Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Maxwell (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maxwell[edit]

Conspiracy theorist, article fails to establish notability through reliable sources according to WP:BIO. The article was already deleted once for the same reason. Peephole (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and plaster with cleanup tags: appears to have some notable coverage (Consumer Affairs, etc.) and involvement with FTC. Needs better referencing to support the statements, but they at least make a claim for notability. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being involved in a lawsuit and mentioned in one magazine article is hardly a claim to fame.--Peephole (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my comment to "weak keep"...I don't know a lot about the coverage, but I did notice that the "criticism of Jordan Maxwell" section appears to mostly be user-generated Youtube videos, which suggests that his work hasn't been addressed by respectable sources. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since he's claimed to be a researcher and independent scholar, it seems that WP:PROF is the standard to use (after all, why should we be less strict about non-mainstream researchers than mainstream ones?) but he's not close to a pass on that. Nor does he seem to pass WP:BIO (the standard we end up having to use for fringe researchers because they invariably fail WP:PROF): there's only one thing I see listed that has the superficial appearance of a reliable source (the "BBC America" link to bbcoa.com) but on reading the article more carefully it appears to be another of the subject's own sites; the real BBC America is bbcamerica.com. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with the idea of holding conspiracy theorists or non-mainstream researchers to WP:PROF scrutiny. They don't publish in peer-reviewed journals because their ideas are not generally accepted and they also are unlikely to hold any seat of power in an educational organization. Using WP:PROF sets them up for failure from the outset. Just using WP:BIO which applies to any living person is a lot more fair. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but I don't think he passes WP:BIO either, as I explained. My point was that sometimes in this sort of AfD people will try to use some sort of weakened form of WP:PROF, that the subject has published a few works which a few people have cited but not on the scale needed to really pass WP:PROF, and we shouldn't be considering that as an argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete $_Has-received-significant-coverage-in reliable-secondary-sources-that-are-independent-of-the-subject = NO. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:00, 23 January 2009 (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.