Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman

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 seems to be that there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. In addition, the article may be merged with Fraser Committee, but that is an editorial decision that should be made on the talk page. NW (Talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fefferman[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person does not pass WP‘s standards for notability. WP:Notability (people) says, in part: “Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.” Mr. Fefferman, according to Google News has been mentioned by the news media 23 times over a career of 35 years as a spokesperson for the Unification Church and various of its related projects. As far as I can see none have given him coverage in depth to the extent of even mentioning his birthplace, his wife’s name, or other details that one would expect if he was a truly important person. Since I am a personal friend of his I will not bring up any other issues, but nominate for deletion on WP:Notability alone. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, satisfying WP:NOTE. Individual has served in a variety of executive leadership roles on a national level for organizations affiliated with Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, in titles including "Executive director", "National president", "Regional director", "Chief editor", etc. His testimony before the United States House of Representatives and the decision of a committee of the United States Congress to recommend he be cited for contempt of Congress was covered in multiple secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are in depth coverage about him as a person. Note that Congress did not cite him, a fact which the article does not mention (because not covered in the news showing he is not regarded as important by them.) BTW if he had been found in contempt of Congress he would have lots of company, according to recent polls. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said Since I am a personal friend of his I will not bring up any other issues, but nominate for deletion on WP:Notability alone. I guess you changed your mind and have decided to respond to postings at the AfD? Cirt (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with the nominator commenting on his AfD. You brought up the issue of "contempt of Congress."Steve Dufour (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, if it is not ad infinitum. I suppose I misinterpreted your statement to mean you would not comment further at the AfD, due to your conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: received considerable third party coverage (and scrutiny of his previous activities) as a result of being called to testify in the Fraser Committee hearings. Easily enough to meet WP:GNG. Has not received much third-party coverage since, but then "Notability is not temporary". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would further point out that Fefferman has generated probably more coverage than has been presented for any other Unificationist, with the exception of Moon and his wife. If this article goes, then I'd suggest that virtually every article in List of Unificationists should follow. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. WP should follow secondary sources, not lead them. (And GNG says: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." Which has not happened in this case.)Steve Dufour (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When it comes to notability, there is a line that is crossed at a certain point, and Fefferman crossed it a long time ago. Being closely associated with a well-known and well-covered religious movement, including holding official titles in that organization, is sufficient. Being part of a group that was investigated for what was termed an attempt to stop an impeachment of a U.S. President helps. Being called to testify before the U.S. Congress in relation to certain of those activities adds to notability. Fefferman is described by the New York Times as appearing to have "spent most of his time on why and how members of the church must stimulate news coverage" (73 Record Tells of Plan by Sun Myung Moon Aides for Drive Against Nixon Impeachment, 1977-09-19, p22, by Richard Halloran). There are book links as well; see above or this alternate. We're not talking about the long-time president of the local PTA here...this is an international movement. He's notable. Frank | talk 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But he has not been covered in depth by secondary sources as required by WP:Notability. (I personally think the world would be a better place if Nixon has not resigned, but that's another story.) I also agree with you that Dan should have an article, but we have to wait till someone else publishes one about him.Steve Dufour (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I disagree with your assertion that there isn't in-depth coverage in secondary sources; the man has consistently been referred to for decades as a close aide of Moon, as a church leader, and is quoted in media sources regarding the church. Second, even if we agree that what you say is true, your interpretation of WP:N is, I believe, logically incorrect. WP:N says that if a topic is covered in-depth, then it is presumed to be notable. That is nowhere near the same as saying that it is required or that if it isn't covered in-depth, it is not notable. I am refraining from giving examples; this discussion is about Fefferman but suffice to say one can be notable without a "he-was-born-in-a-small-town-and-married-his-high-school-sweetheart" set of published source articles. In-depth coverage in secondary sources is merely an easy way to establish notability; it is neither the only way nor a required way. When a subject is covered repeatedly in association with the same narrow set of ideas, that can establish notability, which it does here. I would add that he is now covered as the head of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom; that indicates either the organization is notable and he is also notable as its director, or the secondary sources consider him notable enough from prior activity to seek him out anyway. In addition, while some of the notability may be less than totally flattering, it is nevertheless notable that he has apparently for a couple of decades been a leader in the effort to protect religious freedom, at least in the United States, if not internationally as the name of his organization would suggest. He's not the most notable guy around here...but he is notable nonetheless. Frank | talk 12:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ICRF has also been protesting religious freedom violations in former communist countries, and incidentally defended the rights of Wiccan soldiers in the US military.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are bogus. Check the references -- a bookstore? A church directory? The references are made to look as if they point to reliable publications; rather, they point to Wikipedia pages like "The New York Times". I did a search using all major newspapers with three variations of his name, and nothing turned up.Bogus references should be removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Offline" is not automatically the same as "bogus", and of course the wikilink to the page for the publisher is a convenience because this is an online encyclopedia. Frank | talk 13:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: these sources do exist -- see for instance this link that Tomwsulcer removed from the article. And, as Frank points out, "'Offline' is not automatically the same as 'bogus'" -- links to online copies are a convenience, not a requirement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further links to articles cited: [1] (already in article) [2] (was about to add link when Tomwsulcer deleted all citations) More: [3]Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - it is not that the references are bogus, but rather that they are malformed. A typical footnote reads:

Dorsey, Gary (August 26, 1999). "Unification Church group sues state over task force; Investigation of cults called unconstitutional". The Baltimore Sun: p. 2B.

when it should read:

Dorsey, Gary. "Unification Church group sues state over task force; Investigation of cults called unconstitutional". The Baltimore Sun, August 26, 1999; p. 2B.

There is no obligation to provide an online link to a reference to a printed source, or to wikilink to the parent company of a newspaper. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is {{cite news}} that is "malformed", as "Dorsey, Gary (August 26, 1999)…" is standard output from it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Hrafn. Actually, I consider {{cite news}} seriously malformed for just that reason, and avoid using it at all costs; but I don't know enough about template programming to know how to fix it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there are reliable sources that mention Fefferman's name, and briefly talk about him, but he is not the subject of their coverage. His inclusion is incidental. Unless we can find material that covers Fefferman in a biographical manner, this article should be deleted per WP:GNG. *** Crotalus *** 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a negative BLP article with poor sourcing and of dubious notability. Most of the organisations he was a director of (mentioned in the lead) don't even merit articles themselves.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if no source tells us things like his birth date or place or the name of his wife, I doubt we really do have the sources about him. If he stood out on his own, it might be different, but it seems like the references to him are all as a representative of the Unification Church. There's really nothing to say about him from reliable sources that couldn't be as well said in articles about the Unification Church.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- or Merge to the Fraser Committee, as per Redddogg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Frank, above. Obvious and strong notability. There are years of coverage of this person in hundreds of WP:RS of all kinds. In several cases he is, indeed, the subject of such coverage (random example [4], but by no far the only one), and the fact that numerous books treat the subject is even more compelling. That we currently don't have sources on his wife or place of birth is irrelevant: we simply won't include such data, and it's fine. NPOV problems can be dealt with editing, per WP:ATD policy. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this obviously meets the notability guideline. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cirt and Frank. - Europe22 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fraser Committee. He seems to be mainly known for his testimony there and their threat to cite him for contempt of Congress. Otherwise coverage of him seems to be fairly trivial, quoting him as a spokesperson and stuff like that. Redddogg (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went briefly through the article, and it does appear as if almost all the sources mention him in an incidental context, failing to provide significant coverage, excepting the first two references, which are to a brief online profile, which again fails to provide significant coverage, and, being a profile for a conference, is not subject to terribly high standards of reliability, probably failing RS. That one gives testimony in front of Congress, or play administrative roles in organizations involved in news events, does not make one terribly notable. So the notability is fairly marginal. Because, in addition, this is a biography of a living person where such notability as may exist derives entirely from his participation in a religious movement, that participation not being presented in a favorable light, and this is otherwise an essentially private individual, I support deletion. A redirect may be appropriate; I leave the discussion of the appropriate target to the individual editors. Ray^Talk 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm a bit of a deletionist (apparently), but this is rather well sourced including book refs. He appears to be a key player within his own organization and IMO, meets notability - Alison ^❤ 05:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. He seems to have been covered by multiple reliable sources, and the Nixon connection, assuming it's solid, seems to confer notability. Consideration should be given to whether the subject wants deletion, because he seems to be borderline, but on balance I think the weight falls on keep; if there were ever to be a strong objection from him, I would reconsider. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially per Frank, with whose reasoning I can find no fault.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the mentions are passing mentions; there is not substantial coverage of Fefferman himself as a human being, merely as a human face for the movement he represents. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that when he represents a movement, he ceases to be human? :) Seriously: most notable personalities are notable for a single aspect of their life (singing/writing/doing politics/whatever). There is no reason for which Mr.Fefferman should be an exception. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But our standards require substantial coverage of Fefferman himself, not just of the movement he represents. I don't feel that such coverage has been shown to exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Frank comments above. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:22, 17 November 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.