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. czar ⨹ 05:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Welch

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are all dubious fringe blogs and a few small press books no one has ever heard of. There isn't a shred of credibility here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.226.87 (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My thoughts on the subject have been previously expressed at Talk:Russell Welch and User talk:BarrelProof#Russell Welch. On the whole, this is a fringe topic with fringe sources and low credibility. I'll repeat here what I said on my Talk page:
"I would be tempted to dismiss the article entirely except for the connection to Barry Seal, which seems to be a more well-documented subject, and the one referenced article by the well-known journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. I suppose they are not really mainstream objective journalists, but they are (or were, in the case of Mr. Cockburn) at least notable and relatively widely read. Several of the sources seem to be basically self-published, or seem to be simply documenting what Russell Welch himself has said without providing any indication that they have tried to verify the veracity of his claims. Several of the factual assertions that are made would be highly notable news if they are verified, but it is clear that mainstream press has not been saying those things. The mainstream press seems to have mostly just ignored Mr. Welch as far as I know – without even bothering to publish something to debunk his claims, much less verifying them. It might be nice to find a copy of the referenced article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, since that appears to be a mainstream publication, but I have been unable to find that article using the search tool on the newspaper's web site. Note that there was a proposed deletion of the article two years ago (just after the article was created on 15 March 2012), which I endorsed at the time."

—BarrelProof (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article dedicated to fringe theories under the guise of a biography of a non-notable individual.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of fringe theories and terrible sources. The article is also not notable. BenLinus1214 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above, the sources are all either grossly unreliable, or do not substantially cover the subject. The article is a classic WP:COATRACK for an outlandish conspiracy theory. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BarrelProof. GabrielF (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.