Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Shuker

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 speedy keep. Nominator has expressed his interest in withdrawing this, in addition there's no way this will be deleted as of now, looks pretty notable. (non-admin closure) gwickwire^talk_edits 19:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Karl Shuker

Karl Shuker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article's subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, he's written some books, quite a few, but all are VERY limited distribution, or self-published, few are found in Library of Congress, those from larger publishers, but almost no critique, or review or even news or any mention beyond some online retailers selling copies, of them exist. None of the books meet WP:NBOOK. Subject does not meet WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage of him exists, pretty much only known within the very small sect of "Cryptozoologists." Criteria under WP:AUTHOR is best match for him but criteria #1, I don't see evidence for this, he's not published any academic papers, nothing that I can see cites for or anything like that. I did a little analysis of the WP:N on the article's talk page: Talk:Karl_Shuker#Criticism. Apparently the article's subject has been editing and maintaining this page and hawking over it for years, he made some legal threats at even the mention of putting critical information in the article or deleting it, so was just recently banned. I thought before I go through any trouble reforming the article to be in compliance with WP:NPOV, even if sources could be tracked down to do so, that I'd see if it even merits inclusion first. — raekyt 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - fails the guidelines per nom's detailed analysis. ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Taschen are very notable publishers. Angrybeerman (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Notable publishers, but they also publish non-notable books. Being published, even by a notable publisher, is not one of the criteria for inclusion... — raekyt 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - 'cryptozoology' is not a "cult", but an offshoot (if quirky) of folklore and cultural studies. It has had notable 'real science' successes too, finding new species through the stories told about them - the editor's POV criticism are dealt with through the cryptozoology page itself. Fortean Times has a circulation in the UK of 17,000 (according to Wikipedia) and can be found in any high street newsagent. It is sceptical in its perspective and this chap is a key writer for it, so his stuff reaches thousands of people every month - not a "very limited distribution". He is not some loon as is being portrayed and much of his work is about lost-and-refound species (i.e. thought extinct, but not) and new sub-species. As the page says, he is a fellow of two learned societies, holds a doctorate in zoology and has had a new species named after him, as well as being a specialist consultant to things like the Guinness Book of Records. There are far less notable people all over Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.15.249 (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying the field cryptozoology isn't notable, I'm arguing that Karl Shuker doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. The argument your trying to make is that he meets critera #2 under WP:AUTHOR, that he's a signifigant contributor too Fortean Times, a minor magazine. Searching his name on Fortean Times' website yields no results. So what evidence that he's a "significant contributor" to this magazine is there? These claims need to be backed up by reliable sources. Writing some books, academic degrees, all those are not criteria for inclusion. Being a "fellow" with those societies (Royal Entomological Society and Zoological Society of London) seems to be a pretty low bar to meet, and again not criteria for inclusion. I'm also not sure where you get a list of fellows on their websites/publications to actually verify this... — raekyt 17:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • His regular column covers all of page 25 of the Feb 2013 edition - articles about continuing thylacine sightings and an out-of-range sighting of ajolotes. I am guessing that they don't put the content on their website as they want people to buy the magazine - give them a call if you want to check! The criteria for fellowship of the Royal Entomological Society is on their Wikipedia page: "those who have made a substantial contribution to entomology, through publications or other evidence of achievement." That makes him pretty notable, albeit to the cult of entomologists...
  • Not sure why the search engine doesn't pick it up, but try here: http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/5536/youve_been_trunkoed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.15.249 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - As far as I can see, Dr. Shuker is one the most prominent cryptozoologists. If cryptozoology itself is notable, then why wouldn't on of its most prominent practitioners be? Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Which criteria is that, specifically, that states if A is notable then B automatically becomes notable? Notability isn't WP:INHERIT. — raekyt 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per 88.97.15.249, who said pretty much what I was going to say. The article clearly needs to be re-written to remove the (quite blatant) promotional tone, but that's a separate issue and has no bearing here. His books have been reviewed in in The New Scientist [1], [2], [3]. Articles mentioning his work and quoting him also here in the Glasgow Herald; here in the New York Times, here from Reuters, here in the Augusta Chronicle. Also reviews of his Dragons A Natural History in the Washington Post, Buffalo News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution [4]. Need I go on? Clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I can only presume that User:Raeky is American. If the significance of any book, or corpus of work, is to be based on whether or not the Library of Congress holds copies then I'm afraid that a great number of non-American academics will also need to be deleted from Wikipedia. I have, for instance, just checked their catalogue for the publications of, arguably, the UK's leading living archaeologist. He has been writing for almost sixty years and has authored countless books and articles. The print-out of his full bibliography runs to just short of 500 pages of A5. His Wikipedia page is, rightly, very extensive. The Library of Congress holds only one of his books. I suspect that similar results will be found for many non-American academics. I might also add that this certain archaeologist has, in the past, included bibliographic references to Dr Shuker's work in his own peer-reviewed articles for highly academic national journals. I must also point out that Dr Shuker is regularly featured on television in the UK as the notable authority on the subjects of cryptozoology and newly discovered species. Vibracobra23 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Totally agree. Just take a look at Shuker's WorldCat Identity: 56 works in 105 publications in 10 languages and 3,556 library holdings (and their data isn't even exhaustive). Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Withdraw AFD Based on above I think it's clear that my searches wasn't as inclusive as it should be. I still think that he barely squeaks in as notable though, but enough of his books are covered, and his contributions to the magazine and being used on television probably is enough to satisfy criteria #2 in WP:AUTHOR. — raekyt 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - this was a bad faith nomination. The article's subject was not banned - simply blocked until he withdrew his legal threat - a common mistake made by novice, living subjects of biographical articles. The subject himself is obviously notable and the nominator failed to exercise due diligence. Indeed, this nomination was hastily made in the midst of a discussion with the article's subject and several other editors regarding notability, etc. That is to say, the nominator didn't wait for his ill-founded concerns to be fully addressed. Rklawton (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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.