Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. My nomination was mainly based on the lack of neutral reliable sources that covered this topic and the BLP violations in the article. Now that sufficient coverage from Google Books has been found the first point is moot. The article is not a BLP violation because Ian.thomson's sources (even though they can only be viewed with a login/password) verify the death date; however, the article requires much editing and cleanup to remove negative information that is unsourced. In a few day's time, I will revisit this article and remove the information that is sourced to unreliable sources.

Because there is no need to keep this AfD open for the full seven days to remedy these issues, I have speedily closed this AfD. Cunard (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Todd (occultist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per the lack of neutral, reliable sources that cover this topic. As the previous nominator said, there are no reliable sources about his purported death, which is listed as 2007 (The article even contradicts itself: "As of 2009, Jack Chick continues to publish the comics which were based on Todd's stories, and the comics continue to identify him as an "ex-Grand Druid high priest."

This possible WP:BLP has serious issues because it contains unsourced allegations of statutory rape, sexual advances, the seduction of underage girls, and molestations.

The sources in the article are insufficient for a BLP. This is the copy of an email from an unreliable website; this is not a valid source and appears to be an attack page; this article from Christianity Today is not written neutrally (It is an embarrassment to have to write about the John Todd phenomenon); this article is coverage about John Todd's conviction, but it does not establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators.

This article was speedy deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist) for being a BLP violation. The article looked like this (illuminati-news.com is a Wikipedia mirror) in 2007 before it was deleted. The current text does not differ much with that version but the {{db-repost}} has been declined because some changes have been made.

Unless neutral, reliable sources can be found to establish notability and to write a balanced, neutral article, John Todd (occultist) should be deleted. My own searches have proved fruitless because of the many false positives (see the disambiguation page at John Todd). Cunard (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless article can be demonstrated to meet WP:BLP based on reliable sources, or if its subject can be reliably demonstrated to be dead, eliminating the need for WP:BLP at all. If we can't ascertain whether the various bits of the article all actually refer to the same person, the article should also be deleted; synthesis and original research are not enough for this.
Even if the subject of the article is dead, this remains a poorly sourced article. I agree that there seems to be a dearth of reliable sources in this article, and it seems to me that at the very least most of the article's content should probably be removed as unsourced, and if there's not enough left after that, the article should deleted in its entirety. Searching for possible reliable sources, I found this book search, this news archive search and this article from the L.A. Times archive, although all of these still need to be assessed individually according to the WP:RS criteria for validity and relevance. -- The Anome (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How does "As of 2009, Jack Chick continues to publish the comics which were based on Todd's stories, and the comics continue to identify him as an "ex-Grand Druid high priest." contradict him dying in 2007? Tarzan works and Tarzan-derived works continued to be published well after Edgar Rice Burroughs died and still identify Burroughs as the creator. As for his crimes, they do fit under the notability guideline of "They are notable for something beyond the crime itself." Other notabiliy has been established on the discussion page (and no argument to the contrary has been presented) and also by the denial of the speedy deletion for lack of notability. It is the reliability of the sources and the BLP issue that is in question. As for his death, I found [[1]], [[2]], and [[3]].

The John Todd fansite would be unreliable when discussing, say, Freemasonry and the Catholic church (but not Todd's views of them). However, even the fans of Todd have admitted that he was in prison and they would be the ones interested in what's happening to him. An issue of the State Newspaper in a recent edit regarding his arrest has been brought up that also shows he was arrested. Christianity Today being embarrassed by Todd is no more a reason to question their reliability any more than a newspaper being shocked by David Berkowitz or David Icke.

As for synthesis, quite the opposite is occuring here. This article is not trying to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources," it is looking at opposing sources (Holysmoke and the John Todd fansite) and seeing what they agree on. No original research is being used, the reliable portions of other research are being cited. All this is not unusual for articles on conspiracy theories and contested issues.

The great thing about wikipedia is that if a statement cannot be sourced, then sources can be added if found and if not that statement can be deleted without taking the whole article with it. Wikipedia is not ink on paper, it can be improved. Some things to consider: If the article is not already tagged to note a problem, apply a tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, {{unencyclopedic}} or {{advert}}; this ensures that everyone viewing the article is aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. It is not easy for one person to write a good article alone, this is why articles are not deleted until perfect. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake about the contradiction. I have strucken out that statement. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With a bit of Google books searching, I was able to find at least four books that are very likely reliable sources, three of them from academic publishers. I've started a list on the article's talk page, and flagged the article for "rescue". From the previews of the books, it appears that they all confirm the same basic story. The most important thing I haven't found an acceptable source for is the claim that Todd died in 2007. (Note for Ian.thomson: I tried to access the links you give above, but they require a login/password. Others may have a similar problem.) Notability seems clear, and the additional sources should allow cleanup of the BLP issues (if he's even an LP). --RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but I've found three pages from the State newspaper mentioning his death. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. As Ian.thomson notes, this article can be sourced quite well with numerous reliable sources. John Todd is/was notable. Putting aside whether or not he's dead, if there are WP:BLP violations in this article, feel free to be WP:BOLD and delete with extreme prejudice any unsourced libelous statement; I'm sure the talk page for this article will be cluttered with arguments over source reliability for decades to come, because Todd is/was quite the unconventional individual. However, he's definitely one of the biggies in the "Satanic conspiracy" movement, and the article really needs to stay. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of a reliable source, Michael Barkun wrote a book that mentions Todd in several places. I suggest WP:SNOWBALL applies here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been decided on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion that WP:SNOWBALL should not apply to AfD's. But I'm pretty sure it's not going to be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (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.