Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Michael Jones

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 delete. I am invoking NOTAVOTE here and discounting several fairly obvious sock votes. The WP:PAG based weight of the discussion clearly comes down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E._Michael_Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

E._Michael_Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks reliable sources, 3 of the 6 sources are by the page subject himself, while the other 3 are not major to the article subject. Another reason for the nomination is the notability of the subject. Swil999 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The "discussion" !? on this page is reason enough NOT to delete the page.

Recommendations for improvement are always welcome, BUT vandalization, ideologue censorship, ignorance, personal prejudice, disagreement with the subject, are NOT.

The notariety, interest, disagreement, agreement, regarding the subject surpass wiki USER INTEREST requirements. Wiki USERS want INFORMATION on this subject, author, his history, list of works, and they DO NOT want THEIR wiki search on THIS subject turning up VOID (or wiki users will go elsewhere).

Bots, hot head Ignoramuses, ideologues are always on the prowl on wikepedia vandalizing or putting up for DISCUSSION or DELETION some page they personally have an axe to grind on it.

WIKI Policy does NOT allow this since the whole point of wiki is to make AVAILABLE to ALL USERS OF THE INTETNET ANYWHERE WORLDWIDE

  • QUICK *** ACCESS *** TO INFO

on ALL persons, places, things of ANY note or interest or influence.

I'm CERTAIN this subject's page gets more views and hits than most. Certainly more than most obscure molecular formulas of questionable accuracy that wiki supports and a handful of users need!

While I personally don't agree with every opinion or position of this pundit, the subject keeps the interest and sparks the thought of MANY on ALL sides, including peers, intellectuals, persons of notable fame, infamy, or wannabees that don't come close to the talent of this subject.

The subject's wide range of interesting subjects, including but not limited to, investigations and background research on Medjagorje's history and recent years of New Age hysteria, or his participation on the Samuel Francis Conference panel, would themselves mark the subject for INCLUSION IN WIKI PAGES, and the rant below on Nietzsche does a disservice to Nietzsche. By the same specious arguments, we might be forced to waste time and discussion on a wiki NIETZSCHE PAGE DELETION and that would be every bit as ABSURD, foolish and irresponsible.

Improve the page? YES.

Delete it? NO.

Startarrant (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not edit the comments of others, as you did here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bold assumption that these are different users --mfb (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article mentions a couple flash-in-the-pan incidents, the coverage of which is insufficient for the GNG. I suspected that he might be notable per WP:AUTHOR, but I can't really substantiate the claim that his "collective body of work" is seen as "significant or well-known" in serious circles. Going to JSTOR, we find only a few reviews, and they sound like this:
Dionysos Rising does not approach the bar of serious scholarship. Countless relevant scholarly sources are absent from the bibliography, and most contradict Jones's thesis. Repeatedly, Jones's key claims are not borne out by the evidence, even when he elects to refer to them, usually with highly questionable, nonacademic, poorly researched, and rarely documented texts. [...] Jones's Nietzsche chapter is a perfect example of how not to do history. [...] Though this review is limited to questions surrounding Nietzsche, the careful reader will find that similar problems plague all four chapters of the work and the underlying thesis. For the reasons outlined here and numerous others, Dionysos Rising cannot be recommended as scholarly reading, but comes highly recommended for its entertainment value, and its ability to exhibit the weaknesses inherent in any history of ideas assuming at the outset that "biology is destiny." If the work accomplishes anything, it is this: it fulfills Nietzsche's great fear ("I know my destiny. Someday my name will be associated with something terrible").
And this:
This is one of the worst books I have ever read, at least of the academic variety. It would probably be more accurate to say of the purportedly academic variety, since Jones's book rests on what looks to be a remarkably thin evidentiary base. Whole chapters unfold with footnotes to only three or four secondary sources. Certain astonishing assertions aren't footnoted at all. I've never seen an allegedly scholarly book quite like it. [...] In his own idiosyncratic way, Jones is a mirror image of the arrogant elites that his unnecessarily long book excoriates.
The only review I could find that wasn't actively disdainful addressed The Angel and the Machine as just one of three recent books on Hawthorne. And even it says that Jones's writing "suffers inexcusably from being utterly oblivious to scholarship of the past fifteen or twenty years." I don't think the scholarly evaluation of Jones's books, such as they are, rises to the bar that WP:AUTHOR sets. On the other hand, if these few scattered reviews are considered to pass that bar, then reflecting their content properly per NPOV would require a serious rewrite of the page, to WP:TNT levels. Let's delete the page and move on with our lives. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrote some stuff no one seems to care about (apart from suspiciously new accounts/IPs and one user with a potential COI) - at least based on the current article. --mfb (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like Jones may have connections with antisemetic organizations and may have cited a holocaust denier. Not sure what the context was, it could have been critically, but based on his youtube channel some videos seem to have antisemetic tones - are there any specific policies regarding this? https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/E-Michael-Jones.pdf https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqu-4AY-501xV5iCtt7dMKQ/videos Swil999 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political views aren't taken into account when it comes to notability. There are plenty of articles on people who are notable entirely do to their activism on certain issues, including more controversial subjects such as anti-semitism. Its about whether or not the subject has proven through reliable sources to meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - there doesnt seem to be significant third party coverage of his work as influential or notable, nor of the magazine he founded- most of the brief coverage seems to be institutions quickly distancing themselves from him when antisemitism is surfaced; but he doesnt seem to have made a name for himself as a notable pariah a la Fred Phelps either. 67.220.13.25 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? Not enough on GS to pass WP:Prof. The rest seems slender. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- I do not know this man or his work, but there seems to be a sufficient body of published books to justify keeping him. A book of 1300 pages is no mean feat. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to delete his page, other than to censor a controversial figure. E. Michael Jones has millions of views on YouTube and has published various widely read books. He is an influential figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.238.11 (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2019 (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/E._Michael_Jones&oldid=1223559761"