Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Carr (activist)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Carr (activist)[edit]

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

Improperly sourced WP:BLP of a writer and activist. There's definitely a valid potential claim of notability here, but there's not enough substance or enough reliable sourcing to get the shot into the net -- as written, this only just barely goes any further than "Robert Carr is a person who exists", and both of its references are to content written by him rather than about him. As always, a writer gets over our inclusion standards by being the subject of media content written by other people, not by being the bylined author of media content about other things. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find better sources than I've been able to, but nothing here is good enough as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an article on the Human Rights Campaign website about Carr's death, Human Rights and HIV Activist Robert Carr Mourned, as well as an article at The Jamaica Observer (here) but the latter ties in with the former. I also found an article about an award in his name. It seems to be a lot easier to find articles about his foundation that the man. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's also important to recognize that widely regarded activists like Dr. Carr (as seen by his remembrances), who are coming from developing countries like Trinidad and Jamaica where there is little to no social, political, legal, etc. mobilization/support/dialogue on HIV/AIDS and gender identity issues, are not going to have the same size editorial trail as their American and European counterparts. He is in a unique position because he appears to be a pioneer, of sorts, for the Caribbean region, in a relatively recent global movement that is still ongoing. I think the fact that he is cited by the publications and organizations that he is, easily satisfies the notability requirement. I've found the following secondary sources pertaining to Dr. Carr (a few of which have already been mentioned):

°Hon. Barbara Lee in United States House of Representatives (here) °The Atlantic (here) °The Robert Carr Doctrine (here) °amfAR (here) °UNAIDS (here) °[World] (here) °The Global Forum on MSM & HIV (here) °LA Times (here) °ICASO (here) °Human Rights Watch (here) °Pan American Health Organization (here) °UNAIDS Caribbean (here) °The Jamaica Observer (here) °Metropolitan Community Churches (here) °Stabroek News - (here) Channyloulou (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou (talk)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete GS cites of 106, 36, 38, 37, 30, 64, 5, 5, 12 a bit slender for WP:Prof#C1. Above claim that that allegedly under represented communities should be subjected to lower standards of notability has been dismissed WP:Notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I don't think it should be held to lower standards, thus my citations and ongoing additions to the page that continue to satisfy notability. I mentioned it because I think it's an important perspective to consider. Channyloulou (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

The core issue is that because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we are unable to guarantee that every possible "anybody" is always editing with good intentions. Our articles are quite regularly dirtwashed with poorly sourced criticisms or POV epithets or insider gossip about their personal lives, or even have outright false information added — and reliable source coverage is the only defense we have against any of those things. So as unfortunate as it is that some groups of people may not have gotten the depth of coverage they deserved, we can't waive our sourcing requirements just because an article subject happens to be part of an underrepresented group — because many of those same underrepresented groups are also the most vulnerable to attack editing (e.g. attempts to "reveal" the unpublicized former name of a transgender person, attempts by homophobes to smear notable people who are gay or lesbian, etc.) A Wikipedia article is a double-edged sword which can have negative consequences for the subject, so our includability standards have to keep an eye on protecting people from that harm — namely by not keeping an article at all if they're not the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I think he has shown a bit of notability and more time should be given for editors to expand the article. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fww. The article has something about that seems off, beside the style, but I can't nail it down. Author is SPA, perhaps a sock of PROMO hub? L3X1 (distant write) 21:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions I think the time to close this discussion and remove the deletion banner at the top of the page has come.Channyloulou (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

That can only be done by an administrator who has not already participated in the discussion, no earlier than seven full days after the last relist. There's nothing I or you can do to make it happen any faster than that. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. I've searched, but I can't find much, pretty much just the mentions of him that already source the article. Most troubling is the lack is an obit in a major newspaper, a notable would have had one. And in the four years since the death of a truly notable activist, there would have been mentions of him if he had been notable. Moreover, while he wrote chapters in several non-notable ebooks, he wrote only a single book (2003) and I cannot find that it was reviewed. My JSTOR search on one title "Black Nationalism in the New World" + Carr came up empty. as did a gNews search. Not a single academic or popular review. This is not notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a review of one of Dr. Carr's works on JSTOR (here). It took me 5 seconds. I hope that all of these comments claiming lack of notability aren't just automatically accepted as true, but thoroughly verified before being considered as legitimate input with respect to whether this page should or should not remain up.Channyloulou (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Channyloulou[reply]

Note that my comment was about the sole book that he seems to have written. The review you cite is of an edited work containing chapters by many authors. Carr is the third of tree editors, not the author. The review does contain a favorable comment about the chapter in the book that he wrote. The journal in which the review is published, Social and Economic Studies published by the University of the West Indies, however, is not a leading scholarly journal, but even if it were, a single review of a collection of scholarly essays of which one is third editor adds very little to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, all academics publish, mostly they publish non-notable articles in non-notable journals and non-notable books. For a scholar to claim notability as a scholar, the published work has to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out above, efforts in the third world are not going to get as much media coverage, but I'm basing my vote more on his published scholarly output, and that there's an award established to keep his legacy alive. Timtempleton (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on publication history and for the other reasons mentioned above. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (or Draft) as nom indicated, this article has potential, just not in it's current state and I see that in order to quickly add more content to sustain it, we may've skimmed over copyright violations as well - full report available here. Needs massive copyedit too as it mostly has copy-pasted content in quotes; although the original sources do not present as such. TopCipher (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (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.