E. Michael Jones – Administratively closed. Let's not waste time on obvious sockism. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
E. Michael Jones (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The Wikipedia article on Dr. E. Michael Jones has been up for over ten years, and it was just deleted yesterday. One editor, Ad Orientem, made this decision, invoking "NOTAVOTE" to expedite the deletion, and attributing votes to the contrary as "fairly obvious sock votes." Given that his article was entirely factual and well-sourced, this appears to be a clear case of WP:BIAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritus Logos (talk • contribs) 21:50:05, 08 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Consensus seems to be that there is no significant mention of the article subject in independent reliable sources. The keep votes are not grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I would second the COI/puppeting concerns raised by both the !voters and closer. Spiritus Logos, unless you present sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines, specifically of being independent, reliable and a significant mention (at least a paragraph or so), it is very unlikely that the deletion will be overturned. Listing your best three would give the best chances. On the other hand, I see no reason why the deleted article can't be restored to draftspace, either replacing or in the history of the recently created draft. However, it will likely not be a mainspace article until it passes some form of review process, either by the AfC reviewers or by being listed again either here or at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment I voted to delete in the AfD, so entirely sure if I am allowed to endorse the decision. Many of the keep votes were most likely canvassed on social media, I raised those concerns in the AfD. In terms of bias, while the nominator did raise concerns about possible accusations of antisemitism, no editor based their vote on those accusations because political views aren't what determines notability at the end of the day. There are articles on many people with controversial views or have been accused of bigotry. At the end of the day, like many of the Academics and Authors that are deleted there hasn't been enough sourcing to establish notability and the keep votes did not provide enough evidence to prove Jones met Wikipedia's notability requirements. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Discounting the "fairly obvious sock votes" was a perfectly correct thing to do, and understated by the closer as these were in fact very obvious sock votes. The discussion couldn't possibly have been closed in any other way. And I don't see how the deletion of an article about a white man born in the United States is in any way related to WP:BIAS. Maybe the nominator didn't read that link before invoking it? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - This DRV is vexatious litigation because it is itself being filed by an obvious sock vote. The closer used good judgment with regard to the socks. (Dirty socks are what you expect after a day's march by footsoldiers.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Deletion was a good close. The constant trolling and sockpuppetry only makes this decision easier. —pythoncoder (talk \| contribs) 19:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

E. Michael Jones – Administratively closed. Let's not waste time on obvious sockism. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The Wikipedia article on Dr. E. Michael Jones has been up for over ten years, and it was just deleted yesterday. One editor, Ad Orientem, made this decision, invoking "NOTAVOTE" to expedite the deletion, and attributing votes to the contrary as "fairly obvious sock votes." Given that his article was entirely factual and well-sourced, this appears to be a clear case of WP:BIAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritus Logos (talk • contribs) 21:50:05, 08 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus seems to be that there is no significant mention of the article subject in independent reliable sources. The keep votes are not grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and I would second the COI/puppeting concerns raised by both the !voters and closer. Spiritus Logos, unless you present sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines, specifically of being independent, reliable and a significant mention (at least a paragraph or so), it is very unlikely that the deletion will be overturned. Listing your best three would give the best chances. On the other hand, I see no reason why the deleted article can't be restored to draftspace, either replacing or in the history of the recently created draft. However, it will likely not be a mainspace article until it passes some form of review process, either by the AfC reviewers or by being listed again either here or at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted to delete in the AfD, so entirely sure if I am allowed to endorse the decision. Many of the keep votes were most likely canvassed on social media, I raised those concerns in the AfD. In terms of bias, while the nominator did raise concerns about possible accusations of antisemitism, no editor based their vote on those accusations because political views aren't what determines notability at the end of the day. There are articles on many people with controversial views or have been accused of bigotry. At the end of the day, like many of the Academics and Authors that are deleted there hasn't been enough sourcing to establish notability and the keep votes did not provide enough evidence to prove Jones met Wikipedia's notability requirements. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Discounting the "fairly obvious sock votes" was a perfectly correct thing to do, and understated by the closer as these were in fact very obvious sock votes. The discussion couldn't possibly have been closed in any other way. And I don't see how the deletion of an article about a white man born in the United States is in any way related to WP:BIAS. Maybe the nominator didn't read that link before invoking it? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This DRV is vexatious litigation because it is itself being filed by an obvious sock vote. The closer used good judgment with regard to the socks. (Dirty socks are what you expect after a day's march by footsoldiers.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion was a good close. The constant trolling and sockpuppetry only makes this decision easier. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.