- 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. We still don't have consensus here. It would be best to wait at least six months before anyone would think of nominating this again. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Francis E. Dec
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Francis E. Dec ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Francis E. Dec is clearly not notable. His article's sources are questionable at best. The primary sources are merely readings of his rants, his birth certificate and his military service records. Two of these sources are trivial. The other one is a fan website. Honestly, the secondary sources are not much better. Amiran and Zuzel only mention him in passing. [1] [2] Another source is about a performance, not the man himself. The only substantial source is the fifth chapter in Sconce's book. Unfortunately, the existence of one reliable source does not make an article notable. I checked for other possible sources, but I only found Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief. I cannot access this book. However, I can gauge how reliable it probably is. Its title, cover and publisher give the impression that this book is little more than tabloid fodder. Overall, there do not appear to be enough reliable sources to establish this topic's notability.
References
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. There have been three AfDs for this article, and the most recent one was less than a year ago. While I'll admit that may not make a convincing argument on its own, I don't think that any of the rationale has gone stale (in fact, there's more sources in the article now than there were then). I think that construing notability guidelines harshly is quite justified in cases where there's a political, financial or self-promotional motivation behind people wanting to keep an article -- but here, I struggle to see any ulterior motive for why the article would exist, or why people would want it to be on Wikipedia. The reliability of the information in the article seems pretty well attested-to, so the only argument against inclusion seems to be a nebulous "lack of notability" -- but I think the numerous sources ought to count toward that (and there were even sources mentioned in the third AfD that don't seem to have been added into the article afterward). jp× g 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you implying that an "ulterior motive" is needed for an article to be deleted? This is not stated in our notability guidelines. We should not keep articles that are not notable. Furthermore, you have not responded to the problematic nature of the sources. Primary and unreliable sources do not prove that an article is notable. Only reliable secondary sources can do so. However, there is only one reliable secondary source that provides an in-depth overview of the topic. The other secondary sources are either not about the subject or only mention him in passing. I acknowledge that there were a few sources brought up in the last discussion. However, none of them are usable. His legal appeals are primary sources in articles that discuss one of their participants. The "Kook Science Research Hatch" appears to be a fan wiki. The Medium article is unreliable, as Medium is a blog hosting service. Finally, there are the two books that contain content copied from Wikipedia. Obviously, neither of those sources are anywhere near reliable. Kossy's book has already been discussed. None of the sources brought up in the previous discussion add to the subject's claim of notability. ― Susmuffin Talk 05:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The most recent discussion was no censusus, and one of the previous discussions closed as delete. Only the oldest one, back before Wikipedia had any real notability standards closed as keep. There is just not enough quality sourcing to demonstrate that this person is truly notable. We lack the multiple, reliable, in-depth secondary sources that are needed to show notability. Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on primary sources, thus we do not directly use legal appeals. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per John Pack Lambert. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per JPxG. ToeSchmoker ( talk) 20:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails GNG. - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - The article obviously needs a cleanup but this person is the subject of enough works to meet WP:GNG. It's unfortunate that most people (myself included) can't access Donna Kossy's book or The Pornocratic Body in the Age of Networked Paranoia, but having caved in and bought The Technical Delusion: Electronics, Power, Insanity it's quite apparent that enough in-depth coverage exists of this person. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:49, 5 November 2020 (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.
- 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. We still don't have consensus here. It would be best to wait at least six months before anyone would think of nominating this again. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Francis E. Dec
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Francis E. Dec ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Francis E. Dec is clearly not notable. His article's sources are questionable at best. The primary sources are merely readings of his rants, his birth certificate and his military service records. Two of these sources are trivial. The other one is a fan website. Honestly, the secondary sources are not much better. Amiran and Zuzel only mention him in passing. [1] [2] Another source is about a performance, not the man himself. The only substantial source is the fifth chapter in Sconce's book. Unfortunately, the existence of one reliable source does not make an article notable. I checked for other possible sources, but I only found Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief. I cannot access this book. However, I can gauge how reliable it probably is. Its title, cover and publisher give the impression that this book is little more than tabloid fodder. Overall, there do not appear to be enough reliable sources to establish this topic's notability.
References
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ― Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. There have been three AfDs for this article, and the most recent one was less than a year ago. While I'll admit that may not make a convincing argument on its own, I don't think that any of the rationale has gone stale (in fact, there's more sources in the article now than there were then). I think that construing notability guidelines harshly is quite justified in cases where there's a political, financial or self-promotional motivation behind people wanting to keep an article -- but here, I struggle to see any ulterior motive for why the article would exist, or why people would want it to be on Wikipedia. The reliability of the information in the article seems pretty well attested-to, so the only argument against inclusion seems to be a nebulous "lack of notability" -- but I think the numerous sources ought to count toward that (and there were even sources mentioned in the third AfD that don't seem to have been added into the article afterward). jp× g 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you implying that an "ulterior motive" is needed for an article to be deleted? This is not stated in our notability guidelines. We should not keep articles that are not notable. Furthermore, you have not responded to the problematic nature of the sources. Primary and unreliable sources do not prove that an article is notable. Only reliable secondary sources can do so. However, there is only one reliable secondary source that provides an in-depth overview of the topic. The other secondary sources are either not about the subject or only mention him in passing. I acknowledge that there were a few sources brought up in the last discussion. However, none of them are usable. His legal appeals are primary sources in articles that discuss one of their participants. The "Kook Science Research Hatch" appears to be a fan wiki. The Medium article is unreliable, as Medium is a blog hosting service. Finally, there are the two books that contain content copied from Wikipedia. Obviously, neither of those sources are anywhere near reliable. Kossy's book has already been discussed. None of the sources brought up in the previous discussion add to the subject's claim of notability. ― Susmuffin Talk 05:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The most recent discussion was no censusus, and one of the previous discussions closed as delete. Only the oldest one, back before Wikipedia had any real notability standards closed as keep. There is just not enough quality sourcing to demonstrate that this person is truly notable. We lack the multiple, reliable, in-depth secondary sources that are needed to show notability. Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on primary sources, thus we do not directly use legal appeals. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per John Pack Lambert. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per JPxG. ToeSchmoker ( talk) 20:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails GNG. - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - The article obviously needs a cleanup but this person is the subject of enough works to meet WP:GNG. It's unfortunate that most people (myself included) can't access Donna Kossy's book or The Pornocratic Body in the Age of Networked Paranoia, but having caved in and bought The Technical Delusion: Electronics, Power, Insanity it's quite apparent that enough in-depth coverage exists of this person. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:49, 5 November 2020 (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.