The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself.The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book. The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @ Msrasnw. Also ping @ David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself.The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book. The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @ Msrasnw. Also ping @ David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)