Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Thetford

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 keep -- 9cds(talk) 06:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Thetford

Reason this article should be deleted:

Ste4k believes that this article has been determined to be noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy as discussed in it's Analysis for Deletion based on :

  • WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
  • WP:VER - Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, rather than to use them as sources of information.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thoughts and analyses.

using guidelines:

  • WP:BIO - The subject of this article fails to meet criteria testing whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 05:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • You forgot WP:PROF :) Anyhow, weak keep the article due to the high amount of google results [1] as well as Thetford's work in A Course In Miracles and his minor role in the Manhattan Project (can't find any evidence of Thetford's work on the Manhatten Project, except on Wikipedia and its mirrors...)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup the sections relating to ACIM, as these are rather subjective relative to the remainder of the biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. And, by the way, people, keep in mind that the person who nominated this page for deletion for some reason is trying to destroy every ACIM-related article on Wikipedia. He is currently behind deletion attempts of the following ACIM-related articles: Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Foundation for Inner Peace, and Gary Renard. This person is attempting to hide personal bias behind attempts to uphold Wikipedia guidelines. He/she is relatively obsessed with getting ACIM off of Wikipedia. -- Andrew Parodi 18:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote yet association with both MK-Ultra and ACIM may make the subject notable, but the article needs drastic cleanup. At present it merits deletion as it fails WP:V. I'll revisit the AFD before close to see how it looks then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Delete and merge with ACIM per JzG (or, if there is no salvagable, verifiable content, as appears to be the case, just delete). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as apparent bad-faith nom. I ask that Ste4k withdraw this nomination and not relist it until this apparent dispute between Ste4k and Andrew Parodi is resolved, and that Andrew assumes good faith if he hasn't already. —EdGl 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would assume good faith if I had any reason to. A little history: Ste4k first came to my attention on the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article. He/she placed a tag at the top of the page that said the topic wasn't "notable" and that the article didn't assert any notability. Another editor, who was completely neutral, said that the contesting of the article's notability was not valid as you can find plenty of evidence that the article is about a real topic and is notable. This editor was met with a rather defensive and hostile response by Ste4k, which can be read on the talk page of that article.
Because I was tired of all the arguing on the talk page, I sent Ste4k a message on his own personal talk page. I was met with a rather nasty reply about how it was inappropriate to talk to him/her on his/her talk page about some comment he/she had made about (and I quote) "some article". I was informed that he/she contributes to many pages on Wikipedia and doesn't remember any of them. I was then informed that I was too "attached" to the article, the suggestion being that if I were not "attached" to the article then I wouldn't make a statement that completely neutral editors agreed with.
And from there it just snow balled.... This person is on a campaign now to rid Wikipedia of every ACIM-related article, and is even slicing and dicing aspects of the main A Course In Miracles article, and doing so on the same flimsy grounds: that a few sources are not "verifiable". That is basically this person's only complaint: that some of these articles have sources whose verifiability does not meet with his/her approval. On the talk page for deletion proposal of Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Kickaha Ota wrote: "The disputes about particular sources mentioned in the article don't undermine the notability of the controversy itself." This is the only point I'm making in contesting all of Ste4k's deletion nominations of ACIM-related articles: disputes over particular sources do not warrant deletions of entire pages. It appears to me that Ste4k is simply looking for excuses to rid Wikipedia of ACIM-related articles. -- Andrew Parodi 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum I would also like to add that in the course of this edit war between the two of us, Ste4k has made inaccurate accusations that I am involved with "some advocacy group" and has suggested that I am in some way making money off of ACIM. Somehow, though he/she claims to love verifiability so much, Ste4k has made these statements without a shred of evidence. He will never find any evidence to support such accusations, because such accusations are completely untrue. I can assure that the frustration I have felt with this situation emanates mostly from the "editor" in me, not the person who reads ACIM. You are aware, aren't you, that I first encountered Ste4k on the Authorship of A Course in Miracles deletion proposal page; that is, I met him/her on the page for the second attempt to delete that article. The Wikipedia editor in me finds it very frustrating that after having worked hard to improve that page, it is facing yet another deletion attempt, and then in addition to the deletion attempt I must contend with Ste4k saying that the whole topic doesn't even exist at all. -- Andrew Parodi 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as author of widely-read book. JChap 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, did I miss something? It appears from the article he "transcribed and edited" ACIM, not authored it.--Isotope23 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JChap2007 and Tree Biting Conspiracy, notable author. Yamaguchi先生 08:27, 29 June 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.