Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eric Davidson


 * 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   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

James Eric Davidson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing, other than hoaxes, is really notable about him. I suppose he could be a notable hoax.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly suggest the nominator either elaborate with evidence on his claims of hoaxes or refactor the nomination per WP:BLP. the skomorokh  00:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Space Travel Services (a hoax on someone's part, not necessary Jim).  That might be a notable hoax, but I don't see anything else notable about him. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you were getting at now. Out of context your nomination could be interpreted as a smear; it's best to be clear about these things from the start. the skomorokh  01:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, if Space Travel Services is the proproted hoax, how about we read what the man himself has to say on the matter. Note the provided photo-copy clip from a TIME article on the event. --Cast (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The TIME clipping doesn't mention Davidson. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh  00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh  00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I notified the non-anon contributors to the article, other than the one who already found it, via AWB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The most reliable sources barely mention the subject. The other sources appear to be mostly self-published or otherwise poor quality. It is possible that the article was written by the subject. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's best not to toss around accusations of puppetry when it's a simple matter to check the article history and see that the majority of edits have been made by various editors with a history of activity, and are perhaps even administrators, on Wikipedia. --Cast (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's likely that the original creator of the article is the subject. Counting edits is meaningless, but it's not impossible that all substantive edits are from socks of the creator; especially since there were only 4 editor names other than myself who have ever edited the article while logged in.
 * On further review, I find that the creator of the article indirectly identifies himself as the subject of the article. See this post, in which he describes being a party to a dispute and links to this letter as evidence. Note further, that the editor created an article about a (non-notable?) group/online publication to which the subject of this article is a contributor. The fact that the subject created the article is not, by itself, a reason to delete it. But it does mean that the notability issue merits additional attention, and that the article needs to be carefully reviewed for verifiability and neutrality. For example, the first several sections are unsourced or have poor sources (like an email written by the subject). The subject's notability appears to rest on his participation in the space lottery, but even there he isn't described as the leader.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's the strongest case for notability. I hadn't read the article before I noticed it had been nominated for deletion, but was quite familiar with the subject after having read a lot of coverage (probably not reliable) over the years on his association with van Notten and anarchy in Somalia. I suspect that had his exploits been in a time where newspapers were published online, WP:GNG would be satisfied easily. the skomorokh  23:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of Davidson in Anarchy in Somalia, a 3,000-word article. I've searched Proquest, a newspaper archive going back to at least 1986, but I can't find anything for [Somalia+"Jim Davidson" or "James Davidson"] nor for ["James Davidson"+"van Notten"]. There are many mentions of him in regard to the Space Travel Services, but they do little more than mention him. The STS probably deserves an article, which would naturally include Davidson. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As the author of that particular GA, I hope you will take my word for it ;) If not, see essays by Davidson on the subject at and .  the skomorokh  15:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --John (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article from the New York Times that covers the same material as the Time magazine article. However, it establishes Davidson as one of the principals of the company, and also establishes that the Soviet space agency corroborated the existence of a contract. Of course, the state enthusiasts who edit this site won't ever argue with a government. So, the government of Texas said there was no contract, the government of the Soviet Union said there was a contract. I guess that's a conundrum for the government worshipers. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1D61F3DF933A15751C1A966958260 Planetaryjim (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the person, Arthur Rubin, who nominated the deletion of this page also nominated the page on Boston Tea Party (Political Party) for deletion. That page was deleted and has subsequently been resurrected. Is deleting pages his hobby? Planetaryjim (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually deleting pages has become a hobby, because a certain D00d has made a habit of creating nonsense categories and templates. But I deleted the Boston Tea Party under WP:CSD, a recreation of a previously deleted article which did not deal with the reasons for deletion.  I still think it meets the criterion, but another admin disagrees, and it appears it's there may be a reason to keep the article, even though there's still no indication of notability yet.
 * As for you — the page was brought to my attention by a usually reliable source, and I tend to agree that there's nothing notable about you, that can be confirmed. (I mean, about Jim.  Sorry.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequate notability. Current chairman of a political party that fielded candidates, including a presidential, in 2008, and that has ballot access in a number of states. Allixpeeke (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "A number" = less than 3 (the candidate was on the ballot in 3 states, but he technically ran as an independent in at least one of them. If the party had "ballot access", it would be easier to run on the party ticket than as an independent.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (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.