Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus. If the verifiability issues aren't cleared up such that all the maintenance tags ({{OR}} et al) aren't removed by consensus in a reasonable period of time, this article should be relisted without prejudice. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Buell Anderson

Also for deletion Endeavor Academy

I took a bit of time researching this, and although he looks like a swell guy, he simply doesn't meet WP:BIO- 432 Google. The school he started doesn't meet WP:ORG nor WP:CORP and after reading the links on both of the pages, they are mainly self-published resources. The Talk pages on the man have instructions on top and it looks like the area is being used by his fans which are old students (and some of which aren't exactly happy). I am nominating these articles to be deleted on the grounds that they haven't any reliable secondary sources, and are both completely original research. This article also uses sources written by the authors of the article, as well as one of the authors of this article being autobiographically close to the subject matter. Basically this article is was an attack page in disguise. Please see the cite listings again, the actual authors of the web sites are listed. The clear relationship of self-published resources should now be apparent. Please note the first diffthe intitial page, and a later diff. Make note of the editors names.

Ste4k 14:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --NMChico24 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge bio (with much trimming) to the school article, Keep the school and tag for cleanup and sourcing. School is notable, especially given its triple standing as a school, a religious movement, and a planned community. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (or merge to Endeavor Academy -20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) The article is thoroughly-sourced and relatively NPOV. A Course in Miracles and related topics are a notable field of esoteric religion. Anderson is called the "Master Teacher" by an apparently large number of adherents. I disagree that the only sources are slef-published. On the contrary, the many reliable sources about him are proof of his notability. This page alone:[1] has links to two dozen newspaper articles about him. -Will Beback 08:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I checked that link and only found material written from a single source about alleged articles rather than links to two dozen various sources of actual newpaper articles. The owner of the web site you mentioned is Ross, Rick, living at [address removed], and does not appear to meet the criteria as a reputible secondary source. Ste4k 09:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The links in the articles are to reprints of articles from newspapers. Have you looked at them? Newspapers are reliable sources. I don't see why the webmaster's address is relevent. -Will Beback 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually I have, please see my analysis of those on the accompanying Disscussion page. Thanks. Ste4k 11:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the lead, I found one credible resource for the entire article now. Please see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/06/48hours/main73248.shtml It should be noted here, however, that using this one source for the article would require such a rewrite to avoid WP:NOR that the content in both of these articles would basically all be deleted, since we can only reprint the facts from the sources that we have cited. Correct? Ste4k 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh I just noticed, that the words in the two versions of that article are different; i.e. the actual article from the CBS archives differs from the article printed on the web site. Does this answer your question a little more about published sources and especially in regards to WP:RS in section 6 where it mentions "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources"? Ste4k 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • CBS News did a whole "48 Hours" segment on this group and you say they aren't notable? I think you've disproved your own case. -Will Beback 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
            • If you read the article that 48 hours wrote, it hasn't anything to do with the content in this article. That makes the content in this article original research. The article that 48 hours wrote, was apparently about a person who left the academy. If you feel that person should have an article of their own, then please feel free to write one. Thanks. Ste4k 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
              • The piece is titled "Leaving Endeavor Academy". That makes its subject fairly clear. An article doesn't have to be 100% about a subject for it to be a useful source. As it happens the piece discusses Endeavor Academy and quotes Anderson. -Will Beback 18:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
                • But since there is nothing from the CBS article content that's included in the Wikipedia article content, the CBS article is basically just moot material. And for the same reasons, basically none of these sources are useful for anything. This pseudo-biography hasn't a leg to stand on. It's completely bogus, original research, and an attack page in disguise. We shouldn't be including things in this biography that aren't already published somewhere else. That's WP:OR in a nutshell. This has nothing to do with notability at all. If this person were notable in the least bit, then we would be able to find reliable sources that give biographical data on him. But there aren't any of those available, especially not in the list that is cited. Also, because we now know that this article was created as an attack page, it falls under WP:CSD#A6 criterion for speedy delete. Ste4k 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

<-- "[W]e now know that this article was created as an attack page". How do we know this? -Will Beback 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

    • The clear relationship of self-published resources should now be apparent. Please note the first diffthe initial page, and a later diff. Please note in the cited sources that the first three sources are web sites owned by the original author. Also notice the seventh cited source is a pointer to a web site owned by the other author whom claims to have been previously closely related with the subject-person of the bio. The content on those sites, and well as the content on the talk Discussion pages of the main article, should provide you with enough information to determine this for yourself. Ste4k 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, those are two links to the same diff. I'm not sure what the second diff is, but if it's anything like the first, it simply isn't proving what you say it's proving: "this article has inappropriate external links" has little or no connection with "this article was created as an attack page", much less proving it to be the case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Please accept my apologies for the manual error. But also be aware that there are several topics being discussed here and these diffs are referring to the original authors of this biography. Here is the initial page. Make note of the editors names. Ste4k 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep or Strong Merge to Endeavor Academy. The original nomination reads as if it might have been made in good faith. His argument that sources do not exist if the only place they are readily available online are "personal websites" is a specious argument that has been tried before in other cases, and has been quite rightly rejected -- but it still might have been the argument of someone just very confused about whether Wikipedia values the letter of the rules or the spirit. But after that, Ste4k's behavior shows clear bad faith. Anyone can check it and see. Ste4k: "Oh I just noticed, that the words in the two versions of that article are different; i.e. the actual article from the CBS archives differs from the article printed on the web site." (emphasis in original) Reality: the only differences are paragraph breaks and a typo ("talkd") in the CBS version that does not appear in the version on the Ross site. Ste4k: "If you read the article that 48 hours wrote, it hasn't anything to do with the content in this article. That makes the content in this article original research. The article that 48 hours wrote, was apparently about a person who left the academy. If you feel that person should have an article of their own, then please feel free to write one." Reality: In the two segments that 48 Hours did on Chuck Anderson, individual couples (yes, couples, as opposed to "a person") are used as examples of what people say about Chuck Anderson, but Anderson is clearly the focus. In short: This is a very dishonest AfD; not only should the article be kept, but Ste4k should be chastised for acting so dishonestly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Update: Specifying my vote to be: Merge Charles Buell Anderson to Endeavor Academy, Strong Keep Endeavor Academy. The pretexts that have been offered for deletion are embarrassingly hollow. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There isn't anything in the current article that even remotely resembles the content of the CBS article as previously stated. Also, please keep good faith. Hadn't the admin been asking me the questions to investigate further, I wouldn't have ever found those articles on CBS. In a nutshell, those two CBS articles should have been used to create an article about people who have complaints about this person rather than siting a source that sourced a third party in a list of 22 different reprints, many of which aren't related. After reading your note, I went back to re-read again sentence per sentence the one article entitled "Leaving...". It appears that your analysis is correct at this time. Earlier this morning the quotation from Rick Ross, was changed to his own words. There isn't anything "wrong" with that, of course, since they were his own words and it is his own web site. However, clearly none of the information from his web site could reaonably be used in an unbiased fashion to create a biography for this other man. Therefore, we still have a biography which is bogus, and cited sources that are useless for anything related to such a biography. Ste4k 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • There isn't anything in the current article that even remotely resembles the content of the CBS article as previously stated. Whether that's true or false, that's irrelevant, because you started out this AfD arguing that a) he wasn't notable enough to meet WP:BIO and b) there were no reliable secondary sources. I think it's quite clear that both of those have been proven false. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The burden of proof is on the author. Where is the proof that he meets WP:BIO? Where is the proof that there are reliable secondary sources for this article? Ste4k 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
          • There is also a burden of civility upon each editor to not perpetrate inanities such as "48 Hours is not a reliable secondary source." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
            • And who said this? If you read my comments carefully you will note that I suggest using 48 hours directly. You will also note that the articles provided by 48 hours are superfluous since they are only speaking about other peoples' opinions. Yes, they say it is a fact that other people have complaints and negative opinions about Anderson. So what? You have a complaint about my nomination as well, should we call 48 Hours and see if we can get our names in this article since your complaint is about Anderson? I consider your implication rude, unfounded, and twisting facts rather than discussing criteria is detrimental rather than helpful. Ste4k 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Wow. That last comment is completely devoid of any logic or reason. If a major news source prints an article which contains people talking about the subject of this Wikipedia article, then it certainly counts as a secondary source and deserves mention. "[S]hould we call 48 Hours and see if we can get our names in this article." This is playground level discourse. And ending it by accusing the editor of being rude, unfounded and twisting the facts is priceless. --Nscheffey(T/C) 20:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Do you think so? What exact information should be added to Anderson's biography now in that regards? I noticed that you added the link to the page as a reference but failed to include any material on the page from the article you cited. Do you intend to add some original research saying something like, "two couples made complaints about Anderson"? Is there anything neutral at all about adding this link to the page? Can you explain simply what relationship it has to a person whom we haven't even a resource to know his age? Again, so what? There are millions of people that don't like other people for one reason or another. Do you believe that adding one more factual instance will somehow give Anderson more notability? How exactly can you justify such a link and still remain within the guidlines which state that articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind? How many thousands if not hundreds of thousands, of people have made public complaints in the regular media about President Bush? How many have made comments about him on more than one occassion? How come none of the literally hundreds of experts on small web-sites aren't adequately represented nor mentioned on our article about him? According to you: "If a major news source prints an article which contains people talking about the subject of this Wikipedia article, then it certainly counts as a secondary source and deserves mention." So why did you add the link and have nothing within it to mention? I also noticed that you reverted the article and added a link which was incorrectly supplied. Did you have any justification for your original research in that regard? Or did you just make an assumption that it was correct to begin with? Ste4k 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Ste4k, please stop using the term "original research", since you evidently have no idea what it means. "Do you intend to add some original research saying something like, "two couples made complaints about Anderson"?" That is not original research, that is source-based research. If you are truly incapable of grasping the distinction then perhaps you should excuse yourself from editing on Wikipedia since you are apparently incapable of doing so non-disruptively. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the link recently, since policies do change, this is probably the issue. Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is original research. Please note the intent of the article in the first paragraph which plainly shows the intent of the original authors: "Anderson has a policy of seldom granting personal interviews. One of the results of this interview policy being that some facts and dates regarding his earlier life are less readily available. Still, many facts about his early life can be assembled from a few published documents." And this includes adding bits pieces of fifteen year old testamony from unreliable sources together to prove a point rather than simply report the facts. Beyond that, though, your misinterpretation of the laws involved regarding "A Course In Miracles" show only that you haven't bothered to read much about this man, or his involvement in this case. The District Court of New York has already established that the version of "The Course" which is associated with Charles Buell Anderson is not the same version of the course that you just linked again into his biography, and which is known at large by the trademark "ACIM". I appreciate that you at least brought the matter to discussion, but ADDING material which is patently false to an article carries with it the burden of proof of the author. Since this is your addition, now, I suggest that you remove it unless you can prove the opinon of the New York District Court incorrect. I removed it because I have read the court's opinion on the matter and per policy and per Jimbo Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Ste4k 03:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • Let me cut through the rambling nonsense. The 48 Hours article is about criticism of Anderson. People looking for info on Anderson would probably want to see this. It belongs in external links. Ste4k what in the name of God are you talking about? Try to answer in one or two clear concise sentences. --Nscheffey(T/C) 09:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
                        • Let me give you a direct answer. If the only sources are external, and the rest article hasn't any sources, then what sort of content do you intend to have on the page to provide any context for those links? Let me provide a quick example. The very first clause of the thesis is "Charles Buell Anderson, born ca. 1926". We don't even have a source reference for that. Should it be deleted? Or just marked up like it is? According to the guidelines it should be deleted. Do you have a source that we can use to verify that very first clause? Ste4k 10:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The references do not amount to much. The media sources are mainly local papers and radio. In my town we have a street beggar called Billy The Quid - he's appeared many times in the local media, but that doesn't make him suitable for entry in an international encyclopedia. That people are interested and have filled the Talk pages with comments suggests some interest, though almost all content has been written by one person for over a year. That the article is slanted with subtle but obvious comments against Charles Buell Anderson, with allegations of sexual and physical abuse, gives serious cause for concern. This is a living person in which the article makes serious allegations of sexual abuse based on internet forum gossip. I have removed those allegations. I am having a hard time seeing how the article can remain in its current form. And, as the man seems to be known mainly by his ex-students, his notabiliy even in a balanced article is questionable. SilkTork 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Each of the references are discussed in detail on the Discussion page of the article in conversation between myself and editor/admin Will Beback -- Ste4k 23:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neither of the 2 websources for this article ar WP:RS - they are primary source material from agenda-pushing groups. would change vote if neutral print secondary source could be found, as otherwise material is entirely unverifiable. Zzzzz 12:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Citations are not sufficient, and he's non-notable anyway. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into another ACIM article more upstream. This is just part of the ACIM Walled garden. --Pjacobi
  • Keep This person has been found to be notable by a number of newspapers TV shows, and radio shows. This satisfies the criteria for Wikipedia notability. The reports of charges of sexual abuse there are legally and publicly documented. The reports of harboring sexual offenders there are legally documented. I am not certain why certain Wiki editors hold that press notability is no longer a suitable criteria for inclusion in Wiki. -Scott P. 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Were you under the impression that he was notable last year when you created a talk page to try and find out any information about him? Have you been able to establish any more notability since that time? Ste4k 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge with Endeavor Academy. Anderson and the Endeavor Academy are examined, and Anderson is quoted, in a two part 48 hours special. Not sure why people think there arent any sources for this guy or that he and his organization are non-notable. --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well for one, the 48 hours article is only talking about one guy's opinion. And for two, there isn't even any mention of anyone named Anderson in the court case. The court case does however go into pretty much detail about all the actual people involved, including things like where they worked, how much money they made, etc. etc. Like I said before, if you think that a couple shows about some guy complaining about some other guy regarding something that happened nearly ten years ago is worth an article, then maybe you should write one because there isn't any information from that CBS article that's in either of these two articles nominated for deletion. So what's merging a bunch of unsourced information going to do? Ste4k 04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • According to the article written in 1999: "Ross believes that Anderson's sway over those in the Academy could end tragically. Using the example of Marshall Applewhite, who led all 38 members of the Heaven's Gate cult to mass suicide two years ago, Ross says Anderson's leadership role could be a prescription for tragedy." Okay, so, it's been like seven years now. (*yawn*) Looks like Ross was wrong. So who cares? Don't you think the encyclopedia should sort of wait for something to occur before reporting it? No wonder none of this source was ever put into the article! Ste4k 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, non-notable figure, and citations are not reliable sources. Find some and I may change my mind. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep For Christ's sake! CBA spearheaded and overthrew the copyright to one of the best-selling spiritual books of the 20th century. Endeavor Academy is listed on many cult lists, and was featured on a major newsprogram.... something similar to 60 minutes. Sethie 03:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You must have read something to that effect, do you have a source? According to the U.S. District Court, this man the organization that students associate with this man (his name isn't even mentioned in the lawsuit) was sued by Penguin Books and was the defendant in that trial. The "major newsprogram", 48hours has already been discussed. It was an interview with a witch hunter who made quite a few claims seven years ago that never came true. Do you think we should be reporting failed prophecy? The segment was actually more about the witch hunters than the subjects they hunted. The most we could say would be "one witch hunter thought that this person would commit mass murder" and even that statement would be original research since it was also not published anywhere. Ste4k 11:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep: Obscure content isn't harmful, so these articles should not be judged according to notability. The articles should be kept given that:
  1. in principle verifiable matters of fact (where Endeavor Academy is located, when it was founded, etc.) are either tagged (if they are sourceless), or given sources. Sources for this information need not be strictly reliable secondary sources, but should be qualified as such if they don't meet this criteria.
  2. all synthetic, normative claims, espectially those relating to the character or credibility of Endeavor Academy, Charles Anderson, or any other individual, institution, or text related to ACIM, is removed, unless they are statements from strictly reliable secondary sources. It should be explicit that claims of character or credibility are made according to the source in the article body.
—Antireconciler 03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that I've already mentioned that if all of the synthesized information were removed, there really wouldn't be anything left in this article for it to meet WP:BIO. Whatever this man is supposed to have done in the past, didn't happen, is old news, and one interview about some equally un-notable person complaining about him seven years ago looks more like the complaintant was cheated out of his share of a con-game if you ask me. In that article from 48 hours he even says that he used to be Anderson's right hand man. If Anderson is some kind of con-man, that doesn't give this other guy much credibility. The whole article reeks of disgruntled people that knew this man personally. In itself that doesn't make the subject notable, on the contrary, it's a pretty good reason to toss the article into the bit-bucket, since all of these sources are then primary sources which we aren't allowed to be using per WP:VER Ste4k 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Since new reliable information about Charles Anderson is unlikely, and the page is very short, I've merged his biographical information with Endeavor Academy. I've also removed non-neutral, unverified information from Endeavor Academy. I revote:
—Antireconciler 18:53, 9 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Charles_Buell_Anderson_bd6e.html"