Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Horner


 * 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   merge to National Report. (non-admin closure)  Rcsprinter123    (state)  @ 15:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Paul Horner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I removed about half of the article (which was either unsourced or irrelevant), but the rest of the article will be nearly impossible to source (as the only references are interviews with Horner) - the rest are highly suspect as being hoaxes themselves. Horner may be notable (if he even exists) but unless valid references can be found the page should be deleted for lack of notability. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to National Report, which already has a paragraph about his work for the website. Casting aside the WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews, the sources given here are more about the National Report site than Horner specifically. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The amount of times the man shows up on Google searches in illegitimate sources is reason enough for this page to stay alive; when his name is searched, a valid response should be up. I will admit my inexperience at publishing Wikipedia articles. However, this deserves to be a stand-alone article, edited and improved by those with more experience than I, and not deleted, for the sake of accurately informing people and preventing hoaxes like this from wreaking further havoc on the media. — Speculations319 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC).
 * Merge or Delete - Illegitimate sources do not lend notability. See WP:GNG. The National Report article does fine as it is.EBY (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2014 (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.