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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Joseph Watson[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Only claims to notability are guesting on a show and a self-published book. Google hits are mainly from Alex Jone's own websites, which Watson hosts. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propagandamatrix.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infowars.com

• Delete. Non-notable. Too few 3rd party sources available. -Will Beback 10:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity page. Notability not established. His one self-published book is ranked #1,367,630 in sales on Amazon.com. KleenupKrew 10:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has some interesting theories, but doesn't seem to have gained sufficient attention to be considered encylopeadically notable. Zaxem 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Watson not only hosts Jones' sites but supplies all of the content, Alex doesn't. He writes hundreds of his own articles on a weekly, sometimes daily basis, Alex doesn't. Watson is well known in the UK, I have seen him on numerous conspiracy documentaries on Sky TV channels. Infact, Watson is the best known conspiracy theorist in the UK, some even say in Europe but I don't know. He is well known for Alex's "attack" on Parliament in London. Their is A LOT more information I can add to this article and will do it in time to make it far more encyclopediaic and worthwhile. FK0071a 11:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: User left this message on Striver's talk page. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is right, and he did good doing so. This article is of high intrest to me and i appreciate being informed. --Striver 13:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Not to fill this debate with people just saying keep, but I did it to get users who are in the know to be aware of the article to supply more article details and I thought Striver would know the correct people as he is 'involved' so to speak. I certainly did not do this for any malicious reason. As Stiver has correctly stated, Watson is the predominent article writer on all three websites. FK0071a 13:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How to list pages for deletion states "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." Presumably it would still be OK to do such a notification after the article is nominated, and also for someone else to do it if the nominator didn't. Шизомби 18:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --mtz206 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as FK0071a has told, he is a considerable contributor of articles and content to prisonplanet.com, a prominent website among the 9/11 truth movement group. I would like to ask the voters to consider his notability among the relevant group and not wheather you personaly have heard of him before or not. I can guarante that i dont care much for tenis players, but of course should notable tenis players have their own article. Same with this guy, he is a notable "conspiracy theorist". --Striver 13:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and KleenupKrew. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Paul Joseph Watson has an audience of far more than the 5000 that WP:BIO demands, i hav read that only one of his sites, Prisonplanet, has 2 000 000 individual visitors per month. I dont have a source for that, but it is certanly more than the required criteria for inclusion. --Striver 14:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the interest of full disclosure, Striver alerted me to this AfD. I don't always agree with Striver, but in this case I do. Watson has 413 unique of 118,000 total Ghits - higher than much of what we consider notable - and is one of the most major contributers to a website with a 6,147 Alexa ranking. His book does not make him notable (a single self-published book is not adequat), but his work with Prisonplanet does. There is plenty of third-party verifiability to be found on Google. --Hyperbole 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, enough verifiable information for an article, as stated above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable and verifiable --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one book published by fellow conspiracy theorist and available on Amazon [1] but not even in the top 1 million in sales...hardly notable...rest of his work is in blogs and as a "guest" opinion commentator on the Alex Jones (radio) show...whoopie!--MONGO 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Million? 5000 is enough according to WP:BIO, and i assume you knew that when you wrote that, since you are a admin.--Striver 11:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"not even in the top 1 million in sales" is referring to the book's rank, that there are over 1 million books that have sold more copies at Amazon. It is not stating that 1 million copies have sold. --mtz206 12:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see. Thanks for educating me. I retract my previous statment. --Striver 12:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't buy the notability argument. Sorry. Seems like he wrote one book and only has fame on one radio show and on blogs. However, if one can elaborate on: "Watson has also appeared on numerous worldwide radio shows and in many national and international magazines", I can be swayed. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable and has about 100,000 Google hits. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The 5000 figure is a guideline, not a rule, and many consider it to be bunk. If I pass out 5000 flyers does that make me notable? Or if my band played at a state football game? Most college student newspapers have circulation over 5k. Are their writers notable for wiki? --Mmx1 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets ignore the 5k and compare him to passing 5k flyers...--Striver 20:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP, part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I never used to think this until recently, but what kind of jack-ass system is Wikipedia if all the evidence can be ignored (comments, Wikipedias own policies etc) and the delete number be justifiable above rational debate? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be independent? State run ot me on a great number of issues, even those I havn't had any input on. FK0071a 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-published author and blogger, all within the walled garden of the Alex Jones conspiracy business. Weregerbil 11:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

walled garden? Why dont we delete the entire sciontology church with the same arguementation? --Striver 11:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of differences between Mr. Watson and scientology, such as one being a person and the other a world-wide religion that is discussed by a number of credible external sources. Weregerbil 12:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You get the point, 9/11 conspiracy theories are also discussed by a number of credible external sources, prisonplanet is the most prominent of the sites that promote them, and Paul Joseph Watson is the main contributor to that site. --Striver 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he is "the main contributor" to the site, it cannot be used as a "credible external source" of his notability. --mtz206 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nn.--Jersey Devil 14:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failure of WP:BIO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Why was this article deleted when there was no consensus? Why was prisonplanet.com deleted when the discussion indicated two keeps? Whats with the agenda here?

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.