Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Wallace-Murphy


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Tim Wallace-Murphy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional piece about a non-notable, largely self-published author of Knights Templar pseudo-documentaries. Article was created by, and the image (File:Tim Wallace-Murphy.jpg) was uploaded to Commons by as user who identified themselves as DMA Europa DMA Europa is a marketing firm. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - PR-cruft. Non-notable author. The majority of books are self-published, others were published by a firm that specialized in conspiracy theories. No reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm finding some evidence to show that he is at least somewhat well thought of in his field, as he was interviewed in the History Channel's The Templar Code and quoted here. Of course neither of these are things that would help him pass notability criteria for academics, which is difficult for most to pass but especially for anyone that's even remotely fringe. I'll check some of the academic databases to see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I found some trades reviews and one from a media outlet, but I'm just kind of unsure that these are enough, given that trade reviews tend to be a weaker source than a fuller review. They're still technically usable, but just barely. If it is decided that it's enough, the article will need to be substantially edited to remove the uncited details. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable fringe writer who promulgates nonsense. Neither the History Channel nor the Daily Star are reliable sources. Both are disinformation operations. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure promotion, non-notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete Subject does not meet WP:NAUTHOR.  Mini  apolis  23:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. At least, assuming no better sources are turned up than those currently sourcing the article or which TG turned up.  Being an author of fringe notions does not in itself disqualify a person from being notable in-and-of-themselves (we have an article on L. Ron Hubbard, don't we?)  But in this instance we have no sources which discuss Wallace-Murphy as a topic himself, and the handful of reviews we have of his work are insufficient to impute notability arising from the impact/coverage of those works.  The thing is, if there's some truth to the (clearly promotional) bio, there may be sourcing out there, so I tend to agree with TG that this is a borderline case.  Still, on the basis of what I've seen so far, and what I've found myself, I have to come down on the side of delete unless superior sourcing is located.  S n o w  let's rap 08:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can assure you that this is personal work, and I am not being commissioned for it in anyway. I do work for DMA Europa, but I am a website developer. If you also look at the link to the site that User linked above, you can see that all the clients of DMA Europa are industrial companies, working in water treatment plants, car manufacturing ect. We have never done any PR work for Authors or Media. In regards to the sources, he has appeared on BBC news programs but this predates the internet becoming a giant source of information. He has also worked with notable academics in the field. This is my first Wikipedia entry, so I appreciate all the comments that people have left, both positive and negative, as they are helping me learn and grow as an editor. If anyone can tell me with a solution with the sources problem, be it contact said academics and get them to post about Wallace-Murphy or anything like that, I can try and get in contact to make this possible. In the meantime, I will continue to look for credible sources to reference to and hope to overcome any issues regarding this article. Jordan.williams (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not for being fringe, but for not passing our guidelines for authors or academics. Also, likely promotional.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:49, 28 January 2017 (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.