Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist)

: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 Deleted 1/ negative or dispagaring page, poor sources, for a possibly living person, 2/ Article about a person with no evidence of importance/significance, 3/ Probable IAR deletion as well, on the basis that it is so poorly written that "delete and rewrite if notable" would be a viable decision. Summary deletion per above and possibly per WP:BLP, noting the WP:SNOW-tending views to date below. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[John Todd (occultist)]]=

:{{la|John Todd (occultist)}} ([{{fullurl:John Todd (occultist)|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Serious WP:RS and (since we have no reliable source for his death) probable WP:BLP problems as well.

Earlier versions contained a variety of sensational and/or fantastical assertions involving sex offences, the Illuminati, mental illness, etc, all entirely without reliable source backup, in direct contravention of WP:BLP. See the talk page for mention of this, and its removal.

Given the apparent lack of conventional reliable sources for what remains of this article (Cornerstone probably does not qualify as one), it should probably be removed entirely per WP:V. The Anome (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Definite RS problems. I won't say that RS aren't possible, but most of the cites on the page currently do not exist or are by sources that completely fail WP:RS rules. Earlier libel claims against him in history should probably be wiped out. Easiest way to do that is delete the article completely. If somewhere down the line someone wanted to make a decent article with real sources, all the more power to them. Until then there's nothing salvageable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A controversial biography with no reliable sources. If the videos posted on Youtube that *claim* to contain his audio recordings are actually him, he was a kind of conspiracy theorist and had very unusual views. We shouldn't be stepping into this realm without good sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing establishing notability.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (preferably speedily) - hatchet job at best, downright attack at worst.--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (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.