Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination)

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 Merge and redirect to his book. Despite the substantial support for deletion, the man merits mentioning in his book's article, given that the book has been kept previously. Xoloz 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Thompson (researcher)

This is an article about a pseudonym of the author of a 9/11 conspiracy book called The Terror Timeline. The book is currently under AfD and it doesn't seem likely that it will be kept. Given that this guy's only real claim to fame is that he wrote a book which consensus seems to feel is non-notable it seems hard to imagine that he himself would be notable. Note that the first AfD for this article ended in no consensus. GabrielF 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Did not see link to 1st AfD, so here it is. Also, the result on the book's AfD was "no consensus. :) Dlohcierekim 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--MONGO 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interest in 9/11 is still high and likewise in the protagonists in the debate about it. I can see a case for merging this with the book article, or vice versa. Tyrenius 06:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nowhere close to passing WP:BIO. He's already mentioned at 9/11 Truth Movement; that's an appropriate amount of coverage for him. My Alt Account 09:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peephole 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete nn person as per My Alt Account Marcus22 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Change vote to Merge with book. Now that that has been kept. Marcus22 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with book aricle per Tyrenius --Guinnog 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
• Delete nn --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have used the information from this article in The Terror Timeline, but rewritten to avoid copyright restrictions, so I don't think it is strictly necessary to attribute under GFDL. However, it makes sense if Paul Thompson (researcher) does not merit retention to turn it into a redirect for those who search for the author. Tyrenius 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  PS as regards Articles for deletion/The Terror Timeline, current state of play looks very much like "no consensus" (i.e. default to "keep"). A nom based on speculation about another AfD is on very shaky ground. Tyrenius 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  PPS The AfD has now been closed as "no consensus (keep)". Tyrenius 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into The Terror Timeline --T-rex 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the film about Thompson and his research is showing all over the country and his website is used as a resource and recommended by the Jersey Girls. Locewtus 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  Could you provide refs for that? Tyrenius 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep -- The book was kept, I would say merge would be most appropriate. --Shortfuse 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  Any relevant info is in the book article, so there is only a need to redirect this one now. Tyrenius 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN Tbeatty 08:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The book was kept via no consensus, so it would be an odd situation to delete the author, who is notable inhis own right for writing the book released by ReganBooks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Being that he is only notable for the book and the book was kept, merge his information into it, no need for a seperate article. --User:Zer0faults 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Paul Thompson is already an interesting figure in Internet history. No one who has read the book or visited the site can reasonably call his research conspiracist. He is critical in what will turn out to be a very innovative way. If we delete it now, we can just wait a couple of months til he becomes a well known intellectual and the start over.--Thomas Basboll 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• • "It sounds like you realize he isn't notable now, but think we should keep the page because he will be in a few months. I say let him acheive notability on his own, and then we can include him. In Wikipedia:Notability (people) it says, "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Just a minute ago I was looking for reviews of his book, and couldn't find anything. There is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." I guess that's a judgement call. To me he's just another one of those we have too many bios of already. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep absolutely I'm amazed that this is under discussion. Ken Thompson was one of the first 9/11 researchers, one of the deepest, and one who does the least amount of speculation in his research. He uses thousands of links to publicly published mass media reports to delineate the timeline. He has published the definitive 9/11 timeline in bookform and on a website that is widely read. He is also seen in the movie 9/11: Press for Truth. Furthermore, I'll go on to object to editors who claim he is "not notable". To make this claim shows clear POV and I regard it as aggressive editing. If you disagree, please read up on the wikipedia trifecta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimiddleton (talk • contribs) 15:11, September 13, 2006
  • • Comment Dude, this is an article about Paul Thompson, not Ken Thompson. Morton devonshire 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep despite my bias against. Several hits at Google news :) Dlohcierekim 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect Already covered enough in the book entry. JoshuaZ 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If that fails, Merge. Do not keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect (This result wouldn't require a vote, but there's nothing that should be here which isn't under the book.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into The Terror Timeline --Bill.matthews 02:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The information I added about Paul Thompson to The Terror Timeline has been deleted and I am in dialogue on the article talk page with a view to restoring it. Should the decision be for a merge, then the community consensus can validate its restoration as the simplest way for the merge to be performed. Tyrenius 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg above Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as his notability is entirely linked to the book. Pascal.Tesson 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into The Terror Timeline Travb (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into The Terror Timeline GunnarRene 04:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Paul Tompson deserves a Wikipedia bio if anyone does. Only reason there are calls for its deletion is because its part of the ongoing cover up. Calling for deletion is simply Orwellian.— Possible single purpose account: 74.130.29.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Merge with The Terror Timeline aricle per Tyrenius SalvNaut 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge as above. --JRA WestyQld2 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Garbage. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:58, 21 September 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.