Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Veith (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Note: turnout on this was apparently influenced by

selective canvassing, so there's no prejudice against speedy renomination. slakr\ talk / 03:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Walter Veith

AfDs for this article:
Walter Veith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been at AfD & deleted before: the rationale for recreation is that the recent accusation of antisemitism has created enough coverage to establish notability. However, there seems to be nothing about this character other than mentions on adventist websites (which are [pretty dismissive]) & hardcore fruit-loop conspiracy theorist pages. Of course, this silence could be down to the Pope acting in collusion with the Illuminati and of course the reverse Vampires.... TheLongTone (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you have put in the article on anti-Semitism, then you present it for deletion. That's seems a bit disingenuous IMHO.Simbagraphix (talk)

That is a misrepresentation of what little editing I have done on the article: it is almost entirely sourced from effectivly self published material, I simply added a quote from a different point of view. The article as it stands is far from neutral. I certainly did not add the stuff about anti-semitism.TheLongTone (talk)

Well it certainly appears in that manner and intent. Simbagraphix (talk)

Just how? What I have been doing is to firstly translate this into something approaching intelligable English and secondly trying to inject a bit of objectivity. Difficult since there are so few reliable sources: which is why I put it to AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My reason for starting this article had nothing to do with his antisemitism remarks, If indeed they are. Veith is a very popular speaker in the SDA world having spoken in churches and other venues all around the world. Whether some of his views are wacko to you is irrelevant. In the USA there is freedom of speech, which means that anyone can say anything they want. I don't know if this holds true on WP, but I thought it did. He is just as credible as all of the other SDA preachers, teachers, scholars, etc. who have WP pages. To be sure the article needs work. There are thousands and thousands of low quality WP articles that need lots of work and no one is running around trying to delete them. It seems that the main reason for trying to delete this one is because it runs counter to the beliefs of some editors. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the allegation that this is a bad faith nomination: its not that the man is a flake, it's that he's a non-notable flake. The Amazing Discoveries article, incidentally, got deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem of being based far too much on primary sources, on which I based my delete rationale in the previous AfD, has still not been fixed in this version. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Problems with sourcing. It is difficult to see why this BLP was recreated. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. give us some reliable sources first, then we'll see again whether the article should be recreated. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a presupposition and prejudice without any real examination, (i.e. 'hardcore fruit-loop conspiracy theorist pages. Of course, this silence could be down to the Pope acting in collusion with the Illuminati and of course the reverse Vampires..') to say nothing of the rush to delete. But I will work on the article this weekend and we shall see how we can get it resolved. Simbagraphix (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editorial break

  • Keep A quick checking of sources reveals a reasonable start. Outside of Adventism, Veith has made a showing among Creationists. Spectrum magazine has a reputation for being a reliable source. It has addressed some of Veith's ideas. Within Adventist circles, many give credence to his ideas. He is a thought-leader for many. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May we have sources for these claims? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Veith among creationists

Answers in Genesis, lead by Ken Ham.
Creation Ministries International
Not exactly a neutral source. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reliable sources don't have to be neutral. They need to be removed from the individual. There is no evidence that Veith has created a bias other than the information he stands for. There is no doubt that Veith stands with other Creationists who have found standing here on Wikipedia. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kent Hovind
  • On Hovind's blog... "I love Veith’s material except strongly differ on the SDA issue!" See: Kent Hovind's blog

Vieth in
Spectrum Magazine

Spectrum Magazine has a long history of news reporting on the Adventist World. Their work is especially useful here because they keep an arm's length from church control. Observations presented hear are less bias toward the church than most other Adventist magazines.
The articles about Veith are less than flattering. But as mentioned above neutrality is not a criteria for reliability.
Note these:
"Ron Osborn’s recent take on Walter Veith drew thousands of readers and nearly a thousand comments (thus far). "
"Walter Veith is the leading conspiratory voice within Adventism, followed by Bill Hughes and others. Veith has produced hundreds of hours of DVDs that keep his listeners sitting on the edge of the couch. Some viewers are anxious to hear his latest speculations; many are filled with anxiety for the future. Like a drug addiction, the more people view the videos, the more money they spend on these theories."
Note that Veith is the leading conspiratory voice within Adventist which has an annual budget of 50 billion dollars and a world membership of 18 million.
"For how many years has Walter Veith been speaking in our churches? And yet the first thing that’s caught the leaders’ attention is his anti-Semitism? The surprise is not that one region finally banned him, but that he has been for years, and continues to be, invited to speak in Seventh-day Adventist churches around the world! Why is that? It’s because a lot of his conspiratorial nonsense isn’t unwelcome among us. Go where the self-supporting folks are gathered, and you’ll find groups who self-identify as Seventh-day Adventists, whose central beliefs intersect ours on the Venn diagram, but with an appended compliment of their own bizarre ideas, from survivalism to radical health extremism to invisible barcodes on our foreheads to the Adventist church itself being Babylon. It shouldn’t escape your notice that we have had far more patience with Walter Veith and his made-up conspiracies than we showed a respected Adventist scholar who questioned the Investigative Judgment by referring to the Bible alone."
These views need to be properly expressed in the article, which is largely uncritical of Veith.TheLongTone (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • Keep I will work on researching and building up the article and getting the related sources, but as in all things, it will take time.Simbagraphix (talk)
  • Keep -- I note that he is described as a South African professor. I assume that South African usage of the term professor is similar to that in the UK, rather than to that of USA (which it is the equivalent of lecturer). If so, being a professor is another reason why he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. The only ex officio position that qualifies for
WP:Prof is #6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. . Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC).[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 06:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Simbagraphix has just recreated Amazing Discoveries. Given that this article has already been deleted because of issues with notability & sourcing and that the recreation relies almost exclusivly on self-published sources, I regard this action as mischievous in the extreme: it certainlt sits poorly beside the statement above about improving sources in the article under discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've already shown cause of being disingenuous, don't go beyond what you already have to add to it. I also created the page, Australian Army during World War I and Tanks in the Australian Army, is this 'mischievous in the extreme' also. IMHO, you are not seeking 'notability & sourcing', but it appears you have another agenda ... Simbagraphix (talk)
Disingenous? where?? I'd appreciate substantiation of that statement, or its withdrawal. The other article is mischeivous because there are clearly notability issues with the article and it would have been wise to have waited before the identical issues with this article were resolved. As for reliable sourcing, I have looked. Without success.TheLongTone (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was noted at the top, so check closer. As for reliable sourcing, this article has more than what you find on a vast majority of articles of persons on Wikipedia, so you have other reasons for seeking deletion...Simbagraphix (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.14.250 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you accuse me of inserting the stuff about antisemitism, which has been in the article from the beginning. As for my reasons, I am from your point of view clearly under the control of the Pope, the Illuminati and Miss Piggy, so there is little point in attempting a rational discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the primary sources cited in this article outweighs the secondary/independent, I was able to find two reliable newspapers sources independent of the subject. One is trivial and the other goes into detail about one of the subject's scientific researches. Trivial and Detailed. The fact that Veith has gotten worthy mentions in two of his country's biggest newspapers may be enough. versace1608 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly in depth coverage, I could whip up as much press coverage for my activities.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And also note that the above editor has been approached by User:Simmbagraphix-see below.TheLongTone (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I don't have an opinion about the article's notability, however I'll note that it appears Simbagraphix may have tainted this deletion discussion by violating
    WP:CANVASS with a dozen or so specific requests such as this to editors (who would be inclined to support "keep") to improve the article. While not linking directly to this deletion discussion, the first thing an editor will see on the Walter Veith article is the AfD notice. Isn't this the sort of thing that the Article Rescue Squadron got into trouble with a couple years back? Mojoworker (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry, didn't know about that. I thought editors were allowed to communicate...Simbagraphix (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, few to none reliable sources. The above-mentioned canvassing, which I received as well, is also very concerning. --
    talk/contribs) 05:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I asked about the request for input at the teahouse, and was told that requests such as Simbagraphix request for input are considered legitimate, so long as they don't ask for a vote.
talk) 14:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for that update JaconaFrere as I get numerous requests to assist in articles from other editors and that had never been an issue. As I rarely have any of my articles go through this process this is a bit new to me, any help is appreciated. Thanks Simbagraphix (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The teahouse is wrong,
WP:CANVAS is quite clear. Neutrally worded messages to unselected editors are allowed. I don't know whether the editors contacted by Simbagraphix were selected or not, but the message clearly asks people to help keep the article, which certainly is not "neutral". Simbagraphix, communicating with other editors is absolutely allowed and even encouraged, but campaigning is not. Please refrain from doing so in future. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that this feels like campaigning, but how can one send messages to "unselected" editors?
To an extent I agree: to my mind being a football player is ipso facto to be non notable (and there are not hundreds but possibly hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia article on football players.) The problem with Veith is that he is a highly contentious figure but there are so few truly independant sources that the possiblity of constructing a properly balanced article seems impossible, as well as making his notability questionable. Internet searches are dominated by results from Amazing Discoveries: believe me I have looked quite a long way down the Google hits & tried different search terms but I cannot find anything that can be in any way described as mainstream coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holding a PhD does not remotely make a person notable. The criteria for
WP:Prof are far, far higher. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply
]
I found several publications by Veith and added to article. Some of them are cited several times in other publications. He was a true Professor with tenure.
None of this makes him notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Agree, I'm no expert on the academic notability criteria but his publising record & cites do not look very impressive: and in any case this is an article based on his supposed notability in another field.TheLongTone (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The article is Walter Veith, not Walter Veith's role as a defined by something else. Veith is either notable, or he is not.
talk) 12:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Regarding the sources, Spectrum is regarded by scholars on Adventism as an excellent source (see for example the affirmation by Seeking a Sanctuary), and I believe it can fairly be described as independent. (Although with the expansion of their online content - and thus possibly more non-rigorous material - it may be increasingly necessary to discern based on the individual author also). Some sources are self-published. Others like from creationist organisations or the Adventist Review have value IMO but may do little for notability. (I think the tone/neutrality is good, it's a little negative but that would simply reflect the view of authoritative sources. But neutrality is not notability, of course.) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2014 (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/Walter_Veith_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069197265"