Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph E. Yahuda


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph E. Yahuda
Non-notable crackpot theorist. Author of a single book, promoted by a notorious nationalist fringe website, no impact discernible elsewhere. Compare also Articles for deletion/Elias Tsatsomoiros for a similar case, created by the same editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article didn't have an afd tag on it. I just fixed it. Ydam 12:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Must have forgotten to press save after preview. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable nonsense. --Coredesat 12:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As non-notable as they come. Nobody ever took him seriously enough to attract any notice at all. Fan1967 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable crackpot. --Macrakis 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The author might want to edit this down to a few sentences and then add that to some already existing, stand-alone article on a notable topic. There is information here that might be of interest but not as an orphaned article. Interlingua 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. The book needs to have sold 5000 or more, and I don't see any evidence of that. Kevin 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. So nobody took Yahuda's work seriously. Does that mean that he should be completely ignored? Does that mean that every Wikipedian must prevent this so-called "bastard knowledge" from touching the pure minds that peer into this encyclopedia? The answer is obviously no. Articles should not be limited only to discussing the notable, the great, the glamorous and the mighty. By doing such a thing, Wikipedia is preventing itself from becoming a distinguishable source of knowledge. Besides, knowledge is knowledge irrespective of its status as notable or non-notable. Deucalionite 20:41, 12 June 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.