Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hick

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The result was Withdrawn, issues resolved by Hazillow --B (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Hick[edit]

This is a completely unsourced article about a living person. I think this individual is probably borderline on notability - in other words, if someone wants to write a well-sourced article about him, I wouldn't object. But this current article is an unsourced essay and that's not acceptable for an article about a living person. B (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to easily be notable so only cleanup is required. He won a $150K prize in 1991 for one of his books, has at least 8 news articles in the opening page of google-news-archives alone and over 150 in total, is mentioned in books he didn't write including "Against John Hick: An Examination of His Philosophy of Religion", "Modern Christian Thought", "Problems in the Philosophy of Religion: Critical Studies of the Work of John Hick" and others. He work also appears well cited in scholarly articles - Peripitus (Talk) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be sourced, but the deletion process isn't to bring attention to this fact. The man is notable per Google as Peripitus mentioned. An appropriate forum to bring up this article's weaknesses is its talk page. Hazillow (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but right now, there are no sources whatsoever. It needs to be sourced, stubified, or deleted. I don't care which. --B (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of current sources within the article is not a valid deletion reason - if this was the case then 90% of the articles here would go. There are unreferenced,wikify etc.. maintenance tags for this rather than AfD. The only valid deletion reason for a bio is that it is unsourceable....not that it currently lacks citations - Peripitus (Talk) 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When the article is a biography of a living person, a lack of sources is very much a reason to delete. One of three things is going to happen in a week - the article will be sourced, deleted, or stubified. Again, I don't care which, but once we become aware of unsourced biographies of living people, we fix them in some fashion. This article has had the "somebody else ought to fix this problem" tag since July 2007. If it were an article on quantum physics, ok, whatever. But this is an article on a biography of a living person. After the Controversy over Wikipedia's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr., lack of sourcing in BLPs became a critical issue. --B (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF Racepacket (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which part of WP:PROF are you referencing? The man is widely considered an expert in theology. As far as I can tell, he meets not only one, but all six criteria for notability by an academic: 1.He is regarded as an expert by independent sources, 2. He is regarded as an important figure by other notables in his field, 3. Has published not one but several notable works in his field, 4. His collection of work is well known, 5. Is known for originating and popularizing an important concept, and 6. has received an award. So, I really don't know why you referenced PROF.Hazillow (talk)`
Improved. I have added five sources for various biographical information as well as his positions and will be working on this throughout the week. Hazillow (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Appears to be a noted author in his field and respected amongst his peers. Mainstream fame should not be the sole arbiter of notability, or else we'd propose deleting Isaac Newton for not being as notable as Paris Hilton. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recent added references throughout the article (some from easily accessible, scholarly online sources no less) should go a long way toward meeting the concern of the AfD project originator as to lack of references. The large volume of Google Scholar hits speaks to notability of the subject. This is of course distinct from accepting his premises, arguments, or conclusions. --Thomasmeeks (talk) P.S. Related digression: The Talk Page template (top) for the subject states that "[c]ontroversial material about living persons (emph. added) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." I don't know that any of the biographical material presently in the article is controversial. What should be removed are controversial statements about the subject, not necessarily statements about controversial positions that the subject has expressed. —Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Inappropriate use of the deletion process to force maintenance of an article. Even the original nomination suggests that he may pass notability, and now that others above have dug up multiple books with his name in the title it's completely clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer that I just delete it with the summary "G10" rather than give someone a chance to fix it? BLPs with zero sources are unacceptable. They either get fixed or they get deleted. --B (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. Controversial statements in BLPs with no sources are unacceptable and should be deleted, and the whole BLP should be deleted if it consists only of such or has no assertion of notability after the controversial statements are removed. But that's not the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole article is telling about the guy's religious views. Religion is inherently a heated topic and so if we are falsely attributing religious viewpoints to him, that's inherently contentious. Speaking of G10 deletions, WP:BLP says, "Further, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain or undelete the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." If you want to retain the still-unsourced portions of the article, fine - just source them. --B (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject is quite notable and very influential in his field. Lordjeff06 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously from the start a notable academic. But it's only fair to say that this was nominated at the request of another user [1].DGG (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even after looking at the article at the point the AfD was created, the article made rather clear claims of notability. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires individuals to research prospective claims of notability, edit and improve the article to address concerns, or consider merging, all before taking any steps to nominate an article for AfD. These obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy do not appear to have been fulfilled, and merely noting the lack of sources is an unacceptable excuse for deletion, especially as the nominator acknowledges "this individual is probably borderline on notability", which makes the failure to add the sources required all the more disturbing. As the article stands, the multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided establish an inarguable satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability policy. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not notability, nor is it my responsibility to maintain the article. The issue is that there is a heckuva lot of unsourced content here. The improved version is better than it was (when I opened this nomination, there were zero sources), but far from sufficient. Either the article gets deleted, the unsourced content gets removed, or it gets sourced - I don't care which. We don't maintain unsourced articles about living people. Period. I don't care how notable they are. We shouldn't have to wait until OTRS is contacted to take care of a problem. One of Wikipedia's biggest problems right now is the notion that any content is better than no content and that's gotten us into trouble on multiple occasions. --B (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So basically, you nominated this to prove a point. The article deletion system is not put in place to force edits. It worked this time, but perhaps next time people won't fix it and vote to keep it simply to prove a point, like you just did. Slippery slope. Hazillow (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I didn't nominate it to prove a point. I nominated it because as the article stood, it was unacceptable. That problem can be remedied in one of three ways - delete it, make it into a stub, or cite it. For at least one of those solutions, this is the appropriate venue. --B (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You desperately need to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy which clearly lays out your obligations to research, edit, improve or consider merging articles before starting an AfD, and your statement that you have no responsibility to maintain the article is false, if you were considering an AfD. If you refuse to fulfill this obligation to improve the article, there are dozens of tags that can be applied to request that others do the work for you. I don't now that this AfD violates WP:POINT, but it seems to be a rather clear WP:Deletion policy violation. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article has been tagged with maintenance tags (aka, "someone else should solve this problem" tags) for six months and it hasn't been fixed. We don't keep unsourced BLPs around - period. The obligation is on the person wanting to keep the BLP to show that it is sourced and otherwise compliant with policy. At the time I nominated this article, it was not compliant with policy. It still isn't, although it is much better. BLP issues supersede anything in the deletion policy ... although a claim that a potential nominator is required to improve even a non-BLP rather than requesting its deletion is silly on its face - there is no affirmative obligation for anyone here to edit. --B (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now with more improvement. I have completely rewritten the article and removed all non-free images as well as anything that was not sourced. Furthermore, it is much more wikified, in accordance to consensus on style. Please have a look. Hazillow (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job! --B (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (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.