Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles

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 was keep based only on the post-DRV discussion, and the sources provided there. Sandstein (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Wesley Rawles

The result was Delete, "keep" votes either made by IPs and sockpuppets, and / or not accompanied by a valid rationale. Took a while to sift through this one, but as noted, "quoted" is not primary coverage. Deiz talk 09:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please document the alleged sockpuppetry. The ALLEGATION was made by an editor. Another editor demonstrated that most commenters have been members and editors for months or years.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
We put that one to bed in the DRV, no need to rehash it here now.--Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Very well. Got a link so I can review to be sure?Mzmadmike (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The link is one line below this one. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23#James_Wesley_Rawles_.28closed.29--PeaceNT (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

James Wesley Rawles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

There are all kinds of problems with this one, primarily with the sourcing. Almost all of the sources are self-generated blogs, which violates WP:RS. There are a few other sources, but the links are either dead or they don't in fact mention this person. The only source offered that stands up is a quote from the NYTimes nine years ago. I'm sorry, but that is not enough to establish notability. The article also fails WP:BK, because all of the claimed publications are from vanity presses, meaning that anyone who pays to have books printed can be "published" by those entities. Of the three presses cited here, Xlibris is a well-known vanity press, "CafePress.com" is nothing more than a sales portal through which vanity-press authors can sell their vanity-press books, and "Arbogast Publishing" took me to a porno site that gave me a virus I had to delete. In addition, there may turn out to be WP:AUTO and WP:COI problems here. So the notability just isn't in the cards for this article. Qworty (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---


  • Keep -- This PROD is unfounded. It is noteworthy that this article survived two previous attempts at deletion, by a clear majority of those Wikipedians that responded.

Rawles is certainly noteworthy because he is considered one of the key figures in the modern survivalist movement.

I must mention two glaring points of error in Qworty's deletion nomination narrative:

1.) Rawles is NOT just self-published. His novel was the best-selling book for Huntington House Publishers for more than four years. Huntington House was NOT a vanity press. (See their back list.)

2.) Qworty stated: "The only source offered that stands up is a quote from the NYTimes nine years ago." That is absurd! Rawles was quoted by The New York Times again just last week! See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html?_r=1&oref=slogin If Qworty had taken the time to read the wiki piece in detail, he would have seen that recent reference is included. (Rawles was quoted twice in that New York Times article, in both the print and online editions.)

I can see that "Qworty" had a very busy weekend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qworty Perhaps he was in such a hurry that he just skimmed though the wiki entry on Rawles.

I note that Qworty is a self-proclaimed Humanist, and I suspect that his PROD was motivated by his anti-Christian disposition. (Rawles is an outspoken Christian.)

Perhaps some others would care to chime in...


Trasel (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Please assume good faith. It is obvious from Qworty's recent contribution history that vanity publication is a prime editorial concern, with little relationship to religion. Unless you have compelling evidence such as a Talk page comment or an edit summary, I suggest you retract that charge. --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Additionally, I can find no evidence this article was ever nominated for deletion under this or any other name (e.g. Jim Rawles, a redirect). It was previously proposed for deletion, which occurred after it was undisputed for five days, and after recreation, it was speedily deleted for failing to assert notability. Neither of those processes involves "a clear majority"; neither of them involves discussion at all. Please show where discussion occurred and a clear majority favored retention. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The guy has a blog and some books, but doesn't seem to have received much coverage as a subject. --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the subject is notable enough to be quoted repeatedly in the New York Times, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Survivalism is predominantly an Internet phenomenon. Rawles has published extensively in the most appropriate media for the topics he covers and for the audience he wishes to reach. He is widely known and reasonably well respected among survivalists. 166.129.83.140 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — 166.129.83.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Rawles was quoted again in The New York Times on April 6. This adequately establishes notability. If some links are not working then let them be repaired rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting the whole entry. --SRHamilton (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP. [1] well, here's a print article featuring him. So, we have multiple NYT quotes, a huge internet presence, a magazine article, a professionally published book that sold more copies than my first book. As to Dhartung's question, is the NYT in the habit of quoting NON-notable people multiple times over several years? Or are we now saying that being "noted" by a periodical is not notable, without notability? EDITED TO ADD he also apparently edited three military-technical print magazines. That info is even in his Wiki article. I gather Qworty was in some kind of hurry. So, it seems are the "oh, he's a blogger" critics above. Mzmadmike (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree that being quoted, even several times, is being "featured" in an article. Neither the "huge internet presence" nor the "professionally published book" confer notability. The magazine article, if you're talking about the one he wrote, does not confer notability. Sources that mention someone incidentally do not confer notability. Notability is being written about in some depth, not pull quotes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. No, that is not a print article featuring him. It is an article about military hardware, not an article about Rawles. And no, being quoted in the NYTimes, no matter how many times, does not confer notability by our standards. If the Times were to run an article about him, then you would have something. We recently deleted a guy who'd written an article for the Times [2]. Unfortunately, the article was not about him, so it did not count toward notability. So is Rawles "just another blogger"? I'm afraid so. And as is well-established, blogs, no matter how numerous, do not constitute WP:RS. DailyKos is notable not because it is a blog with a zillion hits, but because there are articles in the NYTimes (and many other print publications) about DailyKos. That is the notability that is missing in this instance. The fact remains that survivalism is not primarily an Internet phenomenon, and that Rawles is not notable within the survivalism movement. Here, indeed, are 830 different BOOKS that mention survivalism:[3]. Rawles' books are themselves not notable, both because they fail WP:BK for being vanity published and because they have not been notably and widely reviewed. Notable reviews appear in the historical archive of GoogleNews, and as you can see here [4], Rawles receives only 4 hits since the beginning of time. That is hardly the mark of a notable author. Again, let me emphasize: It doesn't matter how many blog hits Rawles has or how many times he has paid vanity presses for publications. It doesn't matter how many times he is quoted in print articles that are not about him. In order to establish notability through WP:RS, the only thing that matters is how many print articles exist ABOUT him. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By the logic you are demonstrating, I am not notable and my own entry should be recommended for deletion. Go ahead.

One of the things I despise about Wikipedia is that know-nothing nobodies with sticks up their ass will shift goalposts as many times as necessary to try to eliminate useful content, but will write reams of pages no one reads about "notable" things like Pikachu.

Frankly, it reeks of jealousy.

10,500 GHits, including a variety of manufacturers who reference reviews and analysis he's done. It sure would be nice if someone reading said reviews could ask, "So, who's this guy comparing this stuff and what are his credentials? Maybe Wikipedia can tell me."

Nah, the bandwidth could be better used for Expendable Crewman #3 in Episode 87.

Incidentally, have you noticed that so far you're on a largely solo crusade here?

And his book WAS professionally published in its first printing.

Now, I missed a part here, Qworty: What are YOUR credentials on anything? Survivalism? Writing? Reporting? Is there any reason YOU are notable and we should care what you think?Mzmadmike (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • KEEP. He was quoted in a NYTimes article last week, he's a recognized figure in the preparedness community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight-ER-Doc (talk • contribs) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — Flight-ER-Doc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP. Rawles is very well known in the survivalist community and I would certainly expect to find him in wikipedia. I feel that that the motion to delete is in good faith but is missing the forest for the trees. Is the goal of this discussion to have a technical discussion over the various acronyms involved in the wiki process or to ensure that only notable figures in a non-mainstream movement are covered. kcs2c (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.50.74 (talk) — 64.83.50.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note. Previous two comments are by new users. Qworty (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP. While there's room for an honorable difference of opinion, I think he just makes it over the notability line. Ribonucleic (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP. He is well known enough in certain circles that I would expect to find a Wikipedia article on him. Bnp, 7:06, 14 April 2008.
  • KEEP. Rawles is a published author and proponent of preparedness and survivalism with an increasingly popular blog[5] on the same subject. He was recently quoted by the New York Times in an article[6] on the mainstreaming of preparedness/survivalist thinking. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Addenda. Wikipedian Qworty mentioned: "Of the three presses cited here, Xlibris is a well-known vanity press." Yes, XLibris does sell dozens of vanity titles, most of which typically sell only a few dozen copies each, per year. But this novel "Patriots" by Rawles has been in the XLIBRIS Top 10 sellers list for more than two years. The book is presently ranked #1,150 on Amazon. (Out of more than 2 million titles in their catalog.) That isn't bad for a novel that has been in print for nearly 10 years. There are 146 reviews of it posted on Amazon, where it holds a 4.5 star rating. So Qworty characterizing the book as just some marginal "vanity press" book is hardly fair. OBTW, just for comparison of how well other "older" novels continue to sell: Tom Clancy's novel "Debt of Honor" has been in print for 12 years, has 204 reviews, a 4 star rating, and is ranked #112,896 for sales on Amazon. Trasel (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note.. Yes that was my first edit of any wiki entry. Thanks for the welcome. I had read about "wiki-lawyering" recently and am quite amused to run into it so soon. Is the relevant factor a familiarity with the various policies of wiki or a general test for relevance? kcs2c (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (talk)

Keep - James Wesley Rawles is a well known and respected author and consultant in the emergency preparedness community. He has d wide verity of emergency preparedness publications to his credit and his blog is read worldwide. 3towedsloth, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.18.30 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) — 75.15.18.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • KEEP. I felt I had to sign up for an account just to post my 2 cents on this deletion. I will make this as short as possible.
1) Quoting the "Insufficient Sources" section of the Wikipedia page for Notability: "If the article is about a specialized field, use the 'expert-subject' tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." Survivalism is a specialized field. In my experience if you ask 10 "survivalists" who James Wesley Rawles is, 8 of them are likely to hand you a copy of his novel 'Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse'(2006).
2) The validity of his work has been questioned as "self-publishing". I agree that someone who pays to publish his own work and then sells 5 copies to his grandmother is not automatically credible. That, however, is not the case with this individual. James Wesley Rawles was listed on the Wikipedia page for "Survivalism", his novel was listed along with 15 other published works of fiction noteworthy among the genre/field. I looked up the sales ranking on Amazon for all of the books listed: (for brevity I only listed those books at least in the top 10,000)
Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse by James Wesley Rawles (2006)
#1,252 in books - 146 customer reviews - 4.5/5 stars
Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954)
#1,979 in books - 1,261 customer reviews - 4/5 stars
Hatchet by Gary Paulsen (2006)
#3,246 in books - 1,132 customer reviews - 4.5/5 stars
Lucifers Hammer by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven (1985)
#4,894 in books - 196 customer reviews - 4/5 stars
Earth Abides by George R. Stewart (1949)
#7,139 in books - 247 customer reviews - 4/5 stars
Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank (1959)
#7,908 in books - 255 customer reviews - 4.5/5 stars
Now I think we can move past any misconceptions that this is just an author who self published a kook piece and sold a couple editions at a tent on the interstate.
I at first thought that perhaps it was reasonable that JWR's page be merged with the page for his site, Survivalblog.com, but then I noticed that a Wiki search for survivalblog takes you to JWR's page. The only reasonable alternative to leaving his page as is, in my opinion, is to merge it into the 'Survivalism' page. I think that is a mistake. Rawles is due his place in survivalism every bit as much as Mel Tappan and Kurt Saxon - both of whom have their own page on Wikipedia. cynimaddict: 207.5.100.27 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (on talk pages)


Mr. Rawles is well known and well respected within the survivalist community, and Mr. Rawles books are available through many outlets, including Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble. No harm can come from keeping the entry. However, I do feel that harm may come from deleting the entry, as it would be seen by many as a political maneuver rather than one which calls into question the honesty of the article or its educational value. And after events such as Hurricane Katrina, we could all use a bit of his advice.

As mentioned above, this Afd was closed as "delete" on April 28, then was relisted May 2 per the discussion at DRV linked at the top of the discussion. The !votes below the line were posted after the relisting. Xymmax (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Keep Rawles is often used as a resource by major media outlets just because he keeps a blog does not make him any less notable. (and I really wish someone would actually run a checkuser instead of continually accusing people of being socks...see the deletion review for an analysis of account creation dates for the "socks") LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He is a published author who, in "survivalist/prepardness" circles, is well respected and who wields considerable influence. You don't have to agree with him, but his circle of influence is large in that niche. An article on him is worthwhile to keep in wikipedia for people researching the topic. Rearden9 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Consensus in the DRV was there is more to be heard about this subject. Although the article is clearly written as an advert, I found book reviews for two of his books in the Sacramento Bee[7], Press Telegram[8], Wired (magazine)[9], and World Net Daily[10]. This is more then enough independent review by reliable publications to establish notability as an author in my mind. The survivalist stuff, and the blog, I cannot verify outside of primary sources, but should be included because the rest is verified, including recent 2008 New York Times quotations mentioned in the AfD. It should be rewritten, but its an obvious keep. MrPrada (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete VERY little in the article asserts notability independent of the subject. A good portion of the references in the article come from work that rawles produced himself. The article as it stands (other than the notability concerns, which are the primary reason for deletion) is a total mess. Whole sections are created largely from material Rawles has written. Facts are invented to make Rawles appear more visionary. I count 7 items in the reference section that aren't directly from Rawles or his blog. Of those 7, 5 are of dubious reliability. They are either blogs or are otherwise independent websites with no real editorial control. The main source of notability comes from the survivalist movement in general. 100% of the news coverage that exists about this guy is really about the survivalist movement. He is quoted as a figure in it. That, to me, is trivial coverage. Even if kept, the article needs to be trimmed down substantially. I would do it but I have no desire to get into an edit war over this guy. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleting an article you find to be poorly written is bordering on vandalism. How about, here's a thought, improving it instead?Mzmadmike (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me rephrase that for you: "I think that deleting an article you find to be poorly written is bordering on vandalism." There, now it is more accurate. First, I'm not suggesting it be deleted because it is poorly worded. I'm suggesting it be deleted because the most reliable, non-trivial mention of Rawles is World net daily's review of his self published book. It's a notability problem, not an editorial problem. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep Seems to have enough notability to survive. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Desperately feeble keep. Reasonable minds can differ, and candidly, I think that a rigorous application of our notability guidelines might well leave the subject out in the cold. However, given that he is, to my estimation, close to notability, and given a strong internet presence in sources that, while perhaps not reliable are independant of the subject, I'm willing to do a bit of bending the guidelines here. For policy purposes I guess you could say its a bit of ignoring the rules to reach a reasonable result, because I think there is enough verifiable information out there to write a decent article. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Published author, quoted by NYTimes, with a not-unpopular website. It's weak notability, but I don't think it's sufficiently non-notable to be deleted. Most of the problems are cleanup issues, COI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and to some extent WP:BLP, but most of it is resolvable; once the repairs are made, the weak notability becomes not so offensive. -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Weak notability, WP:BLP. Everything said by Verdatum really. Bulldog123 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The man is very well known within a specialized field. Blackeagle (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep for the following:
  • On-line Underground. The Spokesman-Review (Spokane). Dec. 3, 1995, page H7. (Included a profile of James W. Rawles, Orofino, Idaho.)

Some store food, gold, guns in case Y2K brings chaos. The Sacramento Bee, December 29, 1998 (Front page.)

Getting in Touch With Y2K and the Prophets of Doom. Press-Telegram (Long Beach, California), January 7, 1999

"Do you live in fear of the millennium?", South China Morning Post, April 6, 1999

How America Uses The Net (Subsection Profile: [James Rawles] The Y2K Survivalist) Yahoo! Internet Life Magazine, September, 1999, p. 108-109. <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422,2298790,00.html>

Thursday Offers a Mini-Y2K Situation, Experts Say. The Sacramento Bee, September 8, 1999 (Front page.)

Some more recent print media interviews:

Duck and Cover: It’s the New Survivalism. The New York Times, April

6, 2008 Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html*

Survivalism Creeps Into the Mainstream. Chicago Tribune, April 24, 2008.

Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World. New York Sun,

April 21, 2008 Online: http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/index.html "Load up the Pantry"

And some that were electronic media only:

The Official Vehicle of Y2K, by Declan McCullagh, Y2KCulture.com. March 24, 1999. http://web.archive.org/web/19990508031202/www.y2kculture.com/arts/19990324.ferret.html

Five Novels of Freedom. World Net Daily Sept. 30, 1999. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14119

Survivalists get ready for meltdown. April 10, 2008 CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/

Now survivalism isn't just for eccentrics. SFGate.com. April 3, 2008. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/13/MNIL1008L2.DTL

The Changing Situation of Survivalism. The Situationist. April 10, 2008 http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/the-changing-situation-of-survivalism/

Global Food Crisis Sparks US Survivalist Resurgence. Australian Broadcast Corp. April 28, 2008. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/28/2228908.htm

James Wesley, Rawles on Survival Fire Arms. Y2KChaos. http://y2kchaos.entrewave.com/view/y2kchaos/s35p225.htm

Derivatives the next (and probably last) financial bomb? Online Traders Forum. March 19, 2008. http://www.onlinetradersforum.com/showthread.php?p=98454

An opponent: Why survivalists make me want to die. Gristmill. 23 April 2008.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

http://arlingtoncardinal.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/21/3652291.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=96250

Here is the original source for same article, at the NY Times site, but they require registration to access some older articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080408131354.aspx

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE929EEB312718&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://derekclontz.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/second-great-depression-just-weeks-away-warns-expert/

ABC News also contacted him to find people to interview on the subject of preparedness. http://www.survivalblog.com/2008/04/note_from_jwr_527.html

Rawles worked as an Associate Editor with Defense Electronics magazine in the late 1980s clearwaterpress.112283261

Managing editor of The C3I Handbook and The International Countermeasures Handbook. http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AUVJYOISOM0TT

Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse from Huntington House Publishers, ISBN 978-1563841552 (November 1998)

Interviewed by NYT, NYT, NY Sun, NYT, Fox News, Australian ABC, CNN Europe, sourced by ABC...Very successful professionally published novel, maintaining near-bestseller status in self-reprint. Apparently, SOMEONE thinks this guy is notable. They keep interviewing him.

I think I'm going to propose that tagging "delete" on an entry to "improve" it should be considered vandalism and grounds for locking an account. It happens too often. There are a great many niche subjects, but a niche of 100K (and some are in the millions) is still enough for both notability and encyclopedic interest.

And Qworty: I stated that you moved the goalposts--you did, but I welcome your attempt to do so this time, and that you were unqualified to comment on this subject, which was blatantly obvious. Both are verifiable facts, neither was a personal attack.

Yes, the article needs improvement. There are tags for that. Use them first. Delete later. If you people were surgeons you'd be amputating for hangnails.Mzmadmike (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • OK. See you on the article. I'm removing every source that doesn't fit WP:RS (blogs, self published, vanity press material) and then deleting material that isn't sourced. Cheers! Protonk (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional query. How are you sourcing the paper publications? At least one person was deleting paper pubs he couldn't source online...isn't that an obvious no-no? Paper pubs are more reliable than online...BUT, we want those paper sources to be verifiable online...Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment The article is still very spammy and contains inflated rubbish such as describing him as an "economist" (if that's so then so is my bus driver; it is not enough to merely have an opinion about economics). Nevertheless, I wish to acknowledge the cleanup efforts of Protonk. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur he has no credentials in economics. Perhaps "Commentator on economics" would be more accurate? Incidentally, I believe the Huntington House edition of his novel went through four or five printings.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to call it, but it shouldn't be in the lead. He's an author, a blogger, and a TV pundit, and that's about it. Even the "consultant" speaks of resume-padding. If he consulted with a Fortune 500 company on a mountain hidey-hole for their executives that would make him notable as a consultant. That's the kind of claim-inflation that has disposed me negatively toward this article. --Dhartung | Talk 10:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
By all means fix those parts. OTOH, I'm unable to find any paper publication called "Wikipedia." It seems to be largely a self-published blog full of opinion and unsourced comments. It's also not considered a valid source in most educational institutions.;-) If there's a "padded" resume out there, Wikipedia is it. Where am I going with this? Remove the padding, ignore it, sort and find the relevant stuff. Isn't that what an encyclopedist is supposed to do?Mzmadmike (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Fom what he has written, he has consulting clients, but they aren't Fortune 500 companies. I gather that it is mainly rich doctors and lawyers. According to his site, he charges $100 per hour. He mentions that he has clients, some common questions he gets from his clients, and only vague references to where they are. (He did mention one in eastern Oregon, IIRC.) For other mentions, See: http://www.survivalblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=consulting+client

It is pretty far-fetched to think that we will find someone that has written an article proclaiming that "Jim Rawles helped me design my secret lair in the Rocky Mountains..." That wouldn't be much of a secret then, would it? -- Trasel (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't inject logic into a debate. They're busy trying to prove why online sources are invalid...for an online source.Mzmadmike (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't treat this process as a joke. We insist on reliable sources for important reasons. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I'm a submarine consultant. Don't bother checking for references, because none of my clients would want people to know about their secret submarines. but just trust me on that. Seriously now. I don't actually doubt the truth of the claims, I doubt the verifiability. Because honestly, none of our **llshit detectors are good enough to vet every article for truth, that is why we rely on third party sources. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
At this point, you'd actually have to read the blog for extensive threads on such shelters, strength of materials, ground assessments, volume, air filtration, etc. It's in there, though. I spent 23 years doing such work professionally for the military, and his scholarship and research on it was impressive. Of course, that's a combination of online and OR, but I'll bet it'll stand scrutiny by a SME. Where will you find such? In preparedness/survivalist/engineering fora. We seem to be coming back to (and this is criticism, but not intended as derogatory) to WP:IDONTKNOWIT therefore DELETE on the part of several editors.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak delete If the sources listed here make their way into the article, then it is approaching notability. I'm still of the mind that being quoted isn't the intended threshold of that guideline, but there are a lot of publications that have quoted him. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • References -- Editor Dhartung challenged some online references that I made to two hard copy magazines from the late 1980s. Per the WR:V guidelines, I have made a query to WP:WRE. Hopefully, someone can confirm that Rawles was on the mastheads of these magazines. Trasel (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not "challenge ... online references". I challenged the notability of being an associate editor. Unless our rules for journalists have changed, that is nto generally an indicator of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How many "almost notables" equal a notable? It's looking more and more (see criticism above) that the people knowledgeable of the subject are being shouted down by WP:IDONTKNOWITs. There isn't a gun show I sell at where I don't have someone approach me, comment on my articles on the blog, ask about my books, and start talking about Rawles. Usually, multiple people. Again, it may be niche, but it's a LARGE niche. It's also, by definition, a rather discreet niche. In that niche, Rawles is very well known. Honest question: When does OR become SME?Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Honest answer: I assume you mean Subject Matter Expert. This has been a longstanding issue with Wikipedia both internally and in the public reaction to the site. The short answer is that expertise is welcomed, but all contributions must still meet WP:V and WP:RS. For a longer answer, please take a look at expert retention. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In an e-mail to me, Rawles mentioned that he wrote more than 30 bylined articles for the Defense Electronics magazine. But in my opinion only one of those is truly notable with regard to his expertise as survivalist--the piece that he wrote in 1990 on High Technology Terrorism. In it, he predicted that terrorists would use technology as a force multiplier. Looking at the 9/11 attacks and the now widespread use of radio-controlled bombs ("IEDs"), his prediction was accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs)
But writing articles isn't by itself notable. And subjectively evaluating articles for their historical relevance isn't appropriate for notability purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Rawles is hardly the only person to have predicted the use for technology as a force multiplier by terrorists. I mean, tom clancy wrote a book about terrorists slamming a 747 into the capitol building. That seems to be a lucky (some, not me, would say prescient) guess, insofar as it is both precise and (largely) accurate. I would say his prediction of all-out societal destruction from Y2k is not exactly redeemed by predicting the use of technology by terrorists. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Protonk, what we would need is a secondary source saying "Rawles predicted 9/11" or something a little less headlinese. An editor looking at his old article and making a connection to 9/11 would be synthesis of sources. Of course, that article could be used as a source in an article on terrorism, but drawing the conclusion that because he thought that up in 1984 or whenever he is now notable is not the way things work around here. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to beat this old horse to death, but Jim Rawles is probably the best-known living survivalist in America. (Currently, much more so that Kurt Saxon) I think that either his blog (by itself) and his novel (by itself) qualify him as notable. The fact that he is quoted so widely and so frequently is supportingly indicative. We are talking about a niche movement, but he is definitely at the top of the food chain in that niche. If when all is said and done you find him un-notable, then PLEASE go zap video blogger Chris Crocker's wiki bio page while you are at it, since he has whole lot less to qualify him for genuine notability than Rawles does. Thanks for everyone's efforts in the re-write of this article. -- Trasel (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that. I was never arguing that he should be deleted because I don't know/care about him. What I know or care about is irrelevant. In some sense, I originally voted to delete because the article, and the sources quoted by it, didn't establish notability. Flat out. The original article was not very promising. Lots of dead links, unverified cites, self-published material serving as authority on contentious subjects. Usually when this is all there is to support an article, it is not notable. In this case, I was wrong and I admitted it. the evidence you helped put in the article established that some secondary sources said he was notable. that is what matters. I didn't come around because you said he was so notable and central to the survivalist movement. I didn't come around for fear that other niche figures would be excised from wikipedia. I came around because the evidence supported a new viewpoint. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, he may be the best-known living survivalist (although there's an obvious gag in saying that). But it doesn't help for us to think that. It helps for secondary sources to say it. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak keep thanks to Trasel's work on the article, I think notability has been marginally established (see Austrailian ABC interview, NY Times very short mention and CNN mentions). I think that the page needs to be kept NPOV and V, but notability has been marginally established. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I will agree that Trasel's edits to the article have vastly improved it, even beyond the help you gave it. If this had been the state of the article at the beginning I would have voted as you just did. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a professional writer with 8 books in print and two pending, from major houses. Based on his sales, I regard him as pro. Just to be fair, I checked with the Executive Director of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Now, he doesn't meet the criteria for our market guidelines, but her comment was, "Clearly, if his books are selling then he is professional, in that sense of the word and probably in other senses of the word, too." I'm also going to check with a couple of specialist booksellers. There is, however, a line that gets crossed even in self-pub when one becomes a peer. We had this argument with the whole webcomic scandal last year. Any book in the top 10K on Amazon is a notable book. Breaking 2000 takes effort. Anything in the top 1000 is damned near bestseller. His book in question has maintained that sales status (above 10K, frequently above 2K) for close to 6 years now. You might compare to a Matt Bracken, who is entirely self published. If you don't know who he is, it's additional evidence that you're not familiar enough with the niche to comment.Mzmadmike (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would hope by now you would understand both the difference between "he has maintained bestseller status on Amazon" and "he has maintained bestseller status on Amazon, according to secondary source", as well as between "he has maintained bestseller status on Amazon, according to secondary source" and "he has been quoted in secondary source". I am not disputing that he is a professional writer. There are many professional writers who do not meet notability standards. And anyone is capable of evaluating sources. If we just relied on what people knew about him in their gut, we'd never get WP:V for any article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references

In case people want to add some. :)


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.