Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Wanta


 * 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 keep due to decent sourcing and improvements since nominated. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Leo Wanta

 * — (View AfD)

Deprodded. Original proposed deletion rationale was ''I declined speedy and tried to rewrite this article, but after searching Lexis-Nexis and the web, I haven't been able to find anything that is arguably a reliable source other than NewsMax, and even that is dubious. Unless there's another source, this person fails WP:BIO, and the whole thing seems to be just internet rumor and hyperbole, anyway.'' The article now has a link to purported court documents on someone's website, and a bunch of other weblinks, but looks like few things that would qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS. Kchase T 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 195.92.67.75 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - sounds like a big hoax to me. Nothing to back up any of the information in this article. Jayden54 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This goes under the "no smoke without fire" category for me. There are plenty of conspiracy articles on Wikipedia, why should this be any different?
 * Conspiracy theories deserve a place in Wikipedia when an idea emerges beyond the fringe media to become part of popular awareness, for example Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations.
 * Keep - See references on discussion page. 195.92.67.75 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless more data is inbcluded in this article before the end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with a trillion-dollar neutron bomb because this article makes absurd claims with sources that are entirely laughable. See WP:RS regarding: "Exceptional claims require exception sourcing." And as a conspiracy theory, there's no evidence of interest in the subject beyond the fringe. Tarinth 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with a Clean Up. This at worst is an internet meme with a possible conspiracy mythology attached to it that appears on a number of relevant blogs, Presidential Candidate and Senator John Edwards for example. I cant determine if it would be considered as notable yet, but there is plenty of online chatter on it. Therefore, I suggest a clean up and some third party verifiable mention of it's notoriety as a urban myth.User:Tumbleman04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for a while. After running across this story Wikipedia wasn't the first place I came to try to find some verifiable, or failing that, neutral information. Instead I came here after sloughing through dozens of dubious sites repeating the same wild stories. What's more, Leo Wanta keeps coming up. It really needs someone to find out what's really going on here, before deletion is considered. --Error28 07:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a violation of one of the five pillars of No original research!! What we need is for reliable sources to investigate this and report their findings before we even consider keeping an article like this!  Strong delete unless reliable sources are provided.  Frankly, I'm a bit surprised the guy isn't listed as being from Nigeria, as it sounds so much like the sort of thing that appears as an intro to an advance fee fraud.  But I'll reserve judgement on that.  Xtifr tälk 11:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an internet meme; a Google search clearly indicates it. It should though be rewritten to reflect this. Alan Pascoe 12:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and recast clearly as an urban legend. (I looked up the Wanta article just this morning after getting a reference to the hoax in my inbox.) Tim Pierce 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Wanta is mentioned as a "businessman" in a publication of the United States Institute of Peace, so he is clearly not an "urban legend". 217.134.107.194 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Possible keep. The story looks like total nonsense.  On the other hand, it's useful to find out that something's nonsense.  Assuming suitable references can be found, I agree with Tim Pierce that it be recast as an urban legend piece.  - Crosbiesmith 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Referenced well enough and looks notable. -- Wizardman 06:23, 9 January 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.