Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony James Hall


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 01:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Anthony James Hall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable person. An article apparently first written by the subject, and the talk page seems clear that the page's justification has never been better than really iffy. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Could he pass WP:GNG as a conspiracy theorist? At present I am inclined to doubt it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. I agree he doesn't pass WP:PROF, and the Lethbridge Herald sources are too local to count much for notability. But I think the stories in the National Post and Macleans, and the brief mention in the Washington Post, are enough to show notability via WP:GNG as a conspiracy theorist, and the book review in The Independent adds more mainstream notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference in the Washington Post seems to me to be clearly a drive-by mention-in-passing."One doesn't doubt that. But is he [i.e. the documentarian whose work is being reviewed] a sufficient witness? Does the sympathy for soldiers generated by the grunt film create an implicit, self-perpetuating argument for the war? Junger has been confronted with these questions, in reviews and in person, while promoting the film and his accompanying book, 'War.' In one such confrontation, available on YouTube, an angry and vociferous conspiracy theorist identified as Anthony J. Hall calls Junger's work 'classic propaganda,' deriding it as 'all about the human interest stories of our boys . . . ' This is unfair to Junger, and may be just another atavistic return of the old failure to distinguish between antiwar sentiment and hostility to the troops themselves."That is, the reviewer makes clear that Hall is just a random YouTube nut chosen for illustrative purposes and then immediately dismissed. I don't see that as doing much of anything to establish Hall's notability. It's a two-sentence aside at best about someone who otherwise never made the Washington Post in any other context, as far as Google can determine. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I said "brief mention" rather than calling it something more substantial. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: finally, somebody who fails WP:PROF. I thought that was pretty much impossible.  Anyway, I'm inclined to go for delete per WP:GNG.  Yes, he's had a couple of book reviews but there hasn't been any meaningful, sustained, in-depth coverage by reliable sources that have editorial oversight.  A quick Google search shows that there is third-party coverage on him, but the vast majority of said sources are not considered reliable.    Dr Strauss   talk   15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * finally, somebody who fails WP:PROF, A ridiculous statement. Take a look at my contributions to academic AfDs. 70% of my votes are for delete. Also take a look at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators and its many archives. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had multiple articles I created on academics deleted. One has since been recreated by me, and not been challenged, but the subject had risen academically in the interim. I've seen lots of articles on academics deleted, possible too many kept, but not as ludicrously many or on as low grounds as for some other types of individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Very strong delete The mention in the Washington Post is not "passing mention" it is a dismissive aside, anyone with that level of mention is default not notable, unless something of substance can be found. In the case of Hall, we have to consider guidelines for fringe theorists and their ideas. He clearly does not have the sourcing to show notability for fringe anything, and we should delete an article that gives this non-entity the odd perception of impact for what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. This appears to be WP:FRINGE, and the non-local references appear to be trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete He doesn't meet the notability standards for professors and lacks the coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (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.