- 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 keep. MBisanz talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- James Hatfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Every reference in this article 404s except for one self-published essay on a no-name website, and it is not at all clear that this person meets notability criteria. -- LWG talk 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although since the subject is dead, how can the article have BLP issues. In some ways it seems to involve an end run around BLP issues with other subjects, dumping accusations here where they can pass in with less scrutiny. No evidence to show sustained and long-standing impact, or actual reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, forgot he was dead, so BLP doesn't apply. Nonetheless this article makes some controversial assertions without any sourcing whatsoever. -- LWG talk 22:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @LWG and Johnpacklambert: Do either of you happen to have a little time? Access to older newspapers? I ask because this book was a major scandal during the George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000, a sort of October surprise - except that it was quickly exposed as a fraud. Certainly an article is warranted. the first link I happened to click was an article about a documentary film made about a minor NYC journalist who seems to have so hated G. Bush that he imagined the allegations were true and sought to promote the book for years (or something like that - I just linked it into article). then I checked the NY Times. Wow! the Editor at St. martins resigned over this here's the NYTimes search [1] Loads more in the proquest archive, although hatfield often used initials instead of first name.
- Point is this is going to take some time to unpack. Hoaxes are complicated beasts, and I suspect that the other irregularities in Hatfield's life limned in the article may pan out as well. All I have searched so far is "James Hatfield" + "Fortunate Son." Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @LWG: Went in and quickly sourced Hatfield's death to WaPo. WaPo article has lots of details. It may be that the article has been PRODed previously not because topic is non-notable, but from some sort of other motivation. Certainly needs improvement. sigh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I still do not see good grounds for keeping the article. Hatfield was a crook and a conman, but not receiving the level of coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Two bluelinked books (each a hoax, one a James Bond hoax, the other a George W. Bush hoax). His suicide covered in major newspapers nationwide. All and all he's a pretty notable "crook and conman" whose activities have continued to attract media attention in the years since his death. I frankly cannot see deletion as an option.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but only by the fact there are in fact over 1,000 library collections for the 1 book listed, and that's sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on fact there are in fact over 1,000 library collections for the 1 book listed, and has received sufficient media attention since his death. Shotgun pete (talk) 6:19, 20 November 2016 (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.