Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Trundle

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 No Consensus. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Trundle

The subject of this article has requested its removal on the grounds that its existance may tend to compromise his privacy. This in itself is not sufficient grounds for deletion, although per the spirit of WP:BLP one might give him the benefit of the doubt provided that he is on the borderline of notability anyway. You make the call. This is an adminstrative nomination. Herostratus 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral as nominator.
• Question well, he does seem to have some books published, but they might be self-published or something, I don't know. Any idea who produced the books? As for privacy concerns, if there's anything that wouldn't available in the biography section of his works, I can't see it from a first pass. FrozenPurpleCube 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if the subject wants it to be. I looked on amazon.com, his books do not appear to be self published, although they are not too popular. He appears to be weakly notable. I don't think wikipedia would be worse off without this article.
• Weak delete. I understand the subject's privacy concerns, and I don't think Wikipedia has to index every author in the world. On the other hand, if you publish books, you have to understand that this exposes your private information somewhat. In the absence of the subject's request I would vote keep for this article. N Shar 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the subject would appear to pass the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria of being well known, important, and honoured in their field. (Whether UFOlogy is an academic field may be contestable, but I digress.) He also appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) in general by having non-trivial mentions by real newspapers such as The Cincinnati Post [1]. --tjstrf 08:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Awkward keep. The Fate Magazine and Cincinnati Post references are clearly independant coverage of his writings, whether those are self-published or not. He probably doesn't meet WP:PROF but those two articles ought to earn him the minimum level of notability needed for a keep under WP:BIO as an author. The remaining problem is the WP:BLP concern that led to this administrative nomination. Nothing in the article seems to fall within its demense, however. The ufology material is potentially controversial, but it is strongly sourced. The remaining material is not controversial, nor is it "details of [his] personal li[fe]." Furthermore, the caveats of WP:BLP's section on the "Presumption in favor of privacy" for "Non-public figures" seem to be met. To wit, the article's content clearly exercises restraint, disincludes material from primary sources not covered in verifiable secondary sources, and is not "sensationalistic" or "titilating." WP:BLP is designed to shield people against misinformation and attacks, but I do not believe it is meant as a blanket means to hide otherwise-notable material from the wider world, at least not as the policy currently is worded (cf. Talk: Angela Beesley). Serpent's Choice 08:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Just because you write a book doesn't mean you get a WP entry, and the Cincinnati Post seems to be a local newspaper that and doesn't really guarantee notability. "Top 100 Ufologists" speaks for itself, really - bull. Moreschi 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has written several books. I added the publisher names from Amazon. They sound like "scholarly publishers," but I am not familiar with them. One book is around the 500,000th most popular on Amazon. I would be inclined to give some of the books a read based on the Amazon reviews. I do not see anything remotely defamatory in the article other than noting that the books he has written are about their subjects! So far as we know, no one forced him to write about UFO's, and it is not as if we snatched his private journal out of his desk and made an article out of it, or we sleuthed out the actual name of someone who published under a pen name. Publishing books pretty well removes any claim to personal privacy about having published the books. The books are listed in the catalog of his college, so it is not as if he will get into trouble at work for having written about whaty he wrote about. What is the issue?Edison 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If he doesn't want an article about himself here, then it shouldn't be here, especially since it's questionable whether he passes WP:N in the first place. --Aaron 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "If he doesn't want an article about himself here, then it shouldn't be here" this is a blatantly false statement of policy, the wishes of the subject are not an applicable argument in favour of deletion. (nor in favour of keeping, obviously). --tjstrf 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I posted the above in full awareness of what policy says; that's why I didn't say anything even remotely close to "Policy says we should delete it." It's my opinion, and one I happen to hold strongly: A living person that doesn't want an article here should be allowed to request its removal. Take it or leave it. (The fact that it's not policy is also why I included the argument about him probably not meeting WP:N, so the closing admin will accept my vote on that basis rather than my opinion about requests from living persons.) --Aaron 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: The AfD of a particular article, for better or worse, is not the appropriate place to debate whether policy (and consensus) should move in the direction of this opinion. We cannot appeal to opinion, but only to facts, verification, and policy. An "opt out" policy might (without comment on its merits here) be worth discussing on the BLP talk page or even as a central community issue. Serpent's Choice 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: as I originally added the {{db-author}} speedy template to it. -- JHunterJ 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep According to WorldCat, Camus' Answer is carried in 144 libraries while Medieval Modal Logic & Science is carried in 128 libraries. That's reasonably impressive. And I don't understand Moreschi's suggestion that the "Top 100 Ufologists" claim is "bull" - the Fate article is available online, so you can see for yourself. Yes, ufology is arguably a pseudoscience, but plenty of people are interested in it, so being named as one of the top 100 Ufologists isn't too shabby. Zagalejo 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Claims in fringe communities often are not able to meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Fate, on the other hand, has been in continuous publication since the 1940s, and certainly has earned a position of repute by this time. Their awards and commondations are substantive in the appropriate field. Although giving undue weight to fringe communities or conflating their ideas with established thought does disservice to the encyclopedia's goals, in an article about a fringe science writer, there can be no better verification of impact than the recognition and admiration -- in print, from an established source -- of that same community. Serpent's Choice 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be worthy, and his opinion isn't really all that important regarding inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His philosophical work would make him notable regardless of the UFO stuff. JamesMLane t c 10:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Fails wp:prof notability. His philosophical work is not substantive. He did not publish with any noted presses in philosophy. His citation count is 3 or less (and given that philosophers tend to cite themselves...) The ufo stuff is interesting... However, I don't see the content there. --Buridan 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believe strongly that people who are not major public figures should have their wishes respected if they want to opt-out. In specific here, UFOlogy is a topic that draws ridicule and mockery, which raises the risks of the article being vandalized. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep enough valid arguments for keeping this have been expressed above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. The privacy concerns are invalid: there's nothing in this article that reveals anything that infinges on his privacy, and Wikipedia is organised so that such details would be unlikely to remain. There are claims to notability, but if he's being a pain about this, then best get rid of him. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:03, 26 October 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.