Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Littman (historian)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Littman (historian)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biographical article is sourced only with websites connected to the subject of the article (a journal article by him; his wife's personal homepage; his publisher's blurb on Amazon.com (EDIT: actually, it is not clear whether/what involvement he had with the book in question - the Amazon page does not mention his name, but that of Vernon David Lipman); his personal webpage). Based on my own Googling (which may not have been exhaustive), this does not appear easily remediable, although there does appear to be independent interest in him on the part of some bloggers. There is consensus (I think it is unanimity amongst currently active editors) on the

article talkpage that this article is suitable for an AfD nomination. (EDIT: Actually, at least one had not yet commented). The difficulty in finding Reliable Sources concerning the subject may be leading to editing disputes. I feel the logical solution to this is an AfD nomination. FormerIP (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Added comment. I want to share that when I first encountered this article, the opening was "David Littman (b. July 4, 1933, London) is a British historian and, according to his wife, a human rights activist at the United Nations in Geneva". I found this very amusing, and I hope it has made you smile too. I think it is symptomatic, though, of an article about which something needs to be done. (Thanks to the editor who fixed this - I was too busy snickering). --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further added comment. If he is determined to be notable, there also appears to be dispute amongst editors as to what he may be primarily notable for. It has been suggested that he is notable as an historian. He is published on a number of historical topics, although it is not clear how significant these publications are. Some editors appear to find the description of him as "historian" to by incorrect. It is also suggested that he may be a significant human rights activist. He appears to have attended at least one meeting organised by the UN (I would suggest this is true of thousands of people) on behalf of World Union for Progressive Judaism. They don't mention him on their website, however, as far as I can see, although they list scores of members and associates. It has also been suggested that he may be notable because of his links to Mossad. This has been controversial, and appears to be sourced only to a blog (EDIT: a better source for this has now been found).).
Anyone commenting may wish to also consider whether there is any particular one of these headings under which the subject's primary notability may fall. --FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny as it may be, it is actually better to write "according to his wife" then to state this claim as a fact. We can't just put whatever his wife is writing on her home page into an encyclopedia. Just imagine what would happen if she suddenly decided to hate his guts, for whatever reason? Article is terribly lacking in RS, which comes in addition to lack of notability. -- Heptor talk 17:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is also suggested that he may be a significant human rights activist. He appears to have attended at least one meeting organised by the UN (I would suggest this is true of thousands of people) on behalf of World Union for Progressive Judaism. They don't mention him on their website, however, as far as I can see, although they list scores of members and associates. It has also been suggested that he may be notable because of his links to Mossad. This has been controversial, and appears to be sourced only to a blog." What about this: "The Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center at Glilot recently bestowed upon David G. Littman, the World Union’s spokesman to UN bodies in Geneva, its Hero of Silence award for his work in conjunction with the Mossad in “Operation Mural,” the smuggling of 530 Moroccan children to Israel in the summer of 1961." etc.[1] This seems to address both complaints. Beit Or 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Beit. This appears to me to be the first usable source anyone has found. I don't think it shows notability, because it is from Littman's own organisation, but I do think it is an RS for certain factual claims. I have commented further here:
Talk:David_Littman_(historian)#World_Union_for_Progressive_Judaism, and I will amend what I wrote above. --FormerIP (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps he is distinguished (I have no basis on which to judge), but that is not the same thing as notable for WP purposes. Also, being published (any number of times) does not amount to notability in itself. If good RS material establishing his notability can be found, however, I will agree. At the moment, I am unable, for example, to find any reviews of his work, works by other authors that cite him or any mention of him in traditional media. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many works by others that cite his work, as well as dozens of mentions of him in RS media.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly sourced as an "historian". He does not seem to be an official historian, accredited in an university or something. Some think-thanks publications like MEQ mention it that way, but this seems to be insufficient to qualify him as such. He could appear as notable for his involvement in "Operation Mural" in Marocco in 1961, an operation for which he has been awarded at a high level by Mossad. However, the sourcing for this has not been accepted by some editors: it's only sourced by blogs, and I've been denied to use it. I don't think he could be mentionned for his activities in various NGOs, labelled "humanists", but that is debatable. He is also active in some milieux involved with european and far-rightists (a la Vlaams Belang), about "counter jihad". If the acticle is kept, this should be mentionned, because it is properly sourced. Also, if the article is kept, I question the naming as "historian" in the title itself. In other words: if the article is kept, there is no reason to label him as "historian", and his referenced activities in some dubious european milieux should be mentionned. TwoHorned (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Per FormerIP. Complete lack of RS. -- Heptor talk 10:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that some reliable sources were found, but I don't think it's enough to build a complete article. -- Heptor talk 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already a pretty complete one (certainly longer and better sourced than many biographies I've seen). What do you think is missing? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! Fantastic rescue effort! -- Heptor talk 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, RS for historian takes little to no effort to find. Copts in Egypt: a Christian minority under siege, by Martyn Thomas, Adly A. Youssef, p190; David Gerald Littman: Historian, born in London, received his BA and MA degrees in modern history and political science at Trinity College Dublin..... --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That demonstrates that he is published, Kansas Bear (he is one of the contributors to the book you cite), but not everyone who is published is notable enough to have a WP article dedicated to them. --FormerIP (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the two deletes were based on, Poorly sourced as an "historian". He does not seem to be an official historian, accredited in an university or something. and Complete lack of RS. Which both have been proven incorrect. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. A reference from a small conference hosted by organization like G2W is not sufficient to lqbel as "historian", as per WP standard; you must have different sources. And what is his official academic affiliation as historian ? And MEQ is not at all a "peer reviewed". It's a think-tank publication. TwoHorned (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And wtf is meant by "official historian", a phrase that should leave any thinking person with a sickening feeling in their stomach given its connection with state-control, authorisation, and self-censorship. Meowy 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or seriousness, just to depart from all the bozos in liberal think-tanks who label them as "historians"... TwoHorned (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think another word for this is "professional". Littman does not appear to have ever held an academic teaching or research post, has never been employed by anyone as an historian and it looks unlikely he has ever been paid a significant amount for any of his historical writings (they are contributions to historical journals, for which significant payment would be unusual), so his not a self-employed historian. He also appears to have never been cited by any other author. At best, he is an amateur historian. --FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most "academics" are also not "professonal historians", their primary means of earning their income is not through writing history books, and book or article production will not be a big part of their everyday work - they are also "amateur historians", though without the freedom an unattached "amateur" status would bring. But we know on a wider scale where this leads to - disenfranchise a population, remove their right to have an opinion about a subject because they are not qualified in that subject, remove their right to take any action on their own initiative because they are not qualified to judge the implications of their actions. Meowy 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a joke ? Please refer to
WP:PROF. TwoHorned (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep per DGG and Kansas Bear. The article contains several reliable sources, including an article in The National Review, The peer-reviewed academic journal Middle East Quarterly etc... Los Admiralos (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Following the closure of this AfD debate, this user was found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:NoCal100.[reply]

However, these journal articles you refer to are articles written by him. These are not RS for the purpose of demonstrating his notability. It seems like no source which is not
WP:SELFPUB describes him as an historian. --FormerIP (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Copts in Egypt: a Christian minority under siege was not self-published by David Littman, as can be seen here[2]. All I see is alot of false assertions, "Poorly sourced as an "historian", "Complete lack of RS.","He also appears to have never been cited by any other author.",[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. This appears more and more like an issue of personal animosity than a concern for encyclopedic quality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@LosAdmiralos: do you think Middle East Quarterly is peer-reviewed academic ? TwoHorned (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I withdrew the "Complete lack of RS" claim. Some reliable sources appeared after the article was nominated for AfD. -- Heptor talk 21:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. GS cites are 13, 6, 5, 2, 1. I do not know what is par for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
You may have already noticed this, but he is published under three versions of his name, as well as one joint nom de plume.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Egregious eh? --FormerIP (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::I don't know if 'Egregious' is the correct adjective, but it certainly does not look like you spent any effort at all looking for sources, prior to the nomination. All the recent RS additions to the article were easily found by other editors, and are available on-line. Now that these RS's have been found, how about withdrawing your nomination, as a gesture of good faith? Los Admiralos (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, and somehow the nom's google search missed them, I apologize, but though I tried to AGF, the dozens of articles a google search yielded led me to presume that wp:before had not been followed. But I'm willing to stand corrected, and apologize if I was wrong. At the same time, help from others w/the discussion now at the bottom of the article's talk page would be appreciated. I'm concerned that the article is being template-bombed w/ (IMHO) baseless COI and neutrality templates by an editor who simply does not like the subject's views.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look back at previous versions of the page. It previously recorded him as primarily an historian, which is still not supported by any RS. The search terms "'David Littman'" and "'David Littman' historian" did not yield good results and I was unable to find an RS. I posted on the talk page, and active editors agreed to AfD. Multiple editors have since conducted research allowing connections which have allowed for different search wording. This was something I was not able to do at the time, without being a very good guesser, or spending an awful lot of time (not a good investment, I thought, since the article initially appeared to be purely about a non-notable historian, with no secondary sources). I still feel that no RS material has been presented supporting Littman's notability as an historian. His role as an activist at the UN, I think, remains of questionable notability. Many many people have said many many things at the UN - we don't create articles about all of them. I think his role in Operation Mural is now established as notable. So I still have major issues with the way the article is constructed, because it does not give a proper reflection of reasons for notability. Also, the AfD seems to have spurred a flurry of activity which has turned a long pointless article into something that may actually end up being of interest, so I think the nomination was exactly the right thing. And since it is creating useful discussion, I think it should be allowed to roll on. --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple, independent RS that establish his notability. Beit Or 20:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search for his name and the words "human rights" show dozens of results about the man. [13] Dream Focus 00:28, 14 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Littman_(historian)&oldid=1137769825"