Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Campion
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Consensus was that the subject passes the notability guidelines for authors. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicholas Campion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to expand on this article (does not meet WP:GNG). He does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC either. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would also suggest that there might have been some COI editing around this person - in the past, I suspected that a couple of SPAs seemed to focus on introducing content that sets Campion in a positive light - but I haven't noticed any recently. Just a heads-up... bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that the article presented (until today when I rectified the situation) Campion as simply a historian, but omitted to mention that he was the Daily Mail astrologer and president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, which, if anything, are the genuine claims of potential notability, as he clearly doesn't pass WP:PROF. It certainly does seem to have been written in a way to present him as an objective researcher into the social phenomenon of astrology rather than a believer in it. Again, this is just a point of information - I haven't yet formed an opinion about whether the article should be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not convinced that he passes WP:PROF, but he seems to have a high enough profile as an astrologer to pass WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. In particular I just added to the article five reliable sources, some in high profile international newspapers, concerning his astrological books. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any source you have added that gives significant coverage of Campion. What part of WP:AUTHOR is met? You appear to have added passing mentions like [1][2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added significant coverage of his works, the four reliably published reviews in references 10-14 of this version. (I also added reference 9 but that one only mentions one of his works in a trivial way.) This is not a celebrity gossip site; we don't need significant coverage of who he's dating or whatever. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We need significant coverage of him in some way. All we have is citations showing he had books (which is what you have used the references for as well). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of his books is coverage of him, no different from reviews of a concert being coverage of a musician. And your description of what the citations show is seriously misleading. They describe what's in his books, rather than merely being a catalog of them, and by being published in major newspapers they show that the works are likely of interest to a broad section of the population. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not mischaractertized them. I merely am noting that they aren't about him in what they cover. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning, they're not about his personal life? Who cares. That's not the sort of coverage we need for someone whose notability does not rest on the details of their personal life. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't give anything sourced to say about anything beyond noting that he had a book. Which is what you did with the sources. Articles about authors aren't just meant to be book lists. Contrast that with, say, Terry Pratchett. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are losing credibility each time you repeat this falsehood. Boner's review has three long paragraphs of text; Heath-Stubb's has five. What they say doesn't happen to be incorporated into our article yet, but it's there. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't give anything sourced to say about anything beyond noting that he had a book. Which is what you did with the sources. Articles about authors aren't just meant to be book lists. Contrast that with, say, Terry Pratchett. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning, they're not about his personal life? Who cares. That's not the sort of coverage we need for someone whose notability does not rest on the details of their personal life. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not mischaractertized them. I merely am noting that they aren't about him in what they cover. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of his books is coverage of him, no different from reviews of a concert being coverage of a musician. And your description of what the citations show is seriously misleading. They describe what's in his books, rather than merely being a catalog of them, and by being published in major newspapers they show that the works are likely of interest to a broad section of the population. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We need significant coverage of him in some way. All we have is citations showing he had books (which is what you have used the references for as well). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added significant coverage of his works, the four reliably published reviews in references 10-14 of this version. (I also added reference 9 but that one only mentions one of his works in a trivial way.) This is not a celebrity gossip site; we don't need significant coverage of who he's dating or whatever. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any source you have added that gives significant coverage of Campion. What part of WP:AUTHOR is met? You appear to have added passing mentions like [1][2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to pass WP:AUTHOR, criterium 3 "The person has created...a collective body of work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" / criterium 4 "The person's work (or works)... has won significant critical attention". Cavarrone (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links in the articles called "review of .." aren't all actually dedicated reviews. This doesn't look like a serious review: Readers roundup. I'd be curious as to what advice he gives Virgos: " Plenty of cultural background along with advice on diet, relationships etc (Virgos apparently … " (No highbeam access). [3] Twelve lines. You can argue for WP:AUTHOR, but that doesn't create sources about campion himself. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:AUTHOR, as demonstrated by David Eppstein. I'm all in favour of ensuring that pseudoscience and fringe theories aren't presented as fact in Wikipedia, but we don't do that by eliminating coverage of people who support such nonsense or by imitating the way that pseudoscientists and fringe theorists ignore evidence that doesn't support their prejudices. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination had nothing to do with WP:FRINGE and all to do with the absence of sources. Mentioning FRINGE, I would note the additional notability requirements that fringe topics are subject to Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There may not be enough information about him to get a good or featured article, but he appears to have gained some sort of notability to have an article written of him. As demonstrated by a few others, he passes WP:AUTHOR. Statυs (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to the nominator, you really don't have to reply to everyone's comments. It's rather annoying, to tell you the truth. Sure, you can have a little debate, but to reply to every single person's comments that disagree with you is a bit much. Statυs (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Bridger et al.; meets the established notability thresholds, but lately I'm seeing many articles being nominated as part of a wider trend of trying to exclude even any mention of certain whole schools of thought from this website. With arguments in magisterial tones, and hectoring of all dissent to be expected. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was thinking not to vote, but I got interested in the topic and made a little research. My conclusion is that he meets WP:AUTHOR by achieving criteria 3: "The person has created... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Also, I read some reviews and found that he meets criteria 4: "The person's work... has won significant critical attention." I consider this to be enough to showcase notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:11, 8 November 2012 (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.