Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Closing debate; result was delete
m <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2009 March 10}}</noinclude>
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2009 March 10}}</noinclude>
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|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. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

Revision as of 09:45, 28 December 2009

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 delete. Consensus is that the subject fails WP:BIO because of the apparent lack of reliable sources covering her in any detail. As noted in the discussion, assertions that such sources may or do exist carry little weight if these sources are not cited and the citations added to the article.  Sandstein  17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S

AfDs for this article:
Acharya S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Although 'this user' researched a thoughtful and provocative article on the relationship of Acharya S to a relative, that should not preclude the inclusion of my comments in this forum. The article was only considered negative by her associates and they have responded with Ad Hominem attacks. The substance of the material was never questioned or disputed.Jchurchward (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many people write books. For notability, more is required than having a book or two. There must be reliable sources that show the subject of the article to be notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see WP:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines: "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." So this might be a bit premature. Also, I note that you have littered the article with inappropriate fact tags. ^^James^^ (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Please see Three year history of no reliable sources. Also, you have been editing this article for three years and have added no reliable sources. So, as you stated above, "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic..." Well, you have had three years. Do you have anything else to add? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has questioned her notability until now. It's been taken for granted. The article is a bio (see WP:BLP) on a notable person in a niche field. The articles content is very basic, so doesn't currently need outside sources for corroboration. Why you've added all those fact tags is beyond me. You seem to have some sort of misunderstanding. Anyone interested can review the "fact tagging" conversation here.^^James^^ (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the second time that the article has been marked for deletion which indicates that questions about her notability have been raised previously.Jchurchward (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and it was determined she was notable. That was 2 and a half years ago. Shall I add some notable reviews of her books? Do you remember why they were removed? Personally I'd rather keep the article as basic as possible. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been edited for over 3 years by ^^James^^ and other editors concerned with the article. In this time, no reliable sources have been added to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While not a credible scholar in any relevant field, she IS notable in that her work is popular in conspiracy theorist circles. Her work almost single-handedly keeps alive the "Jesus Myther Theory" and "astro-theology" theories of Christian origins amongst the popular crowd. While she has not sold as many books as Dan Brown or had a career as long as Jordan Maxwell's, she's at least as notable for her being one of the prime sources for "Zeitgeist: the Movie." She's a minor internet celebrity, but a fixture of the popular speculation community. Her work was notable enough for Robert M. Price to review it (negatively, but still). Not every article on an author needs to have a complete bio. She is deliberately secretive about her life details, but a few do exist, including her photograph, real name, a few family details, education, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.152 (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) — 68.52.143.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person, Jack Churchward has been harassing Acharya S libeling, smearing and defaming her and her work Since November 2007. Jack should be completely banned from posting anything on or about Acharya S here at Wiki. His radio show and his articles and other videos and comments should be reviewed by an attorney. Jack Churchward has been asked to stop but he refuses to do so as demonstrated here, Jack continues to essentially stalk Acharya S.
Read the discussion at the "James Churchward" wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Churchward
I request that her name be kept to Acharya S or D.M. Murdock only. She has already experience a child abduction by 3 strangers due to getting a hold of her *PRIVATE* information. Jack Churchward cares nothing about Acharya's safety or privacy or her family - I see he's made some threat here about writing about her private life?
I notice a mention about a relationship implied above which is totally bogus. It should be removed as it is just more lies for Jack Churchward and his friends to post on their smear campaign against Acharya S who has never done a single thing to Jack or his friends.
I remember when Acharya was being harassed here by another stalker named ZAROVE, who was eventually banned because of threats and possible libel. It may be that Wiki's lawyers will need to be contacted again concerning this latest libel by Churchward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.230.16 (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— User:84.16.230.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Ism schism (talk) Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment Once upon a time, I wrote a commentary podcast about my great-grandfather & the use of his works in Acharya S's work, "The Christ Conspiracy". After some vengeful individuals had the video removed from YouTube, I wrote another commentary podcast. This is the extent of my involvement in the so-called "smearing and defaming of her and her work." I did not initiate the Article for Deletion and a rationale person would not believe that I should be excluded from voicing my opinion. After all, don't her ardent supporters jump in? There should be some civility in these discussions, otherwise, I should just use a sock-puppet next time. Why should I have to defend myself against all the lies spread about me when I just offered an opinion? Jchurchward (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a debate on the (lack of) notability of this subject and whether or not there are reliable sources. Whoever ^^James^^ is or Jchurchward may be is as relevant as Anons with no edit history and no references and lots of opinions . As is, this article is about a non notable and should be deleted. After 3 years of discussions, debates, and edits - this article still fails notability and has no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)
  • Comment I, somehow stumbled on this a couple of days ago thinking it was about an Indian Guru. Then saw the whole trail from the past, the YahooGroup and all. I believe many more IPs and other new users will come here and vote to keep this article. And this message is for them. Please do not try to create a smear campaign against your fellow editors. Rather, you can try and improve the referencing of the article and help in keeping it. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding notability, how popular are her books relative to others in her field? What about the many radio interviews she's done over the years? Robert M. Price wrote a review of her book The Christ Conspiracy, and has also reviewed Suns of God for the "The Journal of Higher Criticism". They have appeared together in a joint radio interview. Richard Carrier wrote an article concerning the author. Earl Doherty has reviewed The Christ Conspiracy. What about her involvement with the movie Zeitgeist? She is very popular with the counter culture crowd. These facts are or have been in the article at some point, but its been stripped down to the basics. Ism schism suggests otherwise, but he is mistaken.^^James^^ (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could cite reliable third party sources instead of Acharya S' own website (which is not at all neutral in matters of establishing notability for a living person) or commercial websites like Amazon, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Find neutral third party sources and cite them, and the article can stay. It's as simple as that.--Boffob (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Boffob I'm not sure I understand - neutral with respect to what? The people in her niche field have reviewed her work - is that not neutral enough? What about her appearances on all those radio stations? Are they not neutral? The only time I used her website above was to show what radio shows she has been on and to show a review reprinted from "The Journal of Higher Criticism". Robert M. Prices first review appeared in Skeptic MagazineFree Inquiry. And Amazon does give one an idea of how popular her books are. Is that not a factor to note when establishing notability? While not universally respected, she is well known in the Jesus Myth circle, in the counter culture crowd and on the internet. As it stands I see little difference (in terms of "neutral third party sources") between Early Doherty's page, Robert M. Price's page, Acharya S's page, and probably a ton of other bio pages. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that a google search of "Acharya S" reveals 76,000 hits. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply James, the number of google hits does nothing to help establish reliable sources and notability. Citing google hits is using a kitchen sink strategy. Please find reliable sources if you want this article to be kept. Presently the subject is about a non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ism It appears to be fairly common to use google hits as a general indicator when AFD's come up. I've already given you reliable sources for her notability, but you seem to ignore them. I repeat:
  • She has appeared on many radio shows, including the Jeff Rense Show, and the Alan Colmes show.
  • Her Books have been reviewed by peers in her field including Robert M. Price (2 reviews which were published in Skeptic Magazine and The Journal of Higher Criticism respectively) and Earl Doherty. Many others have reviewed her work, but these are the most notable.
  • Her involvement with the popular movie Zeitgeist.
  • The popularity of her books relative to those in the same niche genre.
  • She is well known amongst Jesus Mythers and popular amongst the counter culture crowd as well.
Maybe someone could explain the apparent sliding scale required for popular writers? They have to be reviewed by a number of academic journals before they're considered notable? ^^James^^ (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well James, please do perform these searches to establish the popularity of Acharya S, Amazon.com and Amazon.com2. It clearly seems that she is non-notable although you would like us to believe otherwise. Shovon (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ignore my qualifier: "relative to others in her field"? We're talking about a niche field here. Why do you ignore all the other material I've presented? ^^James^^ (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The person's notability has not been established using "neutral third party sources". As the present case stands, she seems to be a fringe conspiracy theorist/author. Shovon (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability hasn't been established through coverage in independent, reliable sources. Acharya S does seem to be well-known on the internet and has many radio appearances to her credit, but these don't qualify as reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to James Please, as many have stated before - if you have reliable sources - please add them to the article. Also, dont keep telling people you have reliable sources - just add them to the article. It is that simple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply James, if you have sources that show she is notable please add them to the article. You have edited this article for 3 years - it is time for you to produce any reliable sources you claim to know of. These are needed to establish notability. I do not see any reliable sources and doubt any exist - Please prove me wrong by providing reliable sources that confer notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to add reliable sources to the article while the AfD is running, because not everyone who votes here is going to take the time to read the discussion above. They usually will read through the article to see whether it establishes the notability of the subject. Of all the things that you've mentioned, James, only the book reviews seem to qualify as reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you think it was an abridged version. Anyway, I disagree with this very narrow interpretation of what constitutes notability. It's absurd. Do all popular writers need to be mentioned in academic journals? ^^James^^ (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Do all popular writers need to be mentioned in academic journals?" No, and no one is arguing that. They need to be mentioned in reliable sources, which self-published websites aren't (usually). --Akhilleus (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about being interviewed on the Alan Colmes show, and the Jeff Rense Show, and a host of other radio talk shows? How come they aren't useful to establish notability? What about the documentary that used her work extensively? How come that's not useful? ^^James^^ (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:V#SELF seems to suggest Doherty's review is useful to establish notability, as is Price's review both Suns of God and Christ Conspiracy. Carriers article is also useful according to this criteria. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Gekritzl today posted the following comment on the archived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S: "It is absurd that this article was considered for deletion. KEEP." I presume that was intended for this page. EALacey (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Amazon.com, which would normally be expected to include excerpts from third-party reviews of the books if there were any, doesn't seem to have any material except the publisher's descriptions. It would seem that at this point, editors in favor of a keep have some obligation to conduct a search and identify third-party sources covering the author or her works in order to avoid a delete. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't believe policy requires coverage by academic journals. Although this author is claiming to come from a historical/secular scholarship (as distinct from a religious or theological) perspective, she doesn't need to be accepted (or even taken seriously) by historians to be considered notable. The criteria for notability are different from the criteria for being a reliable source. Coverage by any substantial third-party publication would count. Anewspaper with substantial circulation, a publication of a major religious denomination, a television program, commentary by a notable religious commentator, or any one of a wide variety of other sources would count to establish notability. If she is widely discussed notability should not be hard to establish. However, coverage by private web sites etc. which don't themselves have indicia of reliability for identifying who is notable don't count. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just cited the Free Inquiry reference from ProQuest. If you can find a way to read the full text, it's a fascinating read--Price clearly thinks Murdock is a nutjob, despite agreeing with her. It supports notability nonetheless. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really isn't the place for this discussion, but in all fairness... Price has warmed up to her considerably over the years, especially after reading her second book. He is planning to revise that original review apparently. His review of her second book was far more moderate, although he still disagreed with her in many areas. He has appeared with her on radio, and wrote the forward to her third book. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again I just cited more of her radio appearances, and cited her bio info from her website. Per WP:SELFPUB, it's perfectly appropriate to cite such sites for that information. Unable to source Colmes radio appearance, however. Overall, I have one recommendation to all concerned parties, echoing Shovon: Stop quibbling and start adding citations to the article. I again repeat my assertion that there seems to be plenty of material to demonstrate notability. Contra Shovon, however, neutrality is not required by WP:N--independence from the source is, but that's a different matter. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acharya_S_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=334494773"