Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 18 February 2014

Cecil Jay Roberts

A MESSAGE CAME TROUGH TO MY NOTIFICATIONS THAT JOE ESPERAZZ HAS REVERTED ALL THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE PUT ON HERE. THESE WERE INDEPTH ANSWERS ADDRESSING EVERY ISSUE HERE. 86.129.66.211 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I have NOT edited anyone's response I HAVE SIMPLY RESPONDED TO STATEMENTS MADE ON HERE. Not to worry Joe they were my words so I can put them back on here again. YOU CAN REVERT AS MANY TIMES AS YOU LIKE. I WILL MAKE MY POINTCowhen1966 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

His ministry work does not appear notable, and his musical work does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. As such, the individual does not appear to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article at this time D P 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (music):

Wikipedia:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cecil_Jay_Roberts
Wikipedia:Notability (people) Meets neither the basic nor additional criteria
Wikipedia:Notability (music) Meets none of the criteria

At best, Wikipedia:Too soon JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per JoeSperrazza. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can the article be moved back to AfC? It was moved by the article creator Cowhen1966 before completing the process. Moving it back would allow the article to be worked on. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, I don't know. However, there does seem to be a pretty obvious WP:COI for the author regarding this article. See [1]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, but there's no precedent, so I don't see why this can't be withdrawn, the page CSDed as housekeeping (G6 (pendCowhen1966 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)ing a discussion here)) and place it back into AfC. Maybe we should ask an Admin first, though. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On another thought, can't we vote here to get that rationale? MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could, I guess. I would NOT propose to put it back into AFC, rather to simply Delete, for these reasons:

It is pretty obviously an autobiography.
There were many instances of the sources (those that were available for review) not supporting the text in the article. I corrected or elided that text, as appropriate. At best, there's a serious WP:CIR problem.
The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of the author (not the least of which was tagging an article as a Review that he found an editor who had edited this article had contributed to.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I was just making a contribution to the article after I also found issues with his article! It was certainly not personal? RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Cowhen1966 asserts that he did not originate the article ([2] "I did not edit the beginning of the article. Check the history!"), although the history ([3]) says otherwise ([4]). He's either confused or dissembling. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or return to AfC per other users. ~~Agreed, it's still a delete for me.~~ MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Return to AfC. Lots of work needed, but I haven't seen a solid reason to delete yet.--Auric talk 02:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Return to AfC - I think it needs a lot work, but with more independent reliable sources I can see the article being notable. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be brief because whoever will make the final decision will I am sure look at all the facts, correspondence between parties etc. these can be found on both the talk page for the article created (Cecil Jay Roberts)and my own talkpage. There are also loads of contributors history, etc. tracing right back to when the article was created. It is important to mention that an editor by the name Wgolf removed the current template at the very beginning. But has since then been subject to countless edits etc. the article has lost shape and from as a result of these actions some of which have left me slightly overwhelmed. The question of notability and verifiability were nitially addressed with regards to the subject's presence on Christian tv. Etc. books by Sutherland et al. have all been used as references among other things. I have sought to address the individual's notability spanning across various decades right from birth till date. I believe as it stands now, All relevant sources have been edited out. All traces of his role as a pastor and tele-evangelist have also been edited out. This was due to numerous threats and edits flying from all quarters save a few helpers. I do not know why this has been my experience but if the original article is to be retrieved I believe a clearer picture will be seen. Again, contrary to Sperrazza's comments, I do not have a conflict of interest in this article. I am just a perfectionist and this would have been the first of a series of articles that I was going to seek to write about. Within the Christian arena there is something called the gospel of grace and when i first searched on wilikepedia there was no article. Wikipedia then asked if I could create one. This is what made me start to research current pastors who are talking about it. I was therefore going to research others as well. But I could not talk about this individual without making mention of other things that he is known for past and present. I also thought I did a good job through this individual by linking the article to other notable people from Ghana ranging from politicians, to education to culture etc, And here in the uk this pastor seems to have spearheaded this move via his tele-evangelist programme. I also checked Faith TV for the individual's name on their listings but could not find it. That is why I quoted a website that talked about the program. The reason why I was not overly concerned and looked for another source is because there are other Christian networks who do not provide all of their programme schedule. That does not mean that I have conflict of interest. As for the personal comments by Mr Scorch about me being ...? I will not hold it against him. I do however hold my hand out to you Sinteku. I now know what you meant when you said to move the article. Sorry if I misunderstood! Anyway, I cannot promise you that I will be the next J K Rawlings, but what I do know is that I am here to make Wikipedia a place where we can all be proud of. So yes, Sinteku, why not? Let's get back to bing Wikipedians! ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Cowhen1966 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowhen1966: Wait, what personal comments did I make against you? Above you said: "As for the personal comments by Mr Scorch about me being ...? I will not hold it against him." MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You called me confused and having a battleground behaviourCowhen1966 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowhen1966: No I did't. Give me a minute. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was JoeSperrazza, I merely agreed. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. It really doesn't matter honestly! No hard feelingsCowhen1966 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true! I was just making sure I didn't offend anybody. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Return to AfC or Userfy. I think this has the potential to be a worthwhile article and I think the merits and potential of the article should be considered separate from the actions of editors who have worked on it. As has been mentioned to Cowhen1966 several times, editing and deletion decisions should not be personalized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! But I am sure you can appreciate I did not at all expect this kind of reception. Over the years, I too have read many articles on Wikipedia some good and some not so good. I came on here as a bit of a secret admirer for the editors on here who I think do an amazing job. So you can understand my shock and horror when things started getting personal. Trust me when I say, all I wanted was to contribute to a resource that I have used countless times myself.Cowhen1966 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing has ever gotten personal. Saying you're "confused" about Wikipedia is not personal - it's an evaluation of your edits. Saying you're showing battleground behaviour is an evaluation of your edits. This isn't about YOU D P 12:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Dangerous Panda, the editor who made the comment did not make it clear what I was confused about. Yes he may have touched on my edit history but the statement as a whole could be interpreted both ways. One, that I may be a confused individual, and two refers to what you were talking about. Again you've made another assertion. The editor in question did not make it clear that he was talking about my editorial abilities or lack of, he just said the article should be deleted based on battleground behaviour. This can be taken personally even if sections of Wikipedia guide and policies are pasted on page responses to make a point. More often than not, this could lead to things being used out of context. Anyone can find something on Wikipedia to support their point but we MUST keep it in context to what the real issue or subject of discussion is about.Cowhen1966 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing that prevents me from closing down this AFD early, and sending back to WP:AFC. However, if it goes back to AFC, there's a few key things: first, anyone with WP:COI should not be editing the draft directly - they should be proposing changes on the AFC's talkpage, including proper sourcing; second, if within about 2 months nobody can make it into a viable article, someone should tag it for deletion, rather than letting it go stale; third, the only person who should move this back into articlespace should be someone with extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policies; fourth, people have to stop taking this personally D P 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is proven that the single editor of this article has a conflict of interest, then such statements become problematic. So far, only assertions have been made. Even to the extent of naming the editor of this article as Mr Roberts himself. Now, that to me is libellous at best and defamatory to Mr Roberts at worst. Auto biographical articles not allowed on Wikipedia. Surely, if as editors we are trying to prevent libel, then why are we committing the same offence? As for the people taking it personal, again there is no such evidence.Cowhen1966 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from article space, somehow. Moving it elsewhere to be worked on would be fine, but I wonder if it's ultimately a waste of time. From what I have seen so far, I am not convinced that any proper sources even exist to support such an article. Maybe they really are out there, but it's suspicious. One editor claims to have books that nobody else can see, or even verify the existence of. I believe the editor using those books as sources has even said they do not have ISBNs. So, if these books do exist, they were not published in any normal sense. Usable sources are absolutely key- without them, there can be no article. Some of the sources that looked like a news website at first glance, turned out to be PR pieces from the subject's own publicist. I see lots of self-promotion by the subject of the article, but I see little coverage in independent sources. Friday (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a sort of promo piece to me. The only things soundly referenced aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, and I have worries about the use of that photo of a Daily Graphic page as being a copyvio (of the paper, not the photographer). There's nothing that strikes me as being notable enough to warrant moving back to AfC, but I have no objection to this being done. I just can't see it being worth the effort. Peridon (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Malerooster (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Send back to AfC. Per Friday, this needs to be removed from article space, whatever the method. On the basis of the references provided (and I can find nothing better), the subject quite comprehensively fails the inclusion criteria for biographies in general. Nor does it pass any of the alternative criteria for musicians. My own view is that sending it to AfC is probably a waste of time for the article's creator, but if they want to see if they can make a viable article out of this, they should be given the chance to try. Note that if this hadn't started out at AfC, I would have said simply delete. Look at the sources: mentions of his participation in youth/school activities in Ghana, recent articles written by his publicist, 2 books (or articles?) lacking page numbers with no evidence whatsoever of having been published by an independent publisher or author and which do not appear to be held in any library, and one reference which does not mention him at all. If this person is active now and is notable, there would be substantial coverage out there that hasn't been written by the subject himself or his agents. There simply isn't. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear self-promotion from a (by our standards) non-notable person. The level of self-promotion is such that I wouldn't even recommend it going back to AfC, but in any case it can't stay in article space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 A MESSAGE CAME TROUGH TO MY NOTIFICATIONS THAT
 JOE ESPERAZZ HAS REVERTED ALL THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE PUT ON HERE. THESE WERE INDEPTH ANSWERS ADDRESSING EVERY ISSUE HERE. [[Special:Contributions/86.129.66.211|86.129.66.211]] ([[User talk:86.129.66.211|talk]]) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
+I have NOT edited anyone's response I HAVE SIMPLY RESPONDED TO STATEMENTS MADE ON HERE. Not to worry Joe they were my words so I can put them back on here again. YOU CAN REVERT AS MANY TIMES AS YOU LIKE. I WILL MAKE MY POINT[[User:Cowhen1966|Cowhen1966]] ([[User talk:Cowhen1966|talk]]) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 :{{la|Cecil Jay Roberts}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 17#{{anchorencode:Cecil Jay Roberts}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_Jay_Roberts Stats]</span>)
 :({{Find sources|Cecil Jay Roberts}})