Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. J. Gagnon

Add links
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 keep. This was an interesting discussion that was heading for a "delete" result, but after three editors struck their !votes, the consensus is clearly to keep the article. There is a consensus that the subject passes WP:PROF #1, but many editors argued that WP:GNG is satisfied regardless of the standing under WP:PROF (non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. J. Gagnon[edit]

Robert A. J. Gagnon (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)

I see no evidence of this person passing the GNG or WP:PROF. He's in the news a bit for hating gays (if I believe what I see on the internet), but I see no in-depth coverage in mainstream media. Nor do I see that his "academic" work has received serious reviews in academic journals. Let's note also that his books don't seem to have been published by major academic or theological presses. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. I have repeatedly asked those interested in expanding the article to add such sources, to no avail. Comment I withdraw my recommendation due to the analysis by DGG.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A great deal of effort (see Talk:Robert A. J. Gagnon) has gone into finding sources and finding balanced things a biography can say about this person. Other than his degrees and the fact that he has published books, we've drawn a blank. There are sources that comment on this person and his works, but they're not reliable. As noted above, the books are do not appear to be significant in an academic sense. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it appears that at least one of his books is very widely held – please see below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why does every sports person who has played one professional game, every street musician, every bit part actor, every kid who went on X Factor and Got Talent, and every small town hack and painter merit an article on the flimsiest of sources, while life-long academics have to jump through a whole page of hoops? The answer to my own question is 'I don't know', but as I am pledged to uphold and implement policy at Wikipedia, I have to say that this article clearly fails to meet those criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya. I think the answer is this: there are independent sports encyclopedias that cover every athlete that has ever played a professional game; there is nothing similar for academics. I also find this annoying. Not quite as annoying as the low bar special guidelines for porn stars... A camel is a horse built by a committee, they say, and WP's special guidelines are definitely committee-made. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there are independent sports encyclopedias that cover every athlete that has ever played a professional game; there is nothing similar for academics." A glance at WP:Prof shows this statement to be false. The citation indices play a much more comphrehensive part than sports records. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I can sympathize with both Kudpung and Carrite here. I will buy the "played one professional game" notability guideline, for reasons that Tim (Carrite) points out. As for street musicians (and garage bands), and local young painters, starting actors and untalented (in my opinion) talent show participants, I resolve today to vote "delete" unless the GNG is indisputably met. But there are some relatively unrecognized painters with long careers who have accumulated the chops to deserve an article here. Museum exhibits and art journal reviews over the decades add up, as I see it. It ain't promotional if the guy or gal is dead, in my opinion, unless some gallery is flogging their work. In the end, a strict reading of the GNG ought to be our guiding star. As for the porn "stars", I would set a far higher notability bar if I had my way, but am not interested in kamikaze missions. Or compulsive handwashing after editing sessions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Criteria for WP:Prof#1 include scholarly cites. On Google scholar these are 22, 10, 7, 7, 4 to give an h-index of 4. Although theology is a very poorly cited subject, this index is extremely low. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. On second thought, after reviewing the article talk page, I think he may pass WP:GNG for the controversy raised by his views on homosexuality. However, nothing of that controversy, nor the sources raised on the talk page concerning it, are present in the article as nominated. If the article is to remain as it is, a neutered piece that makes him look like an uncontroversial and non-notable religious scholar, it must be deleted, because it omits the basis for his notability and is also problematic from the point of view of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you've read the talk page, you'll know out absolute lack of reliable sources to make this anything other than 'a neutered piece' is what bought us here. Unless you can find reliable sources on the controversy, that's not going to change. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw what looked a lot like sources listed there. But unless we can get a consensus to include that material in the article, which looks unlikely at this point, it doesn't make much difference whether I !vote to delete because of a failure of WP:PROF or because of a failure of WP:NPOV, does it? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For non-STEM subject areas, we normally place heavy importance on book holdings. WorldCat shows Gagnon's book "The Bible and homosexual practice" to be held by >500 institutions, a hefty figure for an academic's text. I agree that the secondary sources are thin, but the article can be stubbed until such become available, especially since the talk page suggests his controversial standing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Note that that library holdings can be skewed by mass donations of books which can be part of outreach by certain advocacy organisations, which makes such measures less reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is bald assertion and an oblique accusation that such actually applies in this case. Does it? The fact is that the metric of institutional holdings is used routinely here at academics' AfD to evaluate notability of professors in the humanities. Note that there are well-known ways to game all bibliometrics, including citations. Unless there's obvious and conclusive proof of monkey business, we always give strong weight to the relevant bibliometrics. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete As failing WP:PROF in general, regardless of the subject's apparent polarization of his favorite topic, which is apparently not enough to raise above basic notability as of now. I was involved in the talk page discussions and I have to admit I doubted there was much here from the first revdel that brought the bio to WP:BLP/N. As to the point about book holdings, it might be possible that the work is more notable than the author, and perhaps if that continues to be the case and someone bothers to create an article for his book then this can be re-created as a redirect or something. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An author's notability has precedence to that of his/her work. In other words, notability of a work implies notability of an author. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sorry, no. WP:INHERIT is mainly for relationships that are incidental, e.g. a person is not necessarily notable just because their parent is notable. This is rather a cause-and-effect relationship (author begets book). The difference is crucial to understand (though note the converse is not true: i.e. not every book written by a notable author is itself notable). There are many examples that directly support this argument, perhaps the most compelling being the following: Harper Lee wrote only a single work, To Kill a Mockingbird. The latter is certainly notable and this implies notability of the former – hence the article on Lee. By your logic, there would be grounds to delete the article on Lee, which is obvious nonsense. The fact stands that >500 institutional book holdings by an academic author far exceeds what we conventionally take as the minimum for this bibliometric to satisfy WP:PROF in the humanities. Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
How many of Gagnon's books won a Pulitzer and became classics of modern literature? Comparing Gagnon to Lee is comparing apples with oranges and a weak reason to reject WP:INHERIT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that a book has to have won a Pulitzer in order for its author to be notable? That's patent nonsense. The point, which I'm not sure I can make any more simple, is that notability of produced work confers notability for its creator. That is the crux of WP:PROF c1 and how the vast majority of academics on WP come to be here. Again, the book has holdings that exceed what we have conventionally required for PROF 1. Why do so many panelists here seem to be insisting that Gagnon must be held to a much-higher-than-normal standard than what we routinely use? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Read what I said, and not between the lines - the tone is getting to be as familiar as the article's talk page discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you offered was merely a back-handed statement about needing a Pulitzer to be notable, which is indeed nonsensical: Lee is simply an obvious example of a person who is notable because they authored precisely one important book. The bottom line in this case is a sequential argument that connects several observations: (A) Gagnon is a an academic, for which we almost always resort to WP:PROF for testing notability. (B) The vast majority of such cases are measured against WP:PROF c1, the crux of which is whether a person's work, in this case a book, "has made significant impact". (C) The assessment of impact is routinely made according to institutional book holdings for those academics working in the humanities. (D) Gagnon has authored a book that is held by >500 institutions. (E) 500 holdings is well-above what we have accepted in the past in numerous academics' AfDs as satisfying the "impact" clause. So, the implication is A → B → C → D → E → "notable" → "keep". As a disinterested observer who has never heard of this person or read this article before this AfD, I'm not sure how much more complicated it is than that. There's obviously a lot of baggage here with respect to the content of the article and it appears that the notability question was triggered by the honest but mistaken presumption that removing the objectionable content renders Gagnon not notable because there's not much that can be said about him. Notability does not depend upon what content can be put into an article. It is rather a property of the person. Gagnon clearly satisfies WP:PROF c1 and that's all we're here to evaluate. As I said above, if content is as big of a problem as it appears to be in this case, leave the article stubbed for now (much as it is at the moment). Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
With regards to your alphabetical equation: Some kinds of articles are treated with rare exceptions and are even exempt from CSD-A7 but these precedents are clearly documented and supported by thousands of AfD closures - and I can cite those. Putting WP:OTHERSTUFF aside for a moment, can you cite some examples of Prof articles that have routinely and almost always met your criteria? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cited an example, but will not be bated into turning this into your strawman. I'd rather that you produce examples where we've deleted BLPs whose subjects obviously pass one or more parts of WP:PROF. Unless someone is claiming that >500 citations does not satisfy WP:PROF c1 (and so far no one is), the burden of proof lies with all you who want this article deleted, despite the subject obviously satisfying one of our standard notability guidelines. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • 99% Possible Keep - Lots of sources found in the Google News archive search, so I'm sure this has to be a notable subject. EditorE (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately another invalid argument - per WP:SOURCESEARCH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- News sources and his book are definitely his biggest claim to notability jj (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we are discussing about his notability, those sources could be listed and discussed here. And WP:CORPDEPTH does not apply to people. Cavarrone 06:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Strong) Keep -- per Agricola44's citation of long precedent that hundreds of academic libraries holding a book is strong evidence of having made a substantial impact on the field. On a day when DOMA is struck down, I hate to defend anti-homosexual arguments, but notability is notability, regardless of the opinion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above notability is notability. The subject is notable despite the opinions that offend some and please others. --Stormbay (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your strawman argument is duly noted. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good thing AfDs are not closed on a simple tally of the !votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does it meet WP:GNG or not? I say it does, which is my opinion. Do I care whether this particular article stays or goes? Not really. I would like to see a reasonable decision made on the basis of the subjects notability. Stormbay (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Stormbay, there is one great way to show that an article meets the GNG: simply link to significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources . Can you link to such sources, Stormbay? Otherwise, in my opinion, your opinion is of little use in this debate, and can be discounted by the closing administrator. When I have looked for such sources, all I find are trivial passing mentions and the bylines of opinion columns. On the other hand, if you bring forward such independent sources, I will change my mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have reviewed the claimed "Lots of sources found in the Google News archive", they mainly consist in articles written by Gagnon and not about Gagnon, plus some extracts of a conference and some trivial mentions. He also has a couple of interviews for some obscure religion-related websites (eg [1]). Probably the only source that could provide some notability is this article. Too little to assume he's notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. Cavarrone 06:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The immediately preceding entries by Cullen328 and Cavarrone are trying to push us toward debating on WP:GNG, but that is irrelevant because it is already clear that Gagnon satisfies WP:PROF by virtue of the impact of his work. At the moment, the article is essentially a WP:NPOV-satisfying stub and can remain that way until such time that more WP:RS becomes available to expand the article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • The criterium of WP:PROF you are claiming is clearly met says " The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (stress mine). As far as I can understand the wording, this criterium is far from having been demonstrated/verified. Cavarrone 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and here is the disconnect. Demonstration of PROF c1 almost always comes from evaluating the citation or holding statistics (the former usually for STEM academics and the latter usually for humanities academics), as reported by independent and reliable databases (usually WoS, Scopus, etc. for STEM and WorldCat for humanities) and not from news sources and such that are the fodder of GNG. The informal, but highly conventional threshold having now been used in many hundreds of academics' AfDs is "a few hundred" (and this can be sliced-and-diced, for example this roughly equates to an h-index around 15 for scientists). Borderline cases are open to honest debate (often something like "we should require a little more/less here, since field X, Y, or Z is associated with more/less citations), but the WorldCat statistic of >500 holdings of Gagnon's books far exceeds the requirements we have regularly applied in the past. It may be appropriate for you to check some old AfDs for confirmation of what I'm claiming, or to save your time, simply check with some of the "senior statesmen" like David Eppstein or DGG. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The author of notable books are notable. Where it's a single book, the article should still be under the author because he may go on to do other things. As indeed this individual has done. But in this case, both his books are notable by NBOOK: The Bible and Homosexual Practice is published by /Abington ,a very respectable publisher in the field has been reviewed in Anglican Theological Review and Christian Century and Theology today. All of these are extended reviews and meet the requirement for substantial coverage. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views in in 379 libraries, and is by Fortress Press, the most important conservative Protestant publisher. has been reviewed by : The Princeton Seminary bulletin. , Cross Currents, Toronto Journal Of Theology,, Neotestamentica ,Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology , and Feminist Journal of Theology. Agricola is in my opinion correct in his arguments. Professors are notable because of the academic work they do, just as baseball players for the games they play. For fields in which publication is chiefly by book, h values are irrelevant. some of the delete arguments leave me with the unfortunate impression that we ask for stricter standards when we do not like the person's views. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I'm glad to strike my vote on the basis of the sources you cites but I strongly rebut this assumption of bad faith towards the delete voters, including me. No one of the keep voters has provided a single RS in support of the claimed notability. No one has provided a proof of notability of the subject's book, except some statistics. It would be sufficient that one of the keep voters would had provided two or three of the reviews and articles you cited above to give substance to their opinions and to be convincing. If it was so obvious 500 copies of a book make a person notable and you want the notability based on the sole ground of the books diffusion in libraries, be bold and change the guideline. Cavarrone 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I can't find any reviews for the two books in JSTOR--now JSTOR isn't everything, but not a single mention? In fact, JSTOR doesn't have a single review on any of his work. I think two articles I found while searching for his name cite him, and JSTOR lists three articles and a review by him--but nothing on him. I'm also perfectly willing to change my mind, but I'd like to do so on the basis of some complete citations. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We have specialized notability guidelines because we agree that for some topics the General Notability Guidelines are unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, there are {{afd}} where contributors mistakenly or mischeiviously try to insist that we use the GNG or a different specialized notability guideline. I agree with those who have argued Gagnon has met the criteria of WP:PROF. Allowing an individual to have a standalone wikipedia article should be neither a reward or a punishment. That decision should be based on policy, which this article complies with. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Passes WP:PROF based on book holdings, as discussed above. Apparently his views are controversial; all the more notability. Gagnon's book The Bible and Homosexual Practice has been called (by one writer not on his side) "the definitive exposition of the traditionalist's case" and Gagnon himself "the foremost traditionalist interpreter" on the topic. Another writer describes The Bible and Homosexual Practice as "one of the most cited" traditionalist works on the topic. Seems like a very clear "keep" to me. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Controversial books which make them or their authors notable should not be dismissed out of hand, even if the author may have been a relatively unknown academic until the publication of the book, never mind how many libraries around the world subsequently list the book in their catalogues. Many academics shy away from a topic, if it could or might affect their academic standing or advancement. Give Gagnon his due. The talk page of David and Jonathan has an interesting discussion about him under Homo Romantic Hijacking. This quote from the discussion about him is also relevant here: As for Gagnon, well, he does have a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and is author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.), and which has received numerous peer reviews. http://www.robgagnon.net/RevPraise.htm. And co-authored (with Dan O. Via) Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.), as well as numerous other articles as well as many substantial exchanges with those on the opposing side. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, and has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Horizons in Biblical Theology, and The Christian Century. I do understand such a resume may not change one's opinion of his work, or the lack of esteem such a one may have for those who disagree with them (and who imagine only secular or religiously liberal publications and colleges are unbiased and worthy of esteem) but perhaps the title of scholar could be allowed for them in a secular article.Daniel1212 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC). I am inclined to agree with this and what Agricola44 says. Zananiri (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I may not like his views (or perhaps I may), but he has clearly done substantial work on what is currently a controversial subject. That makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a professor Gagnon is a fringe and reactionary character who fails PROF. But as an author popular with American Christian social conservatives who are working to limit homosexuality, Gagnon meets WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be greatly appreciated if people with access to independent offline sources could phrase the references and quotes in a manner that allows them to be used directly in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_A._J._Gagnon&oldid=1138306704"