Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grover Furr (2nd nomination)

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Furr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Dearth of reliable sources discussing the ludicrious claims proposed by this fringe "historian". Most sources that cover Grover Furr's theories are either rather unreliable or self-published(including by him), with only a few historians making offhanded remarks harshly criticising his work making claims unverifiable; there are no good secondary sources that could be used to write more than a few sentences discussing one or 2 of his many books.

Failure to meet notability guidelines due to lack of relevance of works. Originalcola (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Literature, History, and United States of America. Originalcola (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a previous discussion on this same topic indicating a certain degree of controversy around this article yet given the fact that the article does not seem to have been improved much since the original nomination I felt it necessary to repropose deletion. Originalcola (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as an "eccentric researcher" lets call it. Plenty of sourcing discussing the individual, regardless of the validity of the studied material. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As was pointed out in the 2014 AfD, there do exist sources on Furr, including criticisms by individuals who are at least considered notable enough for Wikipedia, namely John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (in their book In Denial), David Horowitz (in his book The Professors), and Rod Dreher (here.) If you feel the article is too long, then it would make more sense to propose shortening it rather than deleting it altogether. --Ismail (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst there are a few commentaries on Grover Furr's works that doesn't necessarily merit inclusion on wikipedia, their commentaries are minor at best. The article is already missing lots of information and seems to imply that some of his theories are correct or at least portrays them uncritically due to the lack of coverage of his theories meaning that most of his self-published claims can't be covered by reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But again, if the article implies "that some of his theories are correct or at least portrays them uncritically," this is something that can be fixed by modifying the article, not by deleting it. If Furr is notable as a crackpot (as another comment here put it), the article shouldn't require a point-by-point rebuttal of his books to convey his crackpot status. As an aside, given your reference to self-publishing I'd note that Furr's books don't appear to be self-published. They're mostly put out by Erythros Press and Media which is associated with the Marxists Internet Archive. --Ismail (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was more referring to his website in which 7 references are made and most of the "articles" he published was posted. Also I'm not against the inclusion of crackpots on wikipedia, it's simply that Furr isn't a notable one. Could one honestly consider a single line in John Earl Haynes book or an article in a conservative newspaper as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Originalcola (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If mention by a well-known historian (however brief) and an article specifically about Furr in a conservative periodical were the sole sources used to establish Furr's notability by Wikipedia standards, then I'd agree they wouldn't be sufficient (though I see nothing wrong with arguing the sources themselves are notable), but as noted there are other sources about Furr besides these. As for taking issue with references to self-published writings on his website, again that's something which can be addressed by modifying the article, --Ismail (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability was affirmed in first AfD, there is no new detail here motivating a second AfD. The article needs a lot of improvement (i.e. trimming), but low quality articles don't warrant deletion. --Soman (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the original AfD end without a consensus? Originalcola (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the rationale is factually correct, Furr is notable not as an academic but as a crackpot. So the “Career” section is appropriately tiny (and the large WP:UNDUE bibliography should be removed). —Michael Z. 13:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I agree with others that improvements are needed to the article, and that the subject likely fails WP:ACADEMIC, the sourcing appears to be sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agrew with Mzajac regarding what he may be notable for, the problem here is that much of this article is based on primary sources (Grover Furr's works) or passing mentions. From what I can tell looking at citations to his works, he seems to be virtually ignored in academia (how come he is still a member of it boggles my mind somewhat), it seems (exceptions are rare polemics like , his books - the ones I checked, about half of what is listed in his bio - have zero reviews[1] and [2]). I feel he should be notable for us to tell the readers he is not a reliable source (to put it mildly) but I am having trouble finding anything in the sources cited in the article or from my BEFORE to argue he merits WP:NBIO (and in the end, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, etc.). I'll ping an editor I think may be interested in this: User:Paul Siebert. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The author is an academic, though in English not history. He appears to be propounding discredited views of history, as promulgated by USSR. The article is critical of him; and rightly so. However sometimes it is useful to have articles like this in WP in the hope of preventing the gullible from being taken in. I am sure we have articles on holocaust deniers, which we keep for similar reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first AfD was closed as "no consensus". He is not a notable academic, and yes, he is ignored in academia. He is mostly known for his fringe views covered in self-published and other primary sources. Yes, he is noted as one of denialists in a few better sources, but again, this does not make him a lot more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree etc. There is plenty of coverage, though other historians naturally do not waste too much time dismissing his theories. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mzajac. I don't see a major problem with the article's sources which do appear to indicate that he is notable per WP:NACADEMIC. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mzajac, didn't mean to ping you; I was just fixing the formatting of a few !votes here. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:23, 19 May 2023 (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.