Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Lataster (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. Opinions qua notability differ, but most of the keep votes are based on the argument that the subject of the article has got reliable coverage, which is a valid policy-based argument, and I do not see a strong counter-argument in the delete votes--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Lataster[edit]

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

From the IP user 81.135.3.190: non notable person using unreliable sources as a form of self promotion: No third party reliable sources linked to: No evidence of impact provided: article Repeatedly deleted and reinstated. Prod inapplicable as the article had an AfD once in October 2007. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the administrator, if deleted please restore to my user space. There is no dispute that this is an actual person with actual publications. I have reached out to him and have knowledge that he has many more publications in the pipeline, so the requisite coverage is simply a matter of time. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing how often I'm accused of being somebody else. Apparently this IP thinks I'm Raphael Lataster. I've been accused at Talk:MyFreeCams.com#Center section removed of being Lee Huxley. And at Talk:Pandeism/Archive 1#Original Research of being Alan Dawe. I am none of these people, but perhaps there's something about my style of putting things together which lends to this? Anyway, the IP's laundry list of complaints seems to grind a bit of an axe against the atheist community, describing one reviewer as a "pseudo-scholar" in the same breath as noting his affiliation with American Atheists, and declaring Lataster's expressed opinion of another author (a defender of the theory that Jesus existed) as libelous. What is incontrovertible is that Lataster has authored two books, one with Richard Carrier, and a bunch of articles in venues of varying verisimilitude. And incidentally, all of these books and articles are publications which came years after an earlier version of this page was deleted back in 2007. But mostly I want to clear up the implication that I'm a secret self-promoter, under any name I may be mistaken for by the overenthusiasticly accusing. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether he is notable. The blogs are all saying he is far from a reliable scholar to put it mildly, but we do not count them. The ABC has a piece by his former teacher - see http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm. This also says "amazingly, his article was picked up by the Washington Post of all places. Such is the appetite for the extraordinary!". The Washington Post article is by Lataster, so presumably they invited him to write it. It looks like he will raise more hot air than new serious scholarship, but he might become notable. I do not see enough at this point, however, so delete but allow recreation if he gets more noted in reliable sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this author has been reviewed in peer reviewed sources. It doesn't matter if he has a connection to his reviewers, as long as the reviews were published in peer reviewed sources. Charles Frith (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, See my notes on the talk page for the article. Changlinn (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, with thanks to Changlinn for improving the sourcing. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Publishing books and having amazon book references or zero impact factor journals referenced does not establish notability. Aeonx (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people write one book their whole life and are notable for that, so it's not the amount written or where published, but the notice taken of it. This guy's been written about by Michael Bird who is an expert in the field, and has been reviewed in sources that do establish enough level of notability. Torquemama007 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources do establish notability of Lataster. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2016 (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.