[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunvalo Melchizedek (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drunvalo Melchizedek

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Drunvalo Melchizedek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's regrettable that this page has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It relies exclusively on primary sources and blog posts. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There are no serious reviews of his self published books. Consensus was deletion after a previous nomination in 2012. Not much has changed. He might be well known in New Age pseudoscience circles but there is nothing of substance for a Wikipedia page. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The AFD is inaccurate as this is not the same page from 2012. It was recreated from scratch with available info in 2019. Also, the AFD does not actually give any specific grounds for deletion except what sounds like personal disdain, which WP needs to be above. In fact, the deletion submission itself admits topical notability. Whether said topical area is bad or good is not relevant to encyclopedic inclusion. - Keith D. Tyler 12:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first inclination would be WP:AUTHOR, in that, at least in his field (however dubious), he is considered a significant figure. This is rather bolstered, I would say, by the number of the independent secondary sources already cited. Additionally, that his work has been the inspiration for notable artists as diverse as Tool and Willow Smith lends some amount of significant influence. But again, even your nomination concedes that "he might be well known in New Age... circles" which would seem to render the question moot; even you're not entirely certain of his non-notability, which I still think shoots significant holes through any WP:NN argument.
    As for WP:RS, I would point to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources:
    Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well.
    Keith D. Tyler 05:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out the guideline concerning parity of sources. Please provide 3 of the independent secondary sources cited that you think best establish notability and we can discuss it from there.Ynsfial (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS - I don’t see a single reliable source, unless you consider Jezebel to be reliable. This is in no was close to passing notability. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drunvalo_Melchizedek_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1239184800"