Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Leach (writer)

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 without a clear consensus. I am assuming good faith that BlackJack has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. However I cannot ignore that this biography fails our basic criteria.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:COI issues are not motive to keep or delete this article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Leach (writer)

I am the subject of this article and in view of a dispute that has arisen on the talk page and in the content of the article, I believe it is right that the Wikipedia membership should be asked to reach a consensus. I believe that due to possible conflict of interest, the cricket and philately projects should not take part and the decision should rest with the wider membership. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what the rationale for this nomination is. Reading the talk page, it appears that Mr Leach (BlackJack, the nominator) feels that he passes WP:BIO (so the article should be kept), but has nominated the article for deletion so that his notability can be confirmed. I would remind him that stare decisis does not apply to Wikpedia, and that, even if this AfD results in a "Keep", there's no restriction on the article being re-nominated immediately. If not exactly a bad-faith nomination, it's certainly out-of-process - perhaps the best thing to do is close _this_ AfD, and wait until one of Mr Leach's detractors raises a genuine objection to his notability. Tevildo (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are some potential claims to notability here, but I don't see how we can necessarily document them using independent sources (i.e. not the organization that publishes him). Procedurally BlackJack is allowing this notability concern to see the light of day. I think it's a legitimate beef, although there are some accusations of bad faith (see Talk), but if the original article doesn't meet our standards anyone should be allowed to object. --Dhartung | Talk 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Entirely agree with your last point. I would point out there has been no bad faith unless the minor details input by User:GeorgeWilliams contravene: he and BlackJack are known to be personal friends but it seems that all George did was correct the date of birth and a few other minor points. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Following Tevildo, I am quite happy to question this fellow's notability. There are zero reliable sources about the subject; simply links to web articles of his. Numerous unsourced statements and peacock terms puffing up his alleged credentials riddle the article. Zero hits on Google Scholar. RGTraynor 04:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see what you mean about "peacock terms" and I have removed words like "significant" and "major contribution" to try and make it NPOV. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: I commend to you WP:PEACOCK, one of the elements of Wikipedia's MoS, a term well-known to AfD regulars, if possibly less so to those editors who focus their attention on cricket. I've just added some content dispute tags, given that the article is not anywhere close to NPOV; there are many unreferenced and unsourced statements of opinion. RGTraynor 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think a bit of work is needed. Leave it with me. --AlbertMW (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've written to both your talk pages, as you should have noticed, but can you two please leave the article alone now for the duration of the AfD as constant chopping and changing will confuse other readers. The article has been pared down to a stub and has got the necessary references, etc. with any remotely POV words removed. As it is a stub and therefore, by definition, an undeveloped article can we please just leave it at that for now and not try to transform it into the greatest stub ever written? Please. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Talk page discussion not very relevant here. Notable enough. Certainly lots more notable and substantive than thousands of wannabe rock stars, cartoon characters and quasi athletes that are uncontested on wikipedia. Decoratrix (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I had hoped not to intervene, but “Albert’s” whitewash job won’t wash with me. I don't underestimate Jack's many, often maverick, contributions to WP (he is one of the great fiddlers in terms of moving stuff around, but has also contributed a lot of very good material about early cricket). And his ghostly presence is still evident in many articles, though he himself has been absent for a while. But I worry that, when I generate a short random list of WP articles that mention his internet work From Lads to Lord's, nine out of 10 "references" or "external links" seem to have been inserted by him. I have read the review of this work in the ACS journal (I have also read some of the book in question). The review is not particularly favourable: that doesn’t bother me, but the authors of other monographs or books reviewed by the ACS don’t, in most cases, seem to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, so I’m not clear why this one should. And the CZ cricket editor accolade? Well, there does seem so far to have been only one substantive contributor to CZ's cricket articles, so I’m not surprised that he is “the editor” there. Over the past few months, there have been several instances where an external dispute between Jack and the ACS has spilled over into the pages of Wikipedia: this in my view does neither side any favours, nor the Wikipedia project. I suspect this is but the latest manifestation of this dispute. I wish Jack would get back to establishing his notability through his valuable contributions to Wikipedia: he has a lot to offer, and this is just a side-show. Johnlp (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. For very good personal reasons, I decided to drop the BlackJack name several weeks ago and I have used two different names since then (Maverick and Ghost) and only since then. The only other name I have used was my own when I first joined. I am not GeorgeWilliams (a personal friend who joined WP when I did) and I am not AlbertMW (whom I met via WP because of our shared interests). I decided to reutilise the BlackJack name because it is associated with the "dispute" you speak of and the "latest manifestation" is a personal attack via this article. If you check the contribs of my Ghost username, you may perceive that I have been trying very hard to "get back to establishing his notability through his valuable contributions to Wikipedia". But if certain people will not let sleeping dogs lie, what can I do? I suggest you look at the article's recent history and talk page and also at User talk:Richard Daft. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Seems notable enough, if only just. --Shark face 217 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that due to possible conflict of interest, the cricket and philately projects should not take part... I don't think that this makes sense, as members of these projects are surely most likely to have expertise in these fields, and hence best qualified to judge whether Mr Leach is notable. However I will respect it and not give an opinion on Keep v Delete. JH (talk page) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. Having said that.... Well, there are two aspects to this: cricket and philately. And this discussion so far has virtually ignored philately. Read the philatelic section of the article and notability is not in doubt. End of argument so far as the article goes. But I think something should be said about cricket too. Read the attempted character assassination perpetrated by this Daft person and the conclusion must be that he has shot himself in the foot: he has proved the subject's notability. He claims that the ACS is "authoritative" (though he cannot spell it) and tells us that the last two quarterly ACS journals (i.e., over a period of six months) have been largely taken up with discussions of this subject's work by two people in particular whom he considers "eminent". The eminence of these people may be his opinion only but, nonetheless, even if they do consider the subject's work to be controversial, they have confirmed his notability. Otherwise, why are they getting themselves into such a state about him? He is controversial as far as they are concerned: they say first-class cricket began in 1801, he says it began in 1660 and, to them anyway, that matters. Hence all the fuss. For what it's worth, I believe he is right and they need to get up to date, but that's not the point. The point is that this article is about a notable subject who, as User:johnlp said, has made great contributions and has much more to offer. Come on, settle this and move forward. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a cricket WikiProject member, I'll respect BlackJack's wishes and not give an opinion, but I point out the obvious, that users' personal opinions of BlackJack the editor on Wikipedia are irrelevant to the opinion as to whether or not this article passes WP:BIO. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2007 (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.