go through it again. *Sparkhead 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about when you say "it just passed AfD on the same criteria" --NuclearZer0 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had an AfD, closed with no consensus. There's no new nomination reasons at the top of this one, there's no reason to believe this nom will end up in anything but a keep (consensus or no). Not a vote, based on policy. *Sparkhead 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw it was closed and relisted. Doesn't seem productive to do so and it'll just get the same votes from the same people. If it was clear to delete in the last AfD, it would have been deleted. *Sparkhead 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, glad to see honest reconsideration of the article (even in the case if your vote did not change). However, even when the evidence is obvious for a keep, there are some who will still vote delete simply due to the topic. It's always the same editors, the same who bring forth what might be construed as bad faith AfD's. *Sparkhead 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the article was substantially rewritten but the original AfD had passed the five-day threshold and could easily have been closed as delete, it was closed and relisted so the article could be considered on its revised merits. This nomination is entirely different to the first AfD, being made by myself as a neutral admin on a technical basis rather than by an editor who objected to the content of the article. There appears to be no criteria within WP:SK which allows for this to be speedily kept. Deizio talk 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(squeak) 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Peephole and NuclearUmpf. Em-jay-es 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His bio can be re-written any numbre of times. It doesn't make him more notable.--Tbeatty 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again Still fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Morton devonshire 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established per various amounts of international media coverage. Keep. · XP · 22:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote from the previous nomination because the rewrite has persuaded me that this is useful and notable information that can be presented with a NPOV. Per the argument that 9/11 nutcases are non-notable, I would respectfully note that the whole concept of 9/ll conspiracy theories is now notable. I would suggest an umbrella nomination for merging, or an acceptance that this article is effectively a spun-out part of the larger (and notable) topic of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I ask myself: will people now and in the future want to read articles about the topic of 9/11 conspiracy theories? I can only answer 'yes' to that question, so the point here is to keep the material, but find the right home for it. Carcharoth 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - technically this is not a second nomination. It is a re-listing of the first nomination. The page has already been created, but if this comes up again at some future point (if the article is kept), then that future case will be the second nomination. Carcharoth 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Okay, let's see, three assertations of notability. 1) He's so-and-so's son. No, fails WP:BIO. Next. 2) Bought an ad campaign (about as notable as buying a pack of gum) and was humiliated in passing on a single episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. No, fails WP:BIO. Next! 3) He was a founder of the Walden Three. Well, the Walden Three article was just deleted for being non-notable, ergo his creation of it is non-notable. Three strikes, you're out. Bye bye. --Aaron 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bullshit! paragraph was added by someone voting Delete just above you, I agree with you it is trivial, and Walden Three and the "son of" are not notable in and of themselves. However, the assertion of notability is not any of those things, and not even the award or campaign itself, rather WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." - separate articles for the ads, and the site, and the awards, by the New York Times, Der Spiegel, Reuters, and ABC. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still not notable. The ABCNews article didn't even spell his name correctly. GabrielF 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with the others about the issue of an ad campaign making someone notable. That was easy for Walter to do by the way – offer to reward someone for accomplishing the impossible. This like some common person offering a $100,000 reward for proof that man has not set foot on the moon. Any takers? If Charlie Sheen did this, big deal. He was notable before the reward offer, unlike this crackpot. Fails notoriety. Maybe if he did something really worthwhile he could have an article. Delete as nominated. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough media coverage to justify inclusion. Gamaliel 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. New York Times and Reuters found him notable enough. Let me repeat, the New York Times devoted an entire article to this man, yet we at Wikipedia, who devote thousands of articles to minor characters in minor video games, find him so unnotable that we believe it's unlikely that anyone out there would be seeking neutral information on him. Derex 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This now is in line with WP:BIO. Useful and well sourced info. Good re-write. Jpe|ob 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aaron --rogerd 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as I previously stated, just one more non-notable conspiracy theorist. Brimba 02:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JungleCat. Akanksha 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Do we have an article on every tom, dick and harry that has been in the news briefly...no. I'll now start my effort to become notable by stating that anyone that can prove that the official facts about the events of 9/11 are grossly inaccurate will get not one million, but 1 trillion dollars from me...I have my checkbook handy. Now all I need some airtime.--MONGO 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Pulsifer and Amos Urban Shirk. I realise that simply saying "but those articles are just as bad" is not a valid argument (so please don't repeat it back at me), but the concern here is that AfD should be consistent about the articles it keeps. Otherwise it becomes a laughing stock. Carcharoth 10:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, get the (paper) New York Times to devote an article to you and I'll start the Wikipedia article myself. I think you'll find that's tougher to do than you might imagine. Derex 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but my claim isn't notable since it is preposterous, while the million is because it's not...and he paid to advertise anyway. If other articles are nominated for deletion and I see that there is a criteria that supports keeping or deleting, then I will vote accordingly.--MONGO 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Rachko, tell me who he is without looking at the times. If you cannot then you only prove that simply being mentioned in a paper does not make you notable. --NuclearZer0 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Can you tell me about the 14th Earl of Someford, in England, who lived to the age of 30 in England and died circa 1520 AD, and did nothing notable in life, yet has a Wikipedia article that is uncontested? Because your statement is a hollow one. Notability is established in policy. Published or written about in multiple non-trivial works. This man qualifies. Any opposotion to our policy therefore, and all above deletion "votes", as that is all they are in truth, can be safely disregarded by the closing admin as politically motivated. Non-policy based reasons to delete should have no validity (and it is from following this all on multiple articles) past time that the AfD process by permanently in writing modified to reflect that. Note that this is not a lapse of AGF, but simple fact, based on observed AFD behaviors and pattens by certain Wikipedians. · XP · 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but WP:BIO is not a policy, hence it is your statement that is hollow. Since you do not know who he is my point is proven, news coverage doesnt prove notability. --NuclearZer0 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also try to assume good faith per WP:AGF, which actually is policy. --NuclearZer0 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XP...be careful with your accusations.--MONGO 04:18, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_W._Walter_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1220902571"