Deletion of Benjamin Alexander (writer)

Comment: The issue is . Sources that fail to acknowledge the pseudoscientific status of facilitated communication are not reliable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Insufficient sourcing at this time to write a policy-compliant article'''. eletion policy#Reasons for deletion|Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion lists #9 ''Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons''. I see no reasonable way to reasonably comply with Wikipedia's various policies until we have sourcing sufficiently addressing the communication being attributed to Benjamin Alexander. It looks like at least five policies, guidelines, and respected-essays have been cited above, and that's just the beginning of the mess. The article is intractable without more sourcing. Attempts to deal with the article have unavoidably been dragged into the territory of |Original Research and |Synthesis, and we can't even include |ABOUTSELF in this biography. The nominally "self statements" are supplied by someone else, and there is sufficient question of their authorship that they clearly fail our reliable sourcing standards. In regards to the other available sources, note that the Reliability of any source is not absolute. Reliability is always evaluated in terms of a specific work from that publisher and in terms of the specific information being cited, in relation to the current article. Even a top-line source such as New York Times would be severely called into question at |Reliable Source Noticeboard if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case reliable.If Benjamin is the author of the words attributed to him, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about his communication. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to him in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography. If Benjamin is not the author of the words attributed to him, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about the source of those words. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to him in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography. Special:Contributions/35.8.88.120|35.8.88.120
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D||WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:ABOUTSELF||WP:RSN)

Comment: WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies here. Also, all of the mainstream media sources push a fringe positions. Per , "a fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and '''in a serious and reliable manner''', by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)