Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Jones views

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 redirect to Alex Jones (radio). John254 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Jones views

Views, in and of themselves, are not notable. Content was removed from Alex Jones (radio) here after lack of resistance on talk page (after one week notice). Some discussion has since ensued, but not supporting the creation of a sub-article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - I think that it might have been a better idea to have kept the "views" section in the main article, and then deleted those things that you consider to be unsourced. I can understand that Wikipedia can't have an article saying "these are the views of Alex Jones" without full attribution, since we need to abide by WP:LIVING. However, forking off and AfDing seems like the wrong way to deal with it - and 1 week was a bit short for a notification period, as the complaints in the talk page suggest. I suspect that the "best option" would probably end in a revert war, but at least then the problems would stay with the main article. So I'd say withdraw AfD, revert back into the main article, and then delete unattributed/dangerous stuff from there. Unfortunately, that might mean keeping the article on a watchlist to ensure that troublesome unattributed statements don't come back: what can you do, though, eh? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd have to agree with the above. On the one hand, allowing this to remain sets a precedent that may become problematic: Should we have separate pages for every notable person's "views"? Incorporating the items of note, that are properly referenced into the article itself, seems a good way to deal with it. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't have separate pages for every person's beliefs. That's why this is up for deletion (whether the views belong in the main article is irrelevant to this AfD) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That was exactly my point :) Allowing it to remain would be encouraging that type of thing, which I don't think is a good idea. Sorry I didn't word it so that was clear. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I must've mis-read. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was, whatever in this article is properly sourced should be put back into the original article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete too few reliable secondary sources to support a seperate page, no need to give Jones' fans a soapbox. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. I think we should move this to the main article. --Noahcs 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But not all of it - just what can be properly sourced. It'd take an Alex Jones fan to do it though, I guess. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourced how? I still don't see how the fact that person X has opinion Y automatically needs to be included in a biographical article, even if we can provide a citation that X said Y. A more meaningful standard would be to find source Z who confirms that it is indeed notable that X thinks Y.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I cannot see the point of a separate article, except to give him two.DGG (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Alex Jones. --PEAR (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Alex Jones. The individual is notable and his opinions should appear on his own page. No need to make a separate page for it. .V. _[Talk|Email] 13:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge content satisfying WP:RS into Alex Jones. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Alex Jones only what is reliably sourced.--MONGO 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Alex Jones (radio). We're better off without any Alex Jones forks. Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the Alex Jones article then edit out anything not adequately sourced. Edison 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the AJ article. His views warrant about a paragraph in his own article I think. --Tbeatty 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like a POV fork from Alex Jones (radio), or a fork created because there was no consensus to include it in the article. Merge only what is properly sourced and redirect. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the relevant/important bits. We don't need to document every word out of this guy's mouth. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:00, 8 August 2007 (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.