Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophal Ear (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophal Ear[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article has previously been through an AFD process and did not survive (2008). It was later re-created in 2015, but has yet to meet notability criteria listed under WP:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources present in the article are largely WP:PRIMARY and there is no demonstration of significant coverage in third-party, secondary reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ear achieved prominence as a critic of the many pro-Khmer Rouge Western academics and apologists for the Khmer Rouge. That the academics often did not deign to respond to him is perhaps indicative of the quality of his critique, the likely wish of academics to avoid highlighting their previous opinions, and probably a soupcon of snobbery that a mere undergraduate (as he was at the time) had the audacity to take on his betters. More recently, Ear has been a critic of the programs of the international community in Cambodia. Wikipedia has articles on many of the academic deniers and apologists for the KR. It seems only fair to keep an article about a critic - especially when said critic was right and they were wrong. Not to mention that his resume since his undergraduate years is impressive.Smallchief (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Smallchief. Also feel there needs to be a different standard to deal with articles concerning people whose birth countries lost the mass of their "reliable sources" when libraries, universities and newspapers were deliberately burned to erase culture. Jacqke (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Comment. The article requires some cleanup and better sourcing, and partially comes across as somewhat promotional (including the largely unsourced "honors and awards" section), but he appears to be sufficiently notable under GNG. --Tataral (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, Tataral for your comment in this discussion. Given that you think the subject of this biography passes WP:GNG, could you please produce the WP:THREE best sources that establish so, for the benefit of the closing administrator? (Since the other two comments above do not make policy-based "keep" arguments, I am not going to respond to them directly.) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel very strongly about keeping the article. When looking more closely at the sources, I realised that they weren't as good as I first thought, so I've decided to strike my weak keep !vote based on the current state of the article. However, a Google News search returned a number of results from sources such as Al Jazeera, Voice of America, The New York Times, so it's still possible that he could pass GNG provided that the sourcing was improved. [1]--Tataral (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lot of them are just him being quoted. He isn't the primary subject of the story. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBLP. At least three of the sources are the subject's own writing on other outlets, one excessively used source is from their own website. As for the argument made by Jacqke on "birth countries losing reliable sources", he was ten when he left the country, what could he have possibly done then that was reported in the media and then burned down? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist. I would like to note that the current "keep" !votes are exceedingly weak and don't appear to be policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current page is weak but a quick search does seem to support the notion that the subject meets WP:GNG and is generally considered an expert in their field. See www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/khmer-rouge-cambodian-volleyball-federation-president-death-squads-a8884316.html www.economist.com/asia/2019/04/20/rapid-economic-growth-props-up-cambodias-strongman, www.asiatimes.com/2019/04/article/hun-sen-has-a-one-china-dilemma/,www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/crumbling-democracy:-sophal-ear-on-cambodian-pm-hun-sen/10044938, www.cfr.org/blog/qa-cambodia-sophal-ear,theaseanpost.com/article/why-cambodias-opposition-failed-0 Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is about someone who has major academic credentials, citations, publications, and awards. He is apparently a major spokesman for an unpopular point of view, and that is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia should keep.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear. No questions. Notable. Collect (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, given that you're an experienced user on AFD and DRV-related discussions, I believe you can make it easier for the closing admin by providing cogent reasons for your position. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um … The "notability" issue has been fully covered by others, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient. Talked at 2017 SEAAS Conference, TED participant, author (meets GNG for that as well), cited by Australian Broadcasting Company as an expert, member of local town council, cited by the "Independent" in the UK, BBC, and hordes of others. Cited by NYT in a number of articles, and writer of an op-ed in the NYT as well. Really want 50 cites from me as well? Cogent reason number one: The person is cited a massive number of times by recognized reliable sources. Should be more than enough. Collect (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, collect. Satisfying WP:AUTHOR, but failing to meet basic criteria would fall under "special case" in WP:NBLP and is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish notability, in the sense that they would qualify for a standalone article on themselves. To do so, we will need to show WP:THREE best sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the clear WP:Consensus rather disagrees with what you are certain of. See WP:KNOW. Collect (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is right. Ear has written three books and about 20 academic articles. His book "Aid Dependence in Cambodia" has 125 citations and his academic work as a whole has 1,114 citations. Academia, in my understanding, religiously counts citations as a measurement of significance.

More important, I believe is his work on the Khmer Rouge and its Western academic apologists. I would urge you to search "Sophal Ear Cambodia Chomsky" to see the impact his work attacking Khmer Rouge (KR) apologists has had. His scholarship on genocide by the KR in Cambodia has been compared (usually favorably) with that of Noam Chomsky by numerous people and publications. Somewhat similar to the way that 29 year-old congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has framed the debate about climate change, Ear framed the debate on a lesser, but still important, debate about the errors and prejudices of Western academics about the Khmer Rouge.

Compare, for example, the influence of Ear with Malcolm Caldwell, a British academic primarily notable for being a KR cheerleader and then becoming a murder victim of that same KR. Nobody, to my knowledge has proposed that Caldwell's wikipedia article be deleted because he is not notable. Ear is certainly far more important than Caldwell. (Full disclosure: i contributed to the Caldwell article and possibly (I don't recall) to the Ear article.) Smallchief (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Smallchief. So you're saying that subject qualifies WP:ACADEMIC criteria #1 and #7? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also notable as an opinion maker, a commentator. People with similar credentials not based totally on academia such as Gareth Porter and Nate Thayer have wikipedia articles in good standing. So, yes, Ear has academic credentials bolstered by his prominence as a commentator on Cambodia.Smallchief (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable, but The article requires some cleanup and reliable sources. -MA Javadi (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2019 (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.