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. I did not place much weight on the IP arguments as they did not discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Paul Joseph Watson

Paul Joseph Watson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be notable outside of infowars and own website & youtube channel - no independent sources. Previously deleted 5 times. Attempt by Jobrot to add sources was all remove as 'biased'. As such this is just a fan page. KylieTastic ( talk) 21:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I also patrolled this at NPP and also questioned it for satisfying WP:CREATIVE, nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Whilst I did attempt to substantiate the page, I did so to give Wikipedia an accurate starting point in understanding his noxious nature as a "reporter"/controversy hound (who goes as far as to openly mock minorities). On notability, both reddit and google report back a high number of hits, but that's a WP:GHITS argument and not something Wikipedia cares about. Ultimately there is no higher level sourcing for him, not from academia, the mainstream media or even WP:NEWSBLOG (other than his own). So I agree with the deletion vote on policy grounds. -- Jobrot ( talk) 02:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and protect against creation. The only sources that cover him seem to be conspiracy blogs supporting him, conspiracy blogs saying he's a plant, and anti-conspiracy blogs attacking him. Aside from a couple of mainstream sources embedding a tweet or two, that's the lot. User:Jobrot tried to source this, but failed - we can't base a BLP on beforeitsnews and the Daily Stormer. Fences& Windows 11:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The guy has millions of views on Youtube, and as much as I dislike his view, deleting a page about such a well-known online-blogger simply because you dislike his views is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.102.252 ( talk) 00:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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.