Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Chamberlin

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. bd2412 T 19:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Chamberlin

Shaun Chamberlin (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)

Subject doesn't pass GNG, NAUTHOR, or PROF (his google-scholar profile has a h-index of 9, however that is somewhat inflated as around half of the high-cited works do not list him as a named author - he's at 5 or 6). While the article seemingly has a dauntingly impressive list of references, these are mainly self-publications on his site or related sites, short blurbs (1 sentence to short paragraph) of comments to an issue, an occasional interview, and many-many links that do not mention him at all but rather mention the more notable David Fleming (writer). My BEFORE does not come up with much more, leaving us lacking in terms of WP:INDEPTH coverage on this individual. Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - also seems an article on this subject by this user was rejected at AfC in Nov 2016 (draft was subsequently G13ed in June 2017).Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IceWhiz, thank you for your courteous note on my talk page about your having initiated this deletion process. I much value the kindness, and after reading the links you supplied have come to understand that this is opening a discussion rather than rejecting my efforts. After cutting my teeth on smaller edits this is the first page I have created on Wikipedia, so please go gently with me as I try to understand and incorporate your feedback. I just worked out that I can search on your capitalised terms, which helped a lot!

As you note, I first drafted an article on Mr. Chamberlin a couple of years ago and submitted it for consideration. I was disappointed to not have it accepted at the time, but was advised to add more references to major news sites covering his work, and that notability would have to wait until his work was recognised by being held in significant libraries. As such, after his latest books won book prizes this year I checked WorldCat, which reveals that his work is now published in three languages and held in over 500 listed libraries.^[1] Accordingly I dusted off, improved and resubmitted the article with references to the award wins + the requested additional references (apols if I "dauntingly" overdid it!). I did not previously add the WorldCat reference to the article as it didn't seem direct evidence of any of the claims made in the article, but have added it now since you encouraged me to further improve the article with a view to notability. Thanks too for the Google Scholar link.

I've also taken into account your helpful comment that many references were from Chamberlin's Dark Optimism site or related sites. I found 11 such and have either replaced them with reliable, independent sources (e.g. the Open University, Amazon.com) or supplemented them with such. For example, the last four were simply referencing his bibiliography and I have replaced them with a link to his Amazon page.^[2] This also led me to add a book that I had previously missed.

Your comment that there are "many many links that do not mention [Chamberlin] at all", however, seems to me to miss the mark. If I understand rightly you are referring to articles such as https://theecologist.org/2010/dec/21/dr-david-fleming-tribute (written by Chamberlin, and included to establish the facts of his relationship with Fleming) or https://sterlingcollege.edu/course/surviving-future-short-course/ (where Chamberlin's work is discussed at length, even though he's only named in the video) or http://www.radicalbooksellers.co.uk/?p=282 (an award nomination for an anthology in which he features). I struggle to find any references that discuss neither Chamberlin nor his work, since I added most of them myself precisely to evidence his notability, but please do correct me if I'm missing something. As suggested I have also added some additional interviews which go into greater depth on his history and work.

I'm sure that this has improved the article, and very much hope that it has also established notability to your satisfaction.

Best, Jases76 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jases76: - Amazon, Youtube, an openu profile, and a wordpress blog do not help much I am afraid. And I do not think his work establishes AUTHOR. What we really need is WP:INDEPTH sources covering Chamberlin at length - and good sources - e.g. reputable news media or coverage in books of others. What is missing here is quality sources with some length - quality over quantity. I was unable to find such sources, and I did look. Constructively, can you point out 3-5 such sources ?Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: - thanks for the constructive input, which I have followed.

I would again stress that I haven't built an article nor engaged in discussions like this before though, and as such I confess I'm not sure what's wrong with the Open University and Amazon.com as sources? You encouraged me to improve the article re: some of the facts being referenced to Chamberlin's website, which I assumed was on grounds that sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. That seemed a completely appropriate request, but I don't understand why these new sources "do not help much" on both grounds?

Re: your helpful requests regarding WP:AUTHOR, I have now added in-depth discussion and acclaim for his work from reputable publications such as The Utne Reader, Choice, Feasta, David Bollier, The Idler and The Royal Geographical Society, in addition to the existing references and awards won. To be clear, Chamberlin conceived and created the wonderful Surviving the Future entirely after David Fleming's death, and although the existing references made that apparent, I have modified the article itself to make it clearer there.

Incidentally, a Google Books search (also under typo "Shaun Chamberlain") reveals both positive and negative comments on Chamberlin's earlier work in non-academic books by others - e.g. Deep Green Resistance^[3], Nature, Knowledge and Negation^[4], Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives^[5]. I have not added these to the article as they don't seem to be necessary to establishing the notability of his work and I am aware that you considered the number of references daunting even before this week's additions, but can if you desire.

Also, if you look beyond the URLs of some of the existing references on the article - e.g. there's no avoiding the fact that organisations often post interviews and other video via Youtube/Vimeo - you will find further in-depth discussion of Chamberlin and his work (and I'm not sure whether this is considered relevant to notability, but e.g. this in-depth interview has views into 5 figures^[6] and some of the trailers for his film are into 7 figures for views^[7][8]). As you've pointed out, he also has significant academic citations, which I wasn't previously aware of. While doing the above I also happened across a translation of his work into a fourth language (Italian) which is not listed on WorldCat^[9].

Anyway, I think we're there now. I hope you will agree that with these new requested additions (in addition to the WorldCat, Google Scholar and other links added earlier in the week) this article now meets the criteria for AUTHOR. Thanks again for pointing out the shortcomings in the article as was and prompting these improvements.

All best, Jases76 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ZI Jony: - Having edited the article in line with AfD nominator IceWhiz's constructive advice above, I believe we have now established both WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR, with new refs added to both multiple independent reviews in respected publications and books by others responding to Chamberlin's writing, in addition to the already existing refs to mainstream media coverage, award nominations and wins, events dedicated to his work, high-profile interviews etc. I am grateful to IceWhiz for both highlighting the shortcomings in the article as was, and being a helpful part of my ongoing education as a Wikipedian. Jases76 (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you should use the reflist-talk template to deal with citations on talk pages, the reference header was breaking the main list of deletion discussions somehow, related to how the pages are copied over the software I expect.

My view based on the Wikipedia guidelines is that Amazon.com is not considered a reliable source, it seems to be treated with suspicion, for example in this archive. I also would suggest that Worldcat does not provide much information other than the publication of a book. The Daily Mail is a banned source on Wikipedia. All the Amazon links and the daily mail and audible link should all be removed. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated Frayæ, and big apologies for inadvertently breaking the list of deletion discussions! I have now removed the WorldCat, Daily Mail, Amazon and Audible references as per your guidance. Amazon/Audible I had added only as sources for Chamberlin's bibliography, and I realise now that direct references to the publishers' websites do the job better. Another improvement to the article, and another lesson learned - many thanks! Jases76 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I would say the article is well written enough, but I can't decide on notability, his own writing is minimal, but his editorial work is strong. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given that the subject has written or co-written works that received wide attention, he should qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm pleased to see these verdicts, now that the article has been improved with refs to additional reviews/awards/coverage from notable sources such as The Utne Reader, Deep Green Resistance, Bloomberg News, Choice, Resurgence, The Times, Feasta, The Royal Geographical Society, Times Higher Education, the BBC and The Idler, supplemented by Google Scholar's record of Chamberlin's wide citation by peers.

I also note that no Wikipedian has supported the initial nomination for deletion across the nearly three weeks of this AfD listing, with the nominator’s own constructive requests for specific additional references having been met within days. As such, and in accordance with WP:RELIST (“in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice”), I am hopeful that a more experienced - and less involved - editor than me will now see fit to close the discussion. With thanks to everyone for the contributions both to the article and my ongoing Wiki-education. Jases76 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2018 (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.