Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Files

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 Kennedy assassination theories. I have left a message on the talk page requesting anything from the original article be merged to that article. Yomangani^talk 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Files

Disputed prod. Author removed the unsourced tag as well. Article of conspiracy cruft about a living person based almost entirely on a single website with no mainstream reliable sources. Delete. Gamaliel 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Falsely accused of lack of resources and dispute over neutrality. References section has been in place since day one. Made clear that information posted has come from subjects statements or from researchers, and not of my own opinion. Made clear that article is not to please majority, but to collect statements from subject and researchers. Accusations of conspiracy is conclusion of accusers, and has been the sole purpose of deletion. Tried to edit any sections that did not have a neutral POV, or lack of reference, and have yet to find one. Challenged accusation on neutrality, challenged accusation that subjects story is minority view, and challenged accusation that govt. doesn't believe story, with ANY REFERENCES. Have yet to see any. Author believes that accusers are unhappy that I did not shadow article with doubt. I believe that would be dishonest to my readers. This article stays. Goldwings 04:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this page and to talk pages. Alba 05:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Grab the links, as well as anything with verifiabiility, and add to Kennedy assassination theories. Then delete and redirect there. Alba 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per what Alba said. Also, here's an interesting page disputing the confession [1] --- RockMFR 05:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Per nom & Alba, merge and redirect; looks like there's not much to merge once WP:V kicks in though. Eusebeus 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Added link to the references section. I've tried the best I could to find any mainstream sources, and I've only found one. I WILL NOT be deleting and redirecting, because this page is about James Files as the subject, not scrutiny over his claims. Everyone has attacked the article thinking I'm trying to shove a big conspiracy down the readers throats. This is not the case. That is exactly why I put "Files states...." or "Files claims...." in all sections. Because thats exactly what they are, they are claims and statements. Some of the statements came from the DVD "Files on JFK", which must be purchased. I'm going to come out and say, maybe he's lying, maybe he's telling the truth. I do not know, that is for the readers to decide. I am using the work of several respected researchers, primarily Mr. Wim Dankbaar and Mr. Bob Vernon (but not exclusively), because they've done the hard research, as opposed to others that, say, may have read an article and sprinkle their opinions in a commentary or something. The best I could do was google some more websites to add to the references section. Goldwings 06:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of "respected [JFK] researchers", even those who are conspiracy-oriented, consider James E. Files to have all the credibility of Wile E. Coyote. Wim Dankbaar's website is close to being the sole reference point for this article and is cited no fewer than twenty times. The article is riddled with pro-Files bias, in spite of the author's claims, and ought to be deleted forthwith; at the very least, it ought to be merged into the JFK Conspiracy Theories section and should not be allowed to stand alone. RogueStates 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge as there is no showing of notability, article by itself violates WP:BIO as even among conspiracy buffs, Files is a minor player. Ramsquire 21:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge (anything reliable) or Delete. DO NOT KEEP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2006 (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.