Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter


 * 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 Closing as No consensus and relisting in light of rewrite. See Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Dei zio  talk 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

James W. Walter
First Deletion Reason: Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Fails to cite to reliable sources, violating WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:NOR. See its companion article Articles for deletion/Walden Three -- also nominated for deletion. Morton devonshire 01:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Article massively rewritten based on reliable sources, please give it a few more days for reconsideration. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another non-notable conspiracy theorist. Brimba 01:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO as per nom. Jpe|ob 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Except for the article documenting the reward, Prison Planet seems to be the most "reliable" source cited. Crockspot 01:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Jimmy! I don't think we need to document every single insane person, so delete. --Peephole 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the cites come from the same two websites. Does not pass WP:RS.--Rosicrucian 04:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is not a valid reason for deletion. Possibly you mean WP:V. Carcharoth 11:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct. My appologies. An article without reliable sources is not verifiable.--Rosicrucian 18:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Em-jay-es  07:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO--MONGO 07:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mongo and Jpe (WP:BIO is a valid deletion reason). Carcharoth 12:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable per WP:BIO. Even Reuters calls him a conspiracy theorist in the citation documenting the reward. --Dual Freq 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Tbeatty 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom GabrielF 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 19:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  Funky Monkey   (talk)  21:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - following a discussion of Ferrugem (a Brazilian video jockey, since you ask) at this AfD debate, the issue of whether having an article in another language Wikipedia makes someone notable has come up. In this case, James W. Walter has an article in the French Wikipedia at Jimmy Walter. I don't personally think that this makes him notable, but checking interwiki links is probably something to think about for future AfD debates. Carcharoth 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The google translation of that one makes him look even less notable than this one. If I spoke French, I'd slap a Modèle:Suppression on it so they can delete it too. --Dual Freq 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that says it all! :-) Carcharoth 09:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the fact that an article exists in another language is not a reason in itself to keep or delete. Someone may have innocently translated the original article into another language. The articles in another language may be subject to the same manipulations, prejudices, and flaws as the first article, or it could be a walled garden. However, one potentially has different sources, which could be better (or worse). In JWW's case, the French article more informative (for example, how he claims to be in exile as the FBI has labelled him a terrorist and banned him from air travel), but still no less verifiable, as its main source appears to be a magazine interview with the subject. Ohconfucius 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable per WP:BIO and fails WP:RS. --Aude (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, et al. RFerreira 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO Mujinga 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete an nominated. Fails WP:BIO. Also, nonsense 9/11 crackpot who believes that many of the "alleged" passengers are still alive and were working for the US government. Yep, Delete JungleCat    talk / contrib  20:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and tighten up. I'm wondering if I'm reading the same article everyone else is. The one I'm reading seems to have a Reuters article and a New York Times article cited. Those are generally considered Reliable sources. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment such references are fairly well buried under a mountain of references to sites like Alex Jones' "Prison Planet."--Rosicrucian 18:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment People shouldn’t always trust info that comes from NY Times. They quite often have a liberal bias side to them. One example: See this NY Times article about Geraldo Rivera. Just because something is reviewed or mentioned by NY Times, doesn’t always mean it is notable or a creditable source. JungleCat    talk / contrib  20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True. It is, however, sometimes considered the canonical source for purposes of Reliable sources, Verifiability and Notability. We're not in the truth business, we're in the verifiability business. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Rosicrucian had an excellent point. I cleaned out the cruft, and rewrote, focusing on information based on the articles from Reuters, New York Times, and Der Spiegel, which should meet the reliable source objections. I also merged in the Walden Three info, as that probably isn't notable/verifiable/reliable enough in itself, but can stand a paragraph here in the article of its founder. Please look at it again. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly a stronger article for it, but I'm going to need some time to look it over before I can consider changing my vote. I'll try to re-evaluate before the vote closes. Thanks for the positive attitude towards revision though.--Rosicrucian 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep AnonEMouse has made significant improvements to this article. Walter appears to meet WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial news reports.  --Hyperbole 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep He appears to be a crackpot who I believe is borderline notable because of the outlandish things he's saying (and the ton of money he's throwing around) and how he's going about drawing attention to his theories. News about him is picked up all around Europe and the US. Ohconfucius 02:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep seems to meet BIO in the rewritten version. Nice job, AnonEMouse.--Kchase T 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, i read over the revised article and an ad campaign doesnt scream notability to me. If you ever read the NYTimes before its simply massive and you can even find an article on your local (if in NY) ice cream palor, which doesnt mean it notable. After the 9/11 rush anything containing the twin towers went to print, and so it should not be weighed the same in terms of notability. --NuclearZer0 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True, the NYT is in some ways also a local paper. However, note that Reuters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Der Spiegel are not New York City local papers. I humbly submit that being the topic of independent articles published by the largest newspaper, tv corporation, and magazine of 3 respective continents passes WP:BIO. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but WP:BIO is a guideline and I do not believe an ad campaign makes anyone notable. --NuclearZer0 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been cleaned up since the nomination and now passes all sections mentioned in the nomination.  *Sparkhead  14:09, 13 October 2006 (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.