Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Jones (radio host)


 * 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) Erik9 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable conspiracy theorist. While people have made attempts in his wiki page to make him look notable, when you check the sources used, they just mention him as someone involved in whatever conspiracy theory they are writing about, Jones is never or rarely the subject of an article himself, unless it's on some vanity press or local non reliable rag. All of his works are self published, apart from the radio show which is only available on the internet, or a couple of low power Christian shortwave stations and maybe a small local station or two, thats no better than self published in my opinion. I think it's time this page was removed, or perhaps as an alternative, just merged into some other article on 9/11 conspiracy theories or the like. Jones himself is not notable, he is at best a sideline in some other story. Please read the sources linked to on his page, and you will see what I mean. In the internet echo chamber he appears almost notable, due to a few active meatpuppets who he calls upon to spread his word (ie spam), but in the real world, he just really isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) — BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Heh, "Bimbo Baggins" really.  Anyways, I'll bite.  This looks like a low class WP:BLP1E otherwise not notable and should be cast out from the bowels of Wikipedia as soon as possible. JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not one-event notable. In addition to 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, he's also received reliable coverage for leading the construction of the current Branch Davidian church, ranting about the Bohemian Club, and opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger's political campaigns. WillOakland (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, almost speedy keep. At first glance I thought this nomination was a hoax. Sources in the article include major newspapers, such as the Washington Post, as well as BBC News. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Addition: This book also refers to Jones as one of the "most prominent" conspiracy-related radio hosts, along with the likes of Art Bell. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hah, come on... Art Bell had over 10 million listeners and was on hundreds of stations at his peak, Jones can't even be compared. BimboBaggins (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe so, but it's a WP:RS, not I, that is making the comparison. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree that reliable coverage of Jones is much less than you'd expect from his blog influence, but it's enough to keep the article. WillOakland (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I reviewed a number of pages of results from your search, there were only a few results that actually dealt with the same Alex Jones, and apart from a couple of side mentions in some reasonable media, the vast bulk are from such notable news organisations as "thespoof.com" and "Bizjournals.com" BimboBaggins (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I encourage you (and others) to look through a few pages. Unfortunately many of the articles are not free, but the title and snippet can give some idea of Jones's role in the story. It's not my fault that Jones's parents gave him a common name, or that Google News processes comments along with the stories. WillOakland (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable media personality and fringe-theory promoter. I notice that his article doesn't (yet) cite Secret Rulers of the World and its accompanying book, Them: Adventures with Extremists as sources; they played a major role in bringing Jones to public attention here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As has been said, while there may not be as many RS's as one would think, there are quite a few that tak about subject, more than enough to justify the article. Found thisand this after just a little searching. Personally, I think this deletion discussion is some sort of conspiracy... :) Vulture19 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup - While the nominator is correct that some of the sources seem to be completely wrong or to web pages that don't exists (see ref #3), I did my own fact checking and found that he is syndicated nationally which proves notability. The references need cleaned up but that's all I could find with a quick look.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep - the nominator has a point about the internet echo chamber, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. However, Jones gets more than passing mention in, for example,, , and the aptly named . These are the kinds of sources that should be used for our articles, so we avoid the too common unmaintainable mess of self-promotion, original synthesis, and BLP violations. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have all of these sources, why is your keep !vote a "reluctant" one? I'm just curious.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the article won't be written and maintained by giving due weight to the reliable secondary sources, well intended suggestions to "keep and clean up" notwithstanding. It will be written by the people who care most. "Responsible" journalists will look at our article for background even if they avoid paraphrasing it directly. They'll think Jones is a bigger fish than he is, and so write about him at greater length. Presto; there's another "reliable" source supporting Jones' notability. It is an echo chamber, just like the nominator says, and it's working. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup He's pretty well known as a conspiracy theorist. There's a lot of other conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia however who don't deserve inclusion. Best to direct some AfD attention to those.--Sloane (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. If we had a policy not to include people who talk without checking their facts, the biography section would be halved, at least.  But this redacted person  is a notable conspiracy theorist.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. His Prison Planet/Infowars site is pretty notable in the alternative media.  Google News has been indexing Prison Planet as a source for years.  Article is necessary to anyone studying the alternative media, whether you agree with their commentary on world events or not.  The whole nom, which isn't even signed, smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion proposal is preposterous. He has been mentioned specifically in major publications such as the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's better that there is the possibility of realistic reporting on Tin Foil Hatters like Alex Jones in Wiki than in places where things are leaning towards the "lizards ate my grandmother" type of editing. Plus, putting it up for deletion will only encourage him and his listeners to suggest WIKI is "run" by evil Jews, - sorry meant "Zionists" and I am not at all, of course, suggesting that "evil Zionists" is Alex Jones and his listeners code for their alleged Antisemitism. Plus, it only provides him with more free publicity and makes his listeners even more paranoid that everyone that edits wiki works for the CIA. The7thdr (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC).
 * You do know that his wife is Jewish?--E tac (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: So was Karajans wife. Your point would be?The7thdr (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though various YouTube users have attempted to convince me otherwise, I have never found a reason to believe that anything this man espouses or has achieved is notable. –Merqurial (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion about what he has espoused or achieved has nothing to do with the subjects notability.--E tac (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Alex Jones is one of the most notable alternative media news persons of all time. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large Internet-based audience. I let the popularity speak for itself, but their are many people who feel the same way. Rbp olsen  ♦  ☺ ♦ Talk to me! 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand why this is even being considered, there's a page about the "Tron Guy" for god's sake. Do people really think Jones has accomplished less than some youtube personality. Grateguy11 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. WillOakland (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keep. Deleting this page would certainly look like censorship to me. Alex Jones has to be fairly notable. Otherwise I would most likely never had heard of him - Stian, Norway 18:51, 12 March 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.110.67 (talk)


 * Keep Well known radio personality. And anyway, if they know him in Norway, with so much snow... You know what I mean. Dr.K. logos 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't believe this.! Really. Are running out of space here? I can recommend a hundred articles that have less significance than this one. What is going on? Someone got hurt and no we going to sensor things? Haters of GOD, Homos, UNITE..! Ridicolous. Do not delete. People need to know about Alex Jones. Like it or not he is speaking for a lot of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.12.65 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP DON'T CENSOR Why is this article up for deletion? Regardless of your views on Jone's, the fact that this is even being considered for deletion is ridiculous, especially now when major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Time magazine, and Glenn Beck have all just published stories about the New World Order. Once again, regardless of your personal views on Jones or his theories about world government/New World Order, this information, on both sides of the fence, is more and more relevant NOW than BEFORE.  Please do not delete this article on these flawed merits.  Also, as someone mentioned above, Jones is NATIONALLY SYNDICATED on 60 shortwave stations, has a large internet audience, has guests like Charlie Sheen, Joe Rogan, Jesse Venture, Ron Paul, etc.  He's a very prominent figure in talk radio any way you look at it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I first learned of him from Richard Linklater's movie Waking Life. A quick look at Alex Jones at the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093953/, shows quite a bit of film work. So he has a presence beyond radio and internet blogging/broadcasting. Perhaps the nominator is confusing Wikipedia criteria for 'notable' with his own measures of notability or celebrity. Cuvtixo (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Alex Jones has millions of listeners, readers and viewers. The controversial subjects he covers have obviously provoked the originator of of the 'delete' suggestions. The delete suggestion should be removed immediately. The inclusion of 'to be deleted' at the top of the Alex Jones page is obviously an example of vandalism. And, yes, if you delete it we millions of Alex Jones fans will consider it a conspiracy. Netizen x (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Five days to consider deletion is not long in the scheme of things. WillOakland (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Alex is a prominent alternative media radio host, with large listener base through syndicated radio, shortwave and RSS feeds. --Zaphood (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very prominent figure with impressive numbers of external links and references. Has produced high quality two-hour documentaries, something completely out of scope of a 'minor conspiracy theorist'.  Deletion is entirely unwarranted.Flying hazard (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suggest WP:SNOW keep at this point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a reporter of unpopular topics, a true journalist. The person who started this is clearly just hatefull. Any review of the accountability of alex jones will produce awe and shock at the real danger facing america. User: Brother of Liberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.143.3 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep Unnoteworthy? Are you kidding me? This guy is very well known. He's also a true revolutionary, but that's beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.85.14 (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Unnotable? You must be kidding! Last time I checked there were over 3 million hits for "Alex Jones" on Google plus 224 on current news according to Google News. Most of that regarding Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, author of known and popular movies on the subject. For many he is the embodiment of conspiracy theories - no matter if you believe him or are against him he is one of the most prominent figures in this movement/stream of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBrandt (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep : this should be a non-brainer folks. You don't have to agree with him, but you should agree he is notable. If you think the article has POV issues, discuss on the talk page. Danski14(talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep : this should be fast-tracked. Having the deletion banner at the top of the page is vandalism timed with the release of his latest documentary, The Obama Deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.115.63 (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what they want you to think... Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep He's a nutjob, but a notable nutjob. His videos are everywhere, so people need a place to find out the story behind him and his crazy ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabalong (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources in this article from mainstream and other media prove he is notable--Noppalsch (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this nomination in good faith? I find it hard to believe that it is not a joke.  Man It&#39;s So Loud In Here (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.