Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Gmirkin

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 delete. As a BLP we are better starting afresh, especially if the subject espouses fringe views so happy to share the sourcing with anyone wanting to create the book article.

Spartaz Humbug! 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Russell Gmirkin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Russell Gmirkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only sources other than one interview and Gmirkin's works themselves are a bunch of negative reviews of the latter (Anthonioz 2017, Van Seters 2007, Wood 2008). Especially given the fact that Russell Gmirkin's theories are
WP:NACADEMIC. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you're misreading the book review. The link is not full access, and only shows a snippet. The actual review is across three pages. StAnselm (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have library access to the whole thing. It's spread across three pages, but most of it is basically a Table of Contents. Part III discusses ‘Greek and Ancient Near Eastern law collections’. It addresses the following topics: (a) Ancient Near East law collection; (b) Comparison with biblical law collections... There's a two-sentence paragraph at the end which boils down to
talk) 03:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, OK. My mistake. StAnselm (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! And feel free to disagree, of course. I'm sure I've developed some idiosyncratic opinions after 5+ years of these things. :-)
talk) 03:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
While
WP:PROF consensus may not be as solid as it once was. I am more inclined towards your approach on the matter, TBH. jps (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
By the much-vaunted GNG, any paper that has had follow-up in two or three other papers by different authors is technically "notable". I shudder to think of thousands of mini-articles being created on that basis, and then merged to create biographies of their lead authors... Our wiki-notability guidelines for academics are in practice a higher bar than the alternative. As to whether we can make a summary statement based on book reviews, I think we could at least say "His work has been criticized for X, Y, and Z" — merely giving a summary, rather than drawing the conclusion that his work is completely or largely rejected. But, on the other hand, there's so little to go on that I'm not convinced the wiki-notability standard for academics or authors is met.
talk) 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Mere follow-up or even reviews are not necessarily significant coverage.
WP:GNG requires this, stating specifically so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This seems to be precisely what's missing here. A list of particular criticisms is not enough, we must be able to make a broad analytic statement. If doing that would be deemed OR, the subject is not notable in my view. But maybe we can; hopefully other !voters will weigh in. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think any wiki-notability guideline requires the existence of a definitive take on a person's work, or a meta-analysis of the original reviews. The absence of such an evaluation in a reliable source rules out our inventing one, of course, but in my view that absence isn't what makes the case for this article dubious. Right now, I'm in a "weak delete" mood, as I don't think the bar for academics publishing in book-oriented fields is quite met.
talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or, possibly, refactor to an article about the Berossus and Genesis book. I was unable to substantiate a case that the subject's work has been particularly influential; beyond that one book, it hasn't even been significantly commented upon. One way or another, the wiki-notability guidelines for scholars and for authors ask for a noteworthy body of work — an accomplished career, rather than a
    talk) 18:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete on the basis of
    Great Man theory of ideas. jps (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think the community consensus expressed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) indicates otherwise. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is tension. I believe that this case illustrates why
WP:NOTINHERITED should win. jps (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe that this is an edge case that demonstrates very little about general principles.
talk) 13:29, 19 August 2022 (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/Russell_Gmirkin&oldid=1105478183"