Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Marshner

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. It seems like the discussion here is in part about a redirect target, in part about whether WP:NAUTHOR is met. Some people are arguing that he and/or his publications have received wide enough attention to satisfy the NAUTHOR guideline, others that the attention is too insufficient. This is a point on which people can reasonably disagree and I don't see an overwhelming argument on either side, thus no consensus. Regarding the redirect target, it seems like there are two or three separate targets, with Connaught Marshner being the most commonly cited one, but the arguments for pointing to the book (primarily known for the book) or the institution (primarily known through the institution) are also fair. So that would be a no consensus here as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Marshner[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)

Fails WP:GNG. While Marshner was chair of an academic department at one time, I don't believe that Christendom College (total enrollment was 560 students in 2017-18) qualifies as a "major institution of higher education and research" and therefore doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beyard508 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and there are no references. Syndicater (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. Searching Google Books turns up a few references. He seems to have been quite influential in the New Right, mostly through his work with the FCF. His wife, Connaught (Connie) Marshner is better known than he is - it's a shame she doesn't have a page as a redirect there would probably annoy him on biblical grounds. They both turn up in Susan Faludi's Backlash, where Connie Marshner is profiled at length (pp 272ff) [1] Polyharrisson (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a page for Connaught Marshner, his wife - I think his page should be redirected to hers as she is much better known as a conservative political activist, author and influential figure in the New Right of the 1970s and 1980s. Polyharrisson (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Connaught Marshner, as per Polyharrisson - good call - Epinoia (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this one you can't just look at what's in the existing Wikipedia article (not least because it is copyvio). At minimum, Marshner is notable under WP:AUTHOR. Even ignoring all the other things he wrote, Cultural Conservatism was one of the most influential books within right-wing American politics from the late 1980s forward. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connaught Marshner as a WP:ATD where he is mentioned (and can be expanded to reflect on his work) per WP:PRESERVE which is a policy. Seems that his book Cultural Conservatism: A New National Agenda could be notable per WP:NBOOK because it was reviewed in notable publications. But that does not make him notable because notability is not inherited, and he would be only known for one event (co-creating one notable book). WP:AUTHOR argument can be made, but I don't see that the book itself is mentioned widely as "significant" (and cannot be verified as such per another policy at WP:V even if WP:OFFLINE arguments stands) or that it recieved awards and "won significant critical attention". If an article about the book was made, I would propose redirecting to that article, but since it was not, this will suffice. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily passes WP:NAUTHOR as very significant in his field as shown by reliable sources such as The Wall St Journal, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion on the WP:AUTHOR point raised late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge I read the WSJ review of the book but it doesn't remotely call him "very significant in his field"; it's a standard book review by an ideological ally that says "the final product is commonly referred to as 'Weyrich's book'" due to its association with Paul Weyrich without detail on Marshner. It doesn't substantiate notability for him. Reywas92^Talk 07:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A scholarly book published by a significant university press refers to him as "a prominent New Right leader and one of the architects of cultural conservatism": Carol Mason, Reading Appalachia from Left to Right: Conservatives and the 1974 Kanawha County Textbook Controversy Cornell University Press, 2011, p113.Wmdiem (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, worth noting, a publication of the SPLC describes Marshner's book "Cultural Conservatism" as "the script for what has become known as the 'culture wars'" And the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Liturature discusses the same book under the heading "Key Books and Periodicals of 20th-Century Conservative Thought" (see 10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.34)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The article only talks of one book, which I would have argued was not enough, but the fact that the book is the subject of much later criticism suggest that it is significant; if so we ought to have an article on it or its author. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 25 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.