Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Woodworth

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Woodworth[edit]

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

BLP lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only major source is a primary source (oral history interview) and no meaningful results in online searches. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. czar 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:BLP, you cannot use the sbuject's own book to establish notability. I can't find anything else either.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note–I'm not !voting, since I'm not a neutral party. I've been subscribing to and financially supporting (in a very small way) Woodworth's The Match! since the mid-70s. I'd prefer to see this entry remain on WP, but the only online references I can find are on anarchy-related blogs, one local-press YouTube, and echoes and reflections of the WP article at issue here. If this article survives, the redirect made at The Match! should point here rather than to a list with very little context. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This reference almost rises to the level needed: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-mcquinn-the-life-and-times-of-anarchy-a-journal-of-desire-armed-25-years-of-critical-anar
Weak keep Woodworth, whose magazine I too read and support, has been a significant figure in American anarchism in the last 30 years. (Not black bloc-style "anarchism", but anarchism among people with brains.) While his interview in Anarchist Voices is not a reliable source, historian Paul Avrich's page-long introduction to the interview is an RS and should help establish Woodworth's notability. Woodworth was a prominent activist in American Atheists during the 1970s and 1980s. He is also notoriously computer-averse and prints his magazine by linotype. Between that and the facts that American anarchism of the late 20th/early 21st centuries was eclipsed by the black bloc and most materials about American Atheists are of pre-internet vintage, Google will not help establish Woodworth's notability (although I did find some things, like a paragraph about him in this article about the counter-culture in Arizona and his pamphlet about anarchism at Dana Ward's Anarchy Archives). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you both read the magazine, but are not aware of independent references discussing the writer in a meaningful way, how likely is it that the subject will be considered notable from a Wikipedia perspective? --Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited an independent reference, Paul Avrich's Anarchist Voices. Contemporary political movements outside the mainstream, especially those that operate "off the grid", are not covered in sources considered reliable on Wikipedia. (Initially I started that sentence with "Unfortunately", but I don't think it's unfortunate that nobody associated with anarchism has blown up any buildings or assassinated any political or business leaders in recent decades.) I don't have access this weekend to a quality library, but I think I've given some leads that an interested editor could pursue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People are not shown to be notable based on their own publications, but based on works created by others about them. We lack the latter on Woodworth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There seems to be enough coverage to justify an article either on Woodworth or on The Match!, though I'm not sure there's enough for both. I see more coverage of the magazine on Google Book Search than I do on Woodworth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both topics have abysmal coverage. I put the only usable source for The Match at the redirect's target. czar 02:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the author of the article I say go ahead and delete it. Radical Mallard (talk) 11:45, 24 January 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.