Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Salza
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. Sources are not reliable. The Mason question is irrelevant either way, as pointed out below. Chick Bowen 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Salza[edit]
- John Salza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article is about an author, but does not pass WP:CREATIVE. There is no claim to notability, either for the subject or for the books he wrote. The article relies purely on one website for sourcing - a website which is written by the subject. The article has been tagged as needing additional verification (with the {{refimprove}} tag) since last November, and no reliable independant sources have been added. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any reviews or discussions of his works in publications that are much more than blogs, and he doesn't seem to meet any of the other criteria in WP:CREATIVE. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I originally found this while doing some cat cleanup, and I found the same situation as Olaf Davis above. MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sigh, another ex-Mason up for deletion. He's generated a very hostile reaction in American freemasonry and is well known in conservative Catholic circles for his wider work on apologetics. He's notable, this is not self promotion and I understand the dislike that two of the three editors have for an apostate for their fraternity, but Wikipedia should stop bending rules for them. JASpencer (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is where this sordid episode started. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ex-mason is not the real problem - Oscar Wilde was as well, and a few other folks who are there on the list, including a fair number of expelled people. So I resent the accusation of hiding some sort of "apostasy" (which is a term that only applies to religion, might I add). There's a claims issue with the article subject, because part of his credentials are a claim that he was a recipient of something that I've never heard of, that being a "Scottish Rite Proficiency Card." I'm pretty sure it's a conflation (if not an outright lie); I have it on good authority that there are proficiency cards given by some Grand Lodges (definitely not the Scottish Rite bodies) for the first three degrees, but they apparently only mean that you can recite the material of the first three degrees, not that you are certified to teach it. If Salza joined in the late 90's, Scottish Rite "ritual" is simply memorizing lines for a play. So if he is claiming a status no one else reliably acknowledges (or that doesn't exist), it brings his overall credibility into question. If his notability is then that he is a "Roman Catholic ex-Mason" who really wasn't, his notability is fundamentally at stake. Unfortunately, that will not be resolved in a timely enough manner to affect the AfD. I can verify the record, but it will take a while, if it can be done at all. MSJapan (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is where this sordid episode started. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep John Salza is a notable Catholic writer. He is the author of several books on Catholicism, he is a radio host, has been guests on other radio shows and is also a speaker. I have updated the sources and as can be seen there are many more reliable sources listed now, including one from a Freemasonry website which gives evidence that his being a mason is not just something he invented. The article now has more sources than a lot of articles on Wikipedia. Help make the article better. Dwain (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: if this is so, it should be easy to conform the article to WP:CREATIVE... if this is done, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. As the article currently stands, however, it does not. Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2008 (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.