Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Maas (missionary) (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 delete. The "keep" opinions mostly do not address the notability issue that has been raised in the nomination. Redirect at editorial discretion. Sandstein 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maas (missionary)[edit]

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

This article should be redirected and merged into Worldwide Faith Missions, since he does not meet the qualifications of notability for a standalone article. That is, there are no significant, independent, reliable sources. Although previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, a subsequent review demonstrated that their was sufficient doubt as to the notability of this subject to call for continued discussion. Hokie RNB 05:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep See no reason for an AfD, even a cursory reading the first AfD gives sufficient arguments for keeping this article. Drilling down, more so.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which arguments in particular do you find compelling? And how do they match up to the notability guideline for people? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's look at the references in the article:

[1] is a copy of the Wikipedia article on Worldwide Faith Missions: not a reliable source.

[2] doesn't mention the subject.

[3] is a link to a Wikipedia image: not a reliable source.

[4] is a link to an image of a magazine published by the subject on Scribd, to which anyone can upload: not independent and not a reliable source.

[5] is a link to a forum post by the subject: not independent and not a reliable source.

[6] is a link to a Wikipedia article that doesn't mention the subject: not a reliable source.

[7] is a Scribd image of a letter of introduction: not a reliable source.

Maddox,Robert.” Preacher at the White House”. Nashville: Broadman Press,1984. This is a reference to a book which, according to Google Books, doesn't mention the subject.

Marquis Who's Who in the Midwest, 16th Edition, 1978-1979, p. 436. This a reference to a book which publishes vanity biographies. Not independent and not a reliable source.

[8] consists of 20 words about the subject in a university alumni magazine. Not significant coverage, and I very much doubt that the publisher actually does any fact-checking of such submissions.

Marquis Who's Who in the World, 25th Edition 2008. See above.

Three Million Gods. Youtube is not a reliable source, and no evidence has been provided that this has actually been broadcast anywhere.

The Nation , November 22, 2006, etc. This is presented in the article as a reference to the subject's own writings, not coverage of the subject.

None of these sources gets anywhere near meeting the notability requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and no further sources have been offered either in the previous AfD discussion or here. I would also point out that I spent a couple of hours doing very thorough searches for online sources during the previous AfD, so will copy my findings here:

Searches combining the subject's name with every one of the potential claims of notability in the article find 66 web pages, none of which amount to significant independent coverage, no Google News hits, three irrelevant Google Scholar hits and these 10 Google Books hits, only one of which appears to be about the subject - this mention in the Christian Herald. Of course there may be significant coverage in offline sources, but I think that I've done a pretty exhaustive check of what is available online.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not so quickly dismiss Marquis' Who's Who. It has "short biographies of influential persons" per Marquis Who's Who. "Individuals become eligible for listing by virtue of their positions and/or noteworthy achievements that have proved to be of significant value to society. An individual's desire to be listed is not sufficient reason for inclusion. Similarly, wealth or social position are not criteria. Purchase of the book is never a factor in the selection of biographees" per their stated policy. Appearance there is not enough, by itself to prove notability, but it does contribute to or support notability. Their screening may not be perfect, but I check it when considering whether a bio article is justified for someone. It is "reliable" at least as to the person's claimed achievements. Edison (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend reading on to Marquis Who's Who#Selection process where we get some idea of what people other than the publishers themselves have written. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Page three of the New York Times article cited in Marquis Who's Who#Selection process is particularly relevant: "Those selected are sketched biographically, then contacted for additional information or asked to fill out a form. Finished entries are not uniformly fact-checked." That would seem to exclude it as a reliable source, which we require to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And "The Hall of Lame" in Forbes lists various people with entries in the publication who can certainly not be regarded as notable by our standards. Unless we are to dismiss The New York Times and Forbes as reliable sources then we have to conclude that an entry in Marquis Who's Who provides no support for any claim of notability by Wikipedia's standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this originally, and nothing has changed since the first discussion. Also please consider the comments of NuclearWarfare, RL0919, DGG, Kevin, Stifle, Coffee, Blaxthos, several of whom endorsed the closure of the AfD, but agreed that the article probably deserved deletion. Ἀλήθεια 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. Although I agree that there are too few articles on notable missionaries and clergy (especially those active after the publication of the 1911ish Catholic Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica), this individual simply doesn't meet the encyclopedia's notability requirements, especially in light of BLP. --NellieBly (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The reasons for an AfD were considered a few weeks ago, and there was no consensus. The first AfD discussions gave adequate arguments for keeping this article. There are very few articles specifically on missionaries, and this article has merits to stand alone. The same arguments in the first AfD discussions to delete are rehashed again. One might suspect that there might be other reasons for continuing to nominate this article for AfD. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please identify which of the arguments that were made for keeping this have not been refuted? And please bear in mind that notability by Wikipedia's definition requires evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have resided where the subject serves as missionary, and have read many articles published in national newspapers. A criterium of notability has always been to have had one's writings published. Google is far from the reliable sourse you claim it to be. Further your repeated arguments fail to acknowledge that notability is subjective--not absolute as your suggest. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having ones writings published has never been a criterion for notability. What is needed is for someone else to write about the subject. I do not claim that Google is the be-all and end-all for finding sources, but nobody has listed any specific offline sources that provide independent significant coverage of the subject. If you know of any such sources, such as newspaper articles about Mr Maas (not by him) then please list them and we may be able to save this article from deletion, but we need specific information, such as author, publication, article title and date, rather than vague assertions that such sources exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC

I am somewhat confused and troubled by Phil Bridger's continued, rather lone, and unceasing efforts to delete an article that I am working on, and is a work in progress about a missionary who I feel deserves at least a small mention. After Mother Teresa, with whom he was a colleague and which photo is posted online, he is one of the most notable figures in India. He was awarded a citation for his pro-life efforts in India by the Missionaries of Charity, presented by Mother Teresa. The photo of her presenting this award is available online. Further, India has around 14 major languages, and most of the newspaper citations about his ministry are in Telegu, Marathi, and Hindu, and are not available on Google nor translated into English.

He is a noted convention speaker in India, and has appeared before crowds in excess of 50,000. I am in the process of acquiring these photos for publication, and am having further proof of his notability translated from India languages. According to Mr Bridger's personal standard, very few biographical articles on religious figures would remain. Many religious educators in WP have written books, but have not been independently recognized as per his standards.

I have observed that he has not contributed to this article, but that he and others who vote to delete seem to be unhappy with some of my edits on articles on religion. Is this vendetta against this article, and that of the others who vote to delete, in any way related to my edits? I hope not, as this is not in harmony with the high principles of Wikipedia. I appeal to the administrators to once again deny the aFd, and allow me to continue to add more notability to the article. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to discussion of the article and its subject, rather than make unfounded assumptions about my motives. The reason that I spent so much time looking for independent reliable sources (as documented above) is that I wanted to find some so as to be able to contribute to the article and rescue it from deletion by bringing it into conformance with our guidelines, not because I have some personal vendetta against the subject or you. The only reason that I have not contributed to the article is that I couldn't find any sources on the basis of which to do so. The requirement for such sources is not my personal standard, but Wikipedia's, documented in the notability guideline and the policies on verifiability and biographies of living people. Please note that I have not commented on any other articles that you have edited, and have in recent weeks defended articles on Christian topics [9][10][11], despite not being a Christian myself, so please don't imply that I am biased. You talk about "the high principles of Wikipedia": your implied accusations are totally in contradiction the the high principles that I would expect of a Master of Divinity. Once again, if you are really interested in the future of this article, provide some specific references to independent reliable sources that write about the subject, whether online or offline, and in any language. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Worldwide Faith Missions. I too would like articles on notable missionaries of the modern period. The article gives some strong hints he is not one of them: It calls him a theologian on the basis that he studied theology in graduate school--but he never published or taught theology except in one claimed book I cannot find mentioned anywhere including Worldcat or Google. It recounts that one of his cousins was notable. He visited Mother Teresa. The White House gave him a form letter. And he got one mention in the alumni yearbook, a two-sentence self-report not even in a separate paragraph. These are typical signs of an article about someone who is non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be happy with a redirect if it could be shown that Worldwide Faith Missions was notable, but I can't see any evidence of that. I had been planning to wait for a month or two after the previous AfD to see if anyone could come up with any better sources and then, if that didn't happen, to nominate both articles together, but this nomination has rather pre-empted that plan. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His service as an advisor to the White House and years as serving as an international organization president alone show notability and deserve a place in Wikipedia. He was recognized by his alma mater (University of Pittsburgh) for his missionary service. These are all available for verification through Google. The last AfD got a mixed consensus. There are no new reasons to list this again as an Afd. Jackie-thai (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither being a White House advisor (which is unsourced anyway) nor being president of an organisation that operates in more than one country constitutes notability as defined by our guidelines, which is nothing to do with whether a subject "deserves" anything. And how was he "recognized by his alma mater"? All we have is a 20-word mention in an alumni magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that Rak-Tai has asked above for extra time in which to get sources together for this article. I would have no objection to incubation to enable Rak-Tai and others to do this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following submission was listed in the first afD, and deserves consideration in this current afD:

Keep IMHO, the founder of such global humanitarian efforts as [[Worldwide Faith

Missions]] and Feed the Orphans (very similar in scope to Cross International) -- not

to mention the services rendered to our own government -- deserves a couple kilobytes of

server space in Wikipedia. JimScott (talk) 14:08,

23 October 2009 (UTC) R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a classic puff piece, devoid of proper sourcing, and with no particular claim of notability once the puffery is removed. Abductive (reasoning) 10:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns six results, none of which provide sufficient coverage about this missionary; most, if not all, of the sources appear to be about a different individual of the same name. Other searches for sources do not return reliable sources.
I concur with Phil Bridger's analysis of the sources above. Jackie-thai (talk · contribs)'s assertion that this individual is notable because "was recognized by his alma mater (University of Pittsburgh) for his missionary service" does not establish notability; a minor, non-notable award does not confer notability per WP:ANYBIO. Serving as an adviser to the White House also does not establish notability because the White House has many advisers; only advisers who have official positions or have had an impact of the administration are notable. Having a notable cousin and visiting Mother Theresa do not establish notability because notability is not inherited.
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, a biography of a living person sourced to only blogs, forums, and other unreliable sources should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for inclusion are subjective, and my assessment of the biographies about seminary professors and religious leaders is that most would not pass the requirements interpreted in the negative remarks aleady stated. Having served, additionally to his ministry as organization president, as White House advisor (a letter from the White House is available online) should merit a developing inclusion, especially since there are precious few similar listings. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am asking for you to keep this biography, which I see as list for deletion. I am not an editor, but I am a student at Ramkhamhaeg U in BKK who uses Wikipedia. We were asked to write a paper about an America missionary working in Asia. I had heard about Johannes Maas and his missionary work in Thailand and India.; He had also tutored some of my friends in English, and google showed that he was listed to Wikipedia, which many of us students use in writing papers in English. It listed details about his life which were detailed enough for a term paper. This biography is important as a reference article for Asian students. Please keep this one and add others that we can use in our term papers. Thank you. Nusara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.176.210 (talk) 09:12, 19 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.