Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Mason


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Phil Mason

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable YouTube personality. I guess speaking at the Reason Rally is a claim of notability, but I essentially can't find any coverage of him whatsoever in independent reliable sources (i.e., not blogs). Robofish (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The notability of the blogs that talk about him is quite high. A lot of books that have a Wikipedia wouldn't have their article if they hadn't been reviewed by PZ. Meyer Thunderf00t was one of the more notable bloggers that set off Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Not just anyone gets invited to Richard Dawkins home to have an interview. Please note that the claims of the article not being neutral are being made by a creationist. -- Vera  (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldn't find any truly independent sources discussing Phil Mason, and there is no evidence that Mr. Mason meets Wikipedia's academic notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As not written in a neutral way and per NJ Wine. And what's with the ad hominum comment about the person who made the claim? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad hominum isn't always unjustified. You proudly proclaim yourself to be extremely biased against Thunderf00t by stating you are a creationist. Creationists stick to their believes in the face of overwhelming evidence against those believes. That makes them dishonest and your vote should therefore not be counted. -- Vera (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. And what you have described is a generalisation that is not true in every case and I can't see how you can say that about me when you don't even know me. Where have I ever said "I dislike this person and his views on the world so much that I will do all within my power to have his Wikipedia page deleted"? All I did was state that the page was not written in a neutral way and needed proper sourcing. I was not the one who proposed this deletion discussion but I do object to being branded as "dishonest" for what I believe in. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Some of the people that he has associated with may be notable, but notability is not inherited, and there are scant reliable third party sources that indicate that he, himself, is notable. Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (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.