Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Christian Webster (2nd nomination)


 * 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 based on consensus of established users. --Core desat  02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Christian Webster (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Extensive, and I mean exteeeeeensive, bio for a frequent caller to a radio talk show named Coast to Coast AM. Every call is logged in detail with audioclip, his viewpoints are discussed, but nothing in terms of secondary sources. The first AfD ended in Keep based on blatant meatpuppeteering, so we might get more of it here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep,I don't see anything wrong or against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia in this article. As an avid Coast to Coast listener, I've actually learned quite a bit more in depth about JC beyond what I've learned on the show by reading the entry. I believe Wikipedia is about furthering people's knowledge? Besides what harm does it do by being here? Please keep.206.169.45.183 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe it is considered bad form to insert a later comment into earlier discussion to make it appear at the top of the discussion section. It perhaps could be considered bad faith action because you are attempting to attract undue attention to your arguments in an artificial manner. It is difficult to take anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters seriously when the appear to flaunt form and good manners to promote their opinion. Scienter 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * delete, or should I say "ten-star delete, recognize, ten-star delete", out. Pete.Hurd 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP I actually discovered Wikipedia while doing a Google search on J.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.98 (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment It should be noted that the contributions of this editor, 63.215.29.98, have been confined to vandalism, aside from the commentary above. Scienter 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - amen - an i break his ten commandments on a regular basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zedco (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as unreferenced original research. Resurgent insurgent 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but figure out some other weird Wiki to put this information. Stupid or not, that's a lot of text to just throw away. Might want to protect it too so it doesn't get reformed.--SeizureDog 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP Explain to me why this page is constantly up for deletion. There has been a LOT of work done on this page and it seems silly to constantly go after it when Wikipedia can be improved by eliminating so many other articles which are sub-standard.  I agree this page needs work, but it HAS had a lot of work done on it in recent months, and the constant attacking of this page feels like a personal affront to me and the time I have spent on this page.  --Dr. Floyd 14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you've done a great deal of work on the page. However, you need to argue for it based on Wikipedia policy, not how much effort has gone into it.  I suspect that the primary critera that need to be met is WP:N and WP:BIO.  Even if the page gets kept, however, it looks like it needs to be pruned back quite a bit.Chunky Rice 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This type of page is the type that scares me most on Wikipedia. The amount of effort spent by the editors is apparent, but the subject itself is not encyclopedic.  A frequent caller to a radio show? Is this what Wikipedia has degenerated into?  I sincerely hope not. Peer editing is the greatest strength of Wikipedia and anyone who takes it upon themselves to create articles should be informed that it may be deleted before beginning an article. Scienter 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, move it to a Coast to Coast wiki if you want to, but a biography on a caller to a radio show isn't beneficial to have on Wikipedia. Voretus 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a web host. If you want to go into obsessive detail about some caller to a radio show, do it on your own site. That's what people did before Wikipedia in what I call "the good old days." It would have a tiled animated gif of a burning cross or something as a background and bright yellow Times New Roman text and maybe some clipart of an under construction sign. Recury 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the considerable amount of work that has gone into this article, I see no assertion of notability backed up by any source.Chunky Rice 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20-Mule-Team Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NOR, possible WP:COI, WP:BIO and WP:BULLSHIT - How in the hell this article passed AfD the first time (in a "debate" overwhelmingly dominated by first-time anon IPs) I have no idea, but Wikipedia still isn't a freaking blog. This fellow has all of twenty-three Google hits, most of them from Wiki mirrors and Myspace pages.  There are certainly websites that would host this obsessive twaddle, but this doesn't need to be one of them.  RGTraynor 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete Delete Wikipedia is not (yet) Something Awful. Irides centi  17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete nonsense article; we don't need articles about radio station callers. Acalamari 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks more like exhibit A in a case of telephone stalking than an encyclopedia article. SkipSmith 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge relevant, encyclopedic portions to Coast to Coast AM article. Perhaps also redirect to the Coast to Coast article. While this is interesting (and certainly amusing), and it looks like someone has put a lot of work into this, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in this form. It merely gives credence to someone who amounts to a radio troll looking to legitimize his extremist point of view. I suggest that anyone who would like to preserve the whole of this article move it to userspace. LaMenta3 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete! You've got to be kidding! A call log for a regular caller on a radio talk show? I don't care if it is a national show. This is just pure horse hockey. Realkyhick 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This guy strikes me as being a crank - and that's not necessarily notable. --Dennisthe2 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if WP:BJAODN would welcome him... ~ trialsanderrors 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Never hurts to try. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. In a preview, I stripped the call-log...  This resulted in flaws with the article being more obvious - such as the CLAMP orginization having it's individual words wikilinked rather than having an organization page.  There's also what's considered to be contact information.  Finally, I think the content may be borderline WP:BLP. --Sigma 7 02:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or trim to stub. Falls well short of meeting WP:BIO, and even if it didn't, most of the insane detail about every call falls well short of any notability guidelines we might possibly imagine!   At the very most, this article should be no longer than two or three paragraphs!  But really, that would be two or three more than we need or want.  The article is full of weasel words (e.g., "Some have believed that....", "If the personality of J.C. could be described in one phrase, that phrase might be...").  The Call Details section is the among the most egregious examples of laundry list problems I've ever seen.  This is simply out-of-control and needs to be reigned in immediately!  Xtifr tälk 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least trim it down, minus the links to the soundbytes. fhb3 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge as per LaMenta3 above. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article, but if well-known to listeners of Coast to Coast AM, would merit a much-reduced section there. --Lou.weird 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Good heavens!  J.C. is more well-known than most Coast to Coast AM guests! J.C. is every bit a staple of Coast to Coast AM as, for example, Richard Hoagland.  When the three clips played highlighting Art's career at his award ceremony, one was the Area 51 flier, the second was J.C., and the third was Red Elk. J.C. Is much more than "just a caller."  People do searches on J.C. all the time, just to find out *anything* they can about this man.  I would think the unique hit rate on this page alone would be of some merit. No matter, its important that there be someplace where this information is compiled.  A new page has been posted, hopefully resolving some legitimate problems.  Peace. Deepspire 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Deepspire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment If it's important that this fellow have his own webpage, great, I'm sure Myspace can accommodate him. Wikipedia is not a web host.  RGTraynor 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment @Deepspire: Please keep in mind that many of the Wikipedia participants discussing this AfD are aware of the sock-puppeting that went on during the 1st AfD discussion of this article. Anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters strongly advocating a blatantly non-encyclopedic article tend to seem suspicious. If you wish to support this article, please add new sources that support the notion that the article's subject is notable. Scienter 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment @Scienter: I did miss the last AfD, and from what was described, I'm glad I did. I don't think this debate should be whether or not J.C, is "notable" enough.  I don't want to get into that kind of debate because that will beg every imbicile with a pulse to come in here and clutter our serious discussion with nonsense "votes," peppered with insults. So far this discussion has had some intelligent thought, and I hope not to become flamed by others, but I have reverted my position somewhat. J.C. is not notable enough for an article of such magnitude.  However, the sheer number of times J.C. is mentioned on Coast to Coast does merit a mention just to give people a quick idea of "who this J.C. is." I have posted a radically shortened page that I think better demonstrates what I mean. I've stripped it down about as bare minimum as I feel is appropriate. Unfortunately, neither extreme "side" here will probably be happy.  Deepspire 11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment @Deepspire: While I think your edits are definitely a step in the right direction in some sense, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this discussion should not be about whether Jonathan Christian Webster is notable or not. It is my opinion that this discussion should very much center on whether the subject of this article is notable, and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Also, while your edits to the article's length are beneficial, the few sources listed within the article remain very worrisome.  The first link is the website of the radio station that J.C. Webster apparently calls.  The second link is a AOL home page with an extensive log of the calls made by J.C. Webster to the aforementioned radio station, which may be the source of this article's now-removed girth.  The third link is for the "official" forum of the aforementioned radio station.  I would posit that none of these links help to establish that J.C. Webster, nor his calls, nor his organization passes WP:N. What this article needs in order to be viable is some other outside sources that can cited to build a case that this person, J.C. Webster, is indeed notable.  A great example would be some newspaper articles or some links to a local news broadcast discussing the individual. Of course, these types of traditional media are be no means the only way to demonstrate notability, but they sure are more convincing than a phone log.


 * My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that any article, be it a stub or a featured article must pass WP:N or it should be removed. If an article is nominated for deletion based on a legitimate reason (such as the subject of the article failing WP:N) then it must either be improved by editors or be deleted.  I fully understand that WP:N does not equal "famous," meaning one may be notable for the purposes of Wikipedia without being a "famous person." However, even in that light, neither J.C. Webster nor his calling deserve a Wikipedia treatment. Scienter 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment@Scienter: Yes. I was just reading the WP:N. I've put some thought into this. Thank you. Deepspire 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not say this lightly, nor hastily. I apologize to everyone who solicited my help in keeping this article.  I think the "keep" argument was more emotionally based, because this page had become a sort of "hub" for J.C. fans.  But here's the problem. There is nothing provable about J.C. other than the fact he's anonymously been on Coast to Coast AM a number of times, and they want him back on for a possible "debate."  Everything else about him is based solely on what J.C. has said himself.  And while many things he's said may be the truth, we can't possibly know that it's the truth.  For example, he claims to be "God's general," and he probably believes it.   Therefore, how can we assume this "CLAMP" and "compound" business isn't also just more of his dreamed-up illusion? There's simply nothing that we know about him in any substantial and provable way.  (We can't even prove his name!)  Wikipedia has a standard that must be met in order to be able to be used as a reliable and respected source of information.  Thus, until any of this "information" can be substantiated, there is no way this article can be kept and yet still remain within the bounds of WP:N.  However, that doesn't mean this article is dead forever.  Any notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V sources will work; court records and newspaper articles on CLAMP demonstrations, etc.  If there is any truth to what J.C. has claimed, then there WILL be evidence like that scattered out there; especially in California.  It might take some digging, but that's what it's going to have to take.  J.C. doesn't deserve any notation here by Wikipedia's own important rules.  One final note. I also couldn't help but notice that even the Coast to Coast AM website doesn't devote a page to J.C. Anyway, I've said my piece. Thanks for the discussion, everyone!  Deepspire 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Artaxiad 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Extremely strong keep, and the call log should be put back in. Wikipedia is a great place to have information about notable people who have only scattered information about them in other places. Academic Challenger 21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if what J.C. says is actually true. The fact that he says it makes it notable, and Wikipedia does not claim that it's actually true, only that he said it, which is provable. Academic Challenger 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the issue really being discussed was whether or not this individual is notable. Your comment carries the implication that because you feel J.C. Webster is notable, he must be so.  The problem with this line of reasoning is that none of this individual's actions are verifiable via outside sources.  I don't have a grudge against the fellow, but I've been doing some digging in my free time and I can't find anything about him.  The (very helpful & courteous) comments of Deepspire are evidence to me that some people are familiar with the subject of this article.  But is there an argument in favor of keeping this article that is objectively strong? No disrespect intended, but you state that you strongly feel the article should be kept without giving a reason why that should be the case.  It would be very helpful if you could explain your position and how it conforms to Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you, Scienter 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. (Forgot my signature — Lovelac 7 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment: @Academic Challenger: I think you confused definitions like I did.  There are two definitions of "notable."  One being fame, i.e. "A notable caller."  The "notable" we are refering to here means the ability to cite in a notation.  Scienter was kind enough to point me in the right direction: WP:N.  For a subject to be "notable," it must be attributable to "notable source."  Just the "truth" that he's called and said things doesn't make it notable.  And ironically, something entirely false can be notable.  For example, the article stub I've trimmed down is "basic information," and while it all may be true, just my saying so doesn't make it notable.  However, if I were also a reporter and wrote a piece for The Sacramento Post, or somewhere "notable" like that, saying exactly the same things, then those words have then become attributable to a "notable source," even if my information was wrong.  So understandably, establishing notability is very important not only for terms of credibility, but also for legal reasons.  That would be the only reason the John Titor article has a place here.  Notable sources have written about him.  Otherwise, the "truth" boils down to that he was just an anonymous person who wrote a few posts claiming to be a time-traveler.  That is what we have here at this point.  J.C. is simply an anonymous caller into Coast to Coast AM, and until any "notable" things are said or written about him, or are found from archives somewhere, that is exactly what J.C. will remain.  No one is trying to pretend that "J.C." doesn't exist, or hasn't made an impact of sorts on Coast to Coast AM.  The Coast to Coast AM page here does make a mention of him, which for now is all that is appropriate.  Regards, Deepspire 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Sources provided are woefully inadequate to verify article content and sufficiency of notability. -- Satori Son 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

=To Scienter, I apologize for not responding earlier, I'm pretty busy this week. I personally believe that the fact that he called into a radio show that is widely listened to, making such controversial claims, makes him notable enough for Wikipedia, even though he has not been written about by outside sources. I understand that my position is not popular at this point, and I understand that the article is likely to be deleted. Academic Challenger 01:04, 27 March 2007 (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.