Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Maxwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Dakota 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Maxwell

The article is not written very well, but I would like it to be improved on, rather than deleted. Jordan Maxwell's work is very important to the 'research community' (aka conspiracy theorists), and he is cited and quoted by many other writers and lecturers, including Michael Tsarion, David Ike and others. To delete his entry would be to start a trend of removing entries for anyone who dares to question the status quo. Just because the complainant hasn't heard of him, doesn't mean that he is not notable.

Unnotable conspriacy theorist with three books "published" from a PO Box in San Diego, California.[1] Fails notability. Arbusto 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable independent sources are provided. ~ trialsanderrors 07:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 07:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete apears to be a self-professed and self-published "expert". Guy 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Jordan Maxwell is one of few hardcore buffs you will find researching secret societies and fraternal orders.

If you delete _him_ then that's a good precedent to "nominate and destroy" most of those christian preachers, bible colleges and other such organizations that have cropped up on WP as of late; few of these pass the same litmus test. There is too much of Maxwell's work in circulation for him to be dismissed like that. What's more, and most telling is that Arbustoo chose to forget to mention the many documentaries for television Mr. Maxwell has worked on and at times appeared therein in person as well as the many events Mr. Maxwell has been a featured speaker at many venues and has been invited as a guest to many radio shows such as Art Bell / George Noory's Coast to Coast etc. etc.

Many are available on |http://video.google.com&q=jordan+maxwell :

... ...

Just looking at this website at [[2]] it's therefore not just "three books" "published by a PO Box".

I can imagine his work does not sit well with (christian) religionists and other such related organizations and cults, however as I stated in the beginning, as far as notability is concerned, once you delve into subjects such as secret societies and the inner workings of organized religion then there is no way past Jordan Maxwell. Reader 13:02, 3 November 2006(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.230.65 (talk • contribs)

The main issue is whether he meets WP:BIO. If you can show that he meets that guideline you have a much better chance of the article getting kept. The above does not help in that regardJoshuaZ 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Naconkantari 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per original nom. Fails WP:BIO so badly it's almost funny:
  1. Has NOT been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  2. has ONE published work that can be easily found. Hardly notable, Wikipedia is not a library.
  3. The only possible field that this person could be widely recognized as contributing to is whackaloonery, but even then I find little evidence of that (aside from his personal website, which is worth reading for sheer entertainment value. Maybe move it to BJAODN?)
  4. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. FAILED.
  5. Under alternative tests, expandability is very low.

I think Guy hit it on the head by calling him a self-professed and self-published "expert". --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(2) is wrong: proof: [3]
(3) an insult does not qualify as a reason to delete his article
(4) but relevance is: [4]
--John.constantine 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-promotion. NawlinWiki 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracycrufty failure of WP:BIO. Danny Lilithborne 20:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough -- lucasbfr talk 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Came to his Wikipedia article to find out about him. Why should this information be hidden from me? --John.constantine 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! If you delete this article I will never search info on Wiki again.--c4tr4t User's first and second edit. (noted by JoshuaZ 06:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep If Maxwell isn't notable enough, (really, why?!?!) then we'll need to hold all the people and institution you deem important to the same standard, Arbusto. Jordan Maxwell IS a known and noted person not only on the net but most certainly in that "whackalooney and crufty" conspiracy scene (to borrow from one of your sockpuppets). You might as well also go after people like David Icke then too, laughable as it sounds calling him "not notable". 213.155.74.242 08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually David Icke is a notable kook. He has many books written about him. Major newspapers have interviewed him, etc. JoshuaZ 08:14, 8 November 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.