Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Bonehill

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bonehill[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Joshua Bonehill-Paine tries very hard to spread lies about himself across the internet. In reality he is a 21-year-old unemployed criminal with no achievements of note, and certainly doesn't warrant a wikipedia page or any biography. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, notable. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: What you have said is basically that you don't like him so he shouldn't have an article. Numerous sources have documented his hoaxes and crimes, and there's a fuck load of articles which would need deleting if we were to delete criminals from wikipedia. This is so close to trolling in itself, that's why I kept deleting the deletion tag. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources which address him directly, therefore meeting WP:BIO. Argument for deletion seems to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is specifically discouraged. Valenciano (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cover the infamous, as well as the famous. He's not unfamous. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note significant contributions to the article by User:Jooner29 who has declared himself as the subject of the article. As the article says part of his notability is for trolling and hoaxes, this could be seen as a successful example of self promotion, which, in its own circular fashion, may be notable.— Rod ^talk 16:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAntiCauliflower92 is clearly trolling this article with a biased agenda. If you look at the recent edits made by AntiCauliflower92 you will note that he has changed very small but significant details that were noted officially in newspapers. I believe AntiCauliflower92 to be a rival of Bonehill's and his occupation of this article is akin to Bonehill creating the article to fit his agenda. This form of corruption can not be allowed on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooner29 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
— Jooner29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose: On the contrary, I have merely cleared up a few issues and given valid reasons for doing so. As noted in the comment above by Rodw and the "few or no other edits outside this topic" tag above, the article was created by the subject himself, and should be deleted for that reason alone. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not true. I created this and reverted Bonehill's unverifiable claims from it '''tAD''' (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject gets nontrivial coverage from multiple reliable sources and the article does not seem promotional. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with nom and agree with previous keep arguments. WP:Notability is established by various WP:RS, does not seem promotional to me, and any possible WP:NPOV issues can be resolved through consensus and editing.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What an odious chap, but he has made himself notorious enough. Does this fellow have any redeeming qualities? Do we know if he loves his mum? Does he help old ladies across the road? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: WP:NOTFORUM, unless you are in a roundabout way stating that the article has a negative bias, which is kind of easy to do when writing about a criminal '''tAD''' (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I take the point that there are many artcles on people who've broken the law, this doesn't mean that everyone with a criminal record qualifies for a Wikipedia article. This guy is a racist who uses the internet to spread his propaganda, and has paid the price in court. That of itself doesn't make him notable, surely? Neiltonks (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but It meets GNG; this liar/hoaxer/hater has garnered coverage. However, this individual is a publicity hound and it might be more useful to readers to have the article open with something like: Notorious racist, hoax activist Joshua Bonehill... And the page should be protected because this Bonehead will very likely be back to try to edit-in self-aggrandizing material.ShulMaven (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2014 (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.