Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Saxton

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. Filest (aktl) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Saxton

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

I don't see that this person is notable - the scientology vs the Aussie govt issue might be notable, but I can't see how this person is.

WP:BLP1E could apply here. The-Pope (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Satisfies
whistleblower, as well as to biographical details about his life, and media reactions, and subsequent reactions from the organization where he was a whistleblower. This is not simply "one event", but actually a significant amount of coverage from many different secondary sources relating to multiple different aspects of this individual's life and biography. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Not much biography to speak of. What is this person's occupation? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is

WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Subject is mentioned in articles from The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Sydney Morning Herald, The New Zealand Herald, The Australian, ~~Sky News, the BBC News, the front page of the New York Times~~, do I really need to keep going? I do not think there is any doubt about notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is everybody who has been mentioned on the New York Times front page notable? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not see his name there, nor in the links to the BBC or Sky. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure I saw him in those. My mistake. But my point still stands that multiple articles in the other five newspapers I linked (and the fact that the article itself has 29 cites) is pretty clear evidence of notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator's opinion that the subject is not notable is irrelevant. As Cirt points out, the standard is
WP:N, and this entry more than meets it, with nearly 30 reliable sources. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This...this is a joke, right? I'm staring at a well-written and well-referenced article that is definitely one of the Wiki's better articles, though definitely not in GA or FA status or even close to there, but still rather nice. And it's on AfD? What's going on here? Silver seren^C 00:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy is at the centre of a political case unfolding in Australia which has received a level of worldwide attention, and has been the subject of significant published secondary source material which is reliable and independent of the subject. Therefore, meets
WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BIO1E; this person is only in the news because Nick Xenophon had quoted him in a parliamentary session; the article was written to counter this deletion request on Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

He has ongoing coverage, which overrides the one event rule. Silver seren^C 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nominator: Do you all really think that a mention or two as being a letter writer in 10 articles in 10 papers on the same topic on the same day makes someone notable? The topic of a politician accusing Scientology conducting torture is probably notable. I maintain that the whistleblower is not independently notable, and at best this should be merged/redirected to a more complete article on the
link bombing of the basically the same story in 30 references is overkill - number of references alone is no indication of notabilty.The-Pope (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and merge to ~~Scientology in Australia per nom.~~ --JN 466 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Cirt has researched and fleshed out the article sufficiently over the past few days to keep as a standalone biography. --JN 466 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every once in a while the topic of Scientology flares up; this AFD arose in a recently closed arbitration enforcement thread which concluded with a warning to Pieter Kuiper and no warning to Cirt (who wrote this biography). See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Pieter_Kuiper. The closer is invited to consider whether a B-class article with nearly thirty sources would otherwise be at AFD. Durova⁴¹² 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not B-class, it's unassessed by anyone but its author, who rated it Start class. I am always amazed at how the topic of Scientology is able to make people abandon all sense of compass direction. Honestly, how is this a biography? It is about Saxton's allegations, not Saxton, and that is what the sources are commenting upon. As a BLP, it is nothing but a puffed-up
  WP:Coatrack
  , in parts saying much the same thing over and over again; e.g.:
  "Senator Nick Xenophon stated that Saxton "rose to a position of influence in Sydney and the United States" within Scientology.[8] According to 3 News, while in the organization he was part of "Scientology's senior management".[9] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Saxton "rose to a senior level" within the Sea Org.[7]"
- Or:
  "The Courier-Mail called Saxton a whistleblower against Scientology,[2] and 3 News reported that Saxton's "whistleblowing about the Church has made it all the way to the Australian Parliament".[9] The New Zealand Herald described the statements given to Senator Xenophon by Saxton as "at the centre" of the Senator's speech in the Australian Senate criticizing Scientology.[3] The New Zealand Herald commented, "Saxton's allegations about behind-the-scenes church activities caused an uproar after they were quoted in the Australian Senate", and noted that Saxton's statements "formed part of a blistering attack in the Australian Senate".[4] The Australian current affairs program, produced by the Seven Network, Today Tonight, described Saxton's revelations as "shocking".[5] Today Tonight commented, "He joined a group of former Scientologists in revealing stunning, shocking claims of abuse, tabled by federal independent Senator Nick Xenophon."[5]"
- This content would be correctly placed in Scientology in Australia, and deserves a hefty subsection (minus the repetitiveness) in Scientology controversies. It would actually find a lot more interested readers there. ;) --JN 466 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems like systemic bias to set the bar for biography notability differently for Australia than for North America or Europe. If Saxton (or anyone else of comparable notability) requested courtesy deletion I'd nominate/support AFD in a heartbeat. That said, let's be candid: if this article were about an Olympic athlete instead of a former Scientologist, with equivalent scope and sourcing, it wouldn't be at AFD. Let's follow the same standards regardless of whether the subject is sport, religion, or anything else. Durova⁴¹² 17:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you that compared to the "BLPs" of Thai footballers I have seen, this article demonstrates a wealth of secondary-source coverage. :) I think the problem is
      WP:PROF
      , there are thousands of academics who have made significant contributions to science, have written books and papers that have been widely reviewed and cited, and are still not considered worthy of an article here.
    - Where Saxton differs from professional footballers or academics is that being a Scientology critic is not his profession. He just happens to be a private person who spoke out. Presenting Saxton's allegations in the context of a BLP is not the proper way to do it. If you want people to read Saxton's allegations, and how they have been received in Australia and abroad, I believe that material is better off in the Scientology articles I mentioned above. I would even support a standalone article on the Australian senate discussions initiated by Senator Xenophon. --JN 466 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well yes, and Olympic athletes are traditionally amateurs. Durova⁴¹² 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment from nominator: Just to clarify, I found this article from the User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult, not from any ArbCom or other issue list. Everyone else is comparing it to other articles - the one that I think it matches is murder victims. Invariably, murder victims have articles written on them, and most end up being deleted/moved/redirected to articles about the crime, not the victim. Unless Saxton becomes a Ellen Brockovich style serial whistleblower/activist, the story at the moment is about Allegations of torture in Scientology, not about him. As JN466 said, this is a coatrack. I now wish I'd stuck to the disclaimer on my user page:Despite my username, I am not at all interested in religion. Back to footy players for me. You lot can have your religion arguments to yourselves.The-Pope (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In its present state, the article relies extensively on Saxton's
self-published interviews. Some of the quotes sound rather self-serving, or include claims about third parties. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 67.242.138.141 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) — 67.242.138.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closing administrator: while this AFD was underway Pieter Kuiper was the subject of two arbitration enforcement requests. On 29 March 2010 he was topic banned for two weeks from Scientology and related discussions. Durova⁴¹² 05:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak) - While not greatly noteworthy as such, the article is reasonably well sourced and merging it with another article would make that article overly long. I don't see how Wikipedia is harmed by keeping this article even if it is not one of the strongest or most needed articles in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicocat (talk • contribs)
Keep. Keith Henson (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and influential. Nageh (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for
rescue. Silver seren^C 18:34, 31 March 2010 (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.