Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Joseph Jr.

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. Wizardman 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Joseph Jr.

Non-notable. Unverified unsourced probable hoax. Self-promotion? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And salt please. Recent vandalism reverted. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. There's a mention of him on this page but I don't think that makes him notable. I don't think the article is a hoax, however. In fact there's a section on him in the Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder article. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination. Almost an A7 speedy. ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not establish notability. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem worthy of his own article. Perhaps add some of this information to the small sub-section under the Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder article. As is, the refs do not seem trustworthy.Wikigonish (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only three references in the article. One to his nomination by an obscure Assyrian magazine as Assyrian Person of the Year 2003", one to an article by him, which was not even properly footnoted until I corrected it, and one (not quoted in the article) questioning the veracity of all the alleged information about Joseph -- including his age -- and highlighting his links to the Moonies. In particular, it undermines the assertion that he was ever a peace activist, which would seem to bw the only reason for his supposed notability. The article is not exactly a hoax, but a very poorly sourced publicity piece for a person of dubious notability and disputed background. RolandR (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable hoaxster, per the counterpunch article I added. Easy enough to find other refs on him.John Z (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only one possibly reliable and independent reference, in Counterpunch(which some would probably question as being a reliable source for all things) and it tends to debunk his claims to fame. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO and most of his claims fail WP:V. Edison (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that questioning the reliability of counterpunch is the only way one can claim that this is not a clear keep (in some form) under WP:BIO. That a long piece entitled "The Kenneth Joseph Story" is not substantial "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." is otherwise indisputable. As the counterpunch article and a search makes clear, there was plenty of other coverage of him in 2003. Making it into a redirect to the shredder article under BLP1E seems to be the most sensible course.John Z (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to use the CounterPunch article as the only credible source for an entry on this person, then surely the entry should reflect this article's scepticism about his biography and motives, rather than uncritically echo his own disputed claims? RolandR (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree we shouldn't take disputed claims at face value. I deprodded this article when I saw the counterpunch piece, but did not know of the existence of the shredder article, which already had substantial info on him and the same piece as a ref. So as I said, I have no objection to merging and redirecting.John Z (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per JohnZ and BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've read the Counterpunch article, and don't see how it alone amounts to the "extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources" notability criterion. On the other hand, I can see how the facts about Ken Joseph Jr. covered in that article are required content for an encyclopedic article on the topic of Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2008 (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.