Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Joseph


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 05:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Joseph

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable person, no verifiable/reliable sources. Created minor internet conspiracy theory movie. John Nevard (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The film may be notable, but the creator's wishes should be honored. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Take a look at the article history. Wouldn't be surprised if that's the creator of the web 'film' in question stirring. And I'd be surprised if his name is as pseudonymous as 'Peter Joseph'. John Nevard (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. Wikipedia needs less coverage of conspiracy theories; not more. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage of conspiracy theories is fine, but this guy simply isn't notable. --RucasHost (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If I was responsible for that drivel then I'd want to hide behind a tree too. Nick mallory (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The movie he made is seen by increasingly many. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why we have an article on the film. This discussion is about the creator of the film. --Stephen 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Credibility of the movie rely on the Author, so of course we need to pin this guy to the wall also. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The writers of feature films can be far less notable than the films they write.  Even if hte film achieves notability, that does not grant the writer notability by default.  If there are many references about hte movie, but none about the writer, then the writer fails WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete he wishes to remain anonymous and there are no reliable sources about him on which to base a biography. Therefore delete per WP:BLP --Stephen 22:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - should be speedied. Deb (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no verifiable, neutral sources available for a full article. SWik78 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - If the article is to be kept, I would suggest it only be done so because it has been suggested that The Zeitgeist Movement article be merged with this one, which I am not at all opposed to really.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2011 (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.