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. overall keep, Basileias pulled up some reliable sources Nja²⁴⁷ 10:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texe Marrs[edit]

Texe Marrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is mostly sourced to Marrs's website or radio program. Other sources include a google search, associated conspiracy websites, blogs, and other similarly dubious sources. WP:N and WP:V both require that the article contents be sourced to reliable 3rd party sources. As it currently stands, that does not hold, and as such the article does not satisfy our inclusion criteria. Rami R 06:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, that being so, please tag it to say that it needs third party sources. Texe Marrs is quite well known for his conspiracy theories, even outside the religious right (I'm not religious, and not right wing, and I created the article!!!)--MacRusgail (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article can be improved. The "Google Search" while tacky can be re-worked. Marrs has authored a lot of material and is quite well know in the conspiracy area. It would be a shame to delete this. Basileias (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Texe Marrs is regularly referred to in books by American Christian fundamentalists, and KJV advocates. I think he is a notable figure on that landscape, just as Art Bell, Rush Limbaugh etc are, even though they're not that well known in Europe.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: It needs serious work on sources, but a lot of his books show up when I search Amazon and some of the sources would qualify as wp:rs. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Niteshift's comments. Sources need improving, but notable.-MacRusgail (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article currently stands, there is not a single reliable source in the article. If this individual is truly notable, there should be no problem introducing real sources. Rami R 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These may well be print sources. A serious flaw in Wikipedia is that we assume everything is online. Having researched something else recently, I can assure you this is not the case.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick scan. The Witches' Voice, Alpha and Omega Ministries, Dr. James White, Catholic Answers and Karl Keating all seem like reliable sources. Basileias (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just want to reiterate that unreliable sources can

reliably document the characteristics of a topic thought to cover the unreliable. Quotes from a delusional person who has become notable can be illustrative. This doesn't remove the requirement for some notice by reliable sources but citations only to unreliable sources may be an ok start if notability is likely. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (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.