Content deleted Content added
Randykitty (talk | contribs) |
Reply |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Non-reliable secondary sources? Please explain. There are multiple references that establish his notability from notable publications. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">[[User:Zambelo|Zambelo]]</span>; [[User talk:Zambelo|talk]]</span> 07:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
:Non-reliable secondary sources? Please explain. There are multiple references that establish his notability from notable publications. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">[[User:Zambelo|Zambelo]]</span>; [[User talk:Zambelo|talk]]</span> 07:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Zambelo, after the AfDs that we have gone through in the past couple of weeks, perhaps you should consider the notion that your idea of reliable secondary source is out of sync with what the rest of the editors here think. I know that you think that "the other side" is ganging up against you, but, first of all: there's only one side (we all want to improve the encyclopedia) and, second, perhaps we really just honestly think that the sourcing is insufficient to show notability. Look at the contribution histories of all editors involved and you'll see that all of them make efforts on many articles to improve them. That they don't do this here may mean they are all biased against you, but [[Occam's razor]] (and AGF) suggests that the simpler explanation probably is true. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 09:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
::Zambelo, after the AfDs that we have gone through in the past couple of weeks, perhaps you should consider the notion that your idea of reliable secondary source is out of sync with what the rest of the editors here think. I know that you think that "the other side" is ganging up against you, but, first of all: there's only one side (we all want to improve the encyclopedia) and, second, perhaps we really just honestly think that the sourcing is insufficient to show notability. Look at the contribution histories of all editors involved and you'll see that all of them make efforts on many articles to improve them. That they don't do this here may mean they are all biased against you, but [[Occam's razor]] (and AGF) suggests that the simpler explanation probably is true. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 09:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Randykitty, none of the sources are ever discussed, and none of you want to admit that you were either wrong or premature in proposing the article for deletion. Each time I've added new sources and these have been ignored, and not even touched upon. Proposing an article for deletion without first discussing the issues and allowing me (the only editor interested in looking for sources) time to look for them and correctly format them into the articles is low - how am I expected to find references for multiple articles all nominated simultaneously over a week or two? It isn't feasible, and yet the sources are out there, if you'd care to look - but you don't. Orchestrating deletions like this bypasses due process, and is a pretty crappy thing to do, generally. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">[[User:Zambelo|Zambelo]]</span>; [[User talk:Zambelo|talk]]</span> 11:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:09, 4 October 2014
David Clark (consultant)
- David Clark (consultant) (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)
BLP article that does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. The given sources are either not reliable sources or only amount to passing references. Tgeairn (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep published author, secondary sources. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. It's a stub. Zambelo; talk 01:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Being a published author is not a reason to keep an article, what matters is whether these publications have been noted. There is no evidence for that here and the references given in the article are either not RS or just in-passing mentions. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The article is a month old. Existing sources demonstrate notability (he is a representative of FECRIS, for example, and part of the AFF. He has also given testimony as a "cult expert". He is notable as an anti-cult activist. I've added a bunch more references describing him as a cult expert, and more.Zambelo; talk 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete no significant published work, or any other indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Insufficient coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to satisfy any of our notability guidelines. Non-RS sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Non-reliable secondary sources? Please explain. There are multiple references that establish his notability from notable publications. Zambelo; talk 07:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Zambelo, after the AfDs that we have gone through in the past couple of weeks, perhaps you should consider the notion that your idea of reliable secondary source is out of sync with what the rest of the editors here think. I know that you think that "the other side" is ganging up against you, but, first of all: there's only one side (we all want to improve the encyclopedia) and, second, perhaps we really just honestly think that the sourcing is insufficient to show notability. Look at the contribution histories of all editors involved and you'll see that all of them make efforts on many articles to improve them. That they don't do this here may mean they are all biased against you, but Occam's razor (and AGF) suggests that the simpler explanation probably is true. --Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Randykitty, none of the sources are ever discussed, and none of you want to admit that you were either wrong or premature in proposing the article for deletion. Each time I've added new sources and these have been ignored, and not even touched upon. Proposing an article for deletion without first discussing the issues and allowing me (the only editor interested in looking for sources) time to look for them and correctly format them into the articles is low - how am I expected to find references for multiple articles all nominated simultaneously over a week or two? It isn't feasible, and yet the sources are out there, if you'd care to look - but you don't. Orchestrating deletions like this bypasses due process, and is a pretty crappy thing to do, generally. Zambelo; talk 11:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)