Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ruckman (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 no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ruckman[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR or anything else in BIO. He does not appear notable in any media or scholarly circles as being a writer or teacher. This article is mainly sourced to Ruckman's vanity press (Pensacola Bible Press) and his home/non-accredited school (Pensacola Bible Institute). His critics likewise are self-published websites, which are few and criticize him for his UFO conspiracies.

This bio was nominated for deletion five years ago (2006). It resulted in "no consensus" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ruckman, with people who wanted to keep saying it has a lot of google hits. But if you look at the footnotes, there is not substance to demonstrate this person is a famous writer or anything else. To keep an article it must have a "widely recognized contribution," but there is no proof of it. If you look at the history of the article little has changed since 2006.

I also noticed that a user named "PSRuckman" years ago added a lot of material and wanted to keep the article (but removed the negative material). I don't know if that matters, but wanted to include in case. DaleMoonta1 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — DaleMoonta1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This article fails every aspect of notability. After some effort to see if the subject was at all likely to achieve notability, my impression is that it would not. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. My76 Strat 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article and the King James Only movement article cite sufficient commentary to show that he is a significant and controversial figure within that movement. See, for example, the extensive discussion of Ruckman and "Ruckmanism" in these books.[1][2] I can't see how deleting this article would improve the encyclopedic coverage of this corner of the fundamentalist world.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruckman article is based on self-published material. Self-published vanity presses do not prove notablity.

A google book search for "ruckmanism" has a whopping SIX hits (including self-published books by George and McHugh). How is that "extensive" or demonstrate BIO's "widely recognized contribution"? Looking at your two links (1/3 of the google book results), they mention it/him on TWO pages out of 364 pages, and in the other published by a Baptist publisher, mentions him TWO times (not including the footnotes citing his self-published books) in the whole book. How is that "extensive" by any meaning of the word?

Searches for "Peter Ruckman" in google books turn up more hits, but also contain unrelated Ruckmans and very sparse coverage of the related one. Other google book hits are from Books LLC (not to be confused with new material or actual books), unrelated Peter Ruckmans from the 19th century, ONE minor mention in a book from the 1970s, and more unrelated Peter Ruckmans.

The reason the article is so bad now is that it depends on self-published works of Ruckman and some web critics' self-published blogs. There are no third party sources.DaleMoonta1 (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article meets every aspect of notability. Those who believe otherwise are simply unaware of the long-standing controversy that has swirled around this man in fundamentalist circles. The folks who support or denounce Ruckman and his teachings are unlikely to publish in scholarly journals. And the reason why the article hasn't changed much in the last few years is that Ruckman has become less active as he's gotten older. Checking traffic statistics, I notice that "Peter Ruckman" received 2400 hits last month compared with about half that for Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University.--John Foxe (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does not having sources and traffic compared to other articles help this discussion? WP:BIO states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)." (Also Bob Jones III clearly meets WP:PROF: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution"). What critera of this or WP:AUTHOR does Ruckman meet and what WP:RS are there? DaleMoonta1 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue from Google or Alexa hits but from Wikipedia's own traffic statistics. Furthermore, I believe White to be a reliable source and Ruckman to be the founder and head of a Bible school.

At the risk of appearing to bite a newcomer, I'm highly suspicious of someone whose first activity at Wikipedia is an attempt to delete an article that's been up in some form or other since 2004.--John Foxe (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I have no real opinion about Ruckman and his notability or lack thereof, I really have to say that WP traffic statistics have no bearing at all on notability. If that's the best the people voting "keep" can come up with, the case for deletion is solid. If Ruckman is so controversial in some circles, certainly there are reliable independent sources that show this. Having said this, I, too, am suspicious of new editors whose first contribution is to AfD an article. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Of course, I only intended the WP traffic statistics to be illustrative of the fact that Ruckman is far from unknown. I've now added a couple more book citations, including one to a 2009 edited work of scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have now had a moment to look at this bio. No independent reliable sources, only self-published stuff. No evidence of notability at all. --Crusio (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Three independent, non-self-published references mentioning Ruckman and cited in the article:

David G. Burke, ed., Translation That Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible (Society of Biblical Literature, 2009).
Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001).
James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995), 1-4.

--John Foxe (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2011 (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.