Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grover Furr

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Downix (talk | contribs) at 06:05, 18 September 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Grover Furr

Grover Furr (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)

Not notable as mediaeval English professor (meets none of the criteria of WP:PROF in his day job), not notable for history hobby (minor coverage at best, as independent scholar meets none of the criteria for WP:PROF), 2012 media coverage would be WP:BLP1E. He seems to have fans amongst his political fellows, but I can't even find evidence of actual notability on this level. I asked over the past several weeks on the talk page for evidence of notability, a few trivial sources have been added but nothing that comes within a mile of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Stalin apologetics and Holodomor denial are fringe positions; if Furr passed WP:FRINGE that would count as notability too - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on Grover Furr that you wrote on the 'Stalin Apologetics' page on RationalWiki was clearly written for aggressive and inflammatory purposes, which makes this deletion proposal highly suspicious. Not to mention the fact that you created that whole page only a month ago, suggesting that it's part of a larger effort taken on by you to silence alternative views on Joseph Stalin. Even if my accusations are not true, the arguments against Grover Furr's notability are severely flawed themselves. It is obvious that the proposal to delete this page is not for the sake of neutrality or credibility - it's for outright censorship. The entire question of whether this page should exist is on false grounds and should be discarded immediately. Unrequestedsillything 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - as per above reasons. He has a few followers but the world of tankie-dom is mercifully small. Mrhalligan (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring the derogatory term for the moment ... if there was even WP:GNG-level noteworthiness there rather than just "he appeared at a conference" or "someone notable reviewed his book" (notable reviewers review lots of non-notable books) ... I'm willing to be convinced, but even the fans couldn't produce - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the metric laid out here, a sizable portion of the WP:PROF section would need to be gutted, as almost none meet this qualification level. As it is this particular article being targeted, it must be judged that the reason for deletion has nothing to do with the person, but to do with what his particular writing specialty is regarding. This looks to be nothing other than attempted censorship of a viewpoint not held by those asking for deletion, and nothing more. (Downix (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - per the nom. Given WP:BLP and the lack of meeting the criteria of WP:PROF, I see no reason Furr's article should remain. --Bastique ☎ call me! 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Literaturnaia Rossiia and Socialism and Democracy are both fine sources, as is the Chinese journal which reviewed Furr's work on Khrushchev. I would like to note that Gerard's comment, "even the fans couldn't produce [more sources]," is incorrect. There are more I could provide. Just focusing on critical commentary: David Horowitz sharply attacked Furr in one of his books and Michael Medved also devoted some attention to him on his radio show. In late 2012 comments he made about Stalin in the context of a Montclair State University debate went viral across various conservative websites, most notably FrontPage Magazine, The Daily Caller and PJ Media. The Star-Ledger ("the largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. state of New Jersey" according to the Wikipedia article) had critical articles on him as well. All this is notable. I would also like to note that Mrhalligan's remark that "the world of tankie-dom is mercifully small" suggests that something irrelevant towards adherence to Wikipedia guidelines has motivated his decision. --Ismail (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2012 coverage is a really clear WP:BLP1E, particularly as he was literally set up by libertarians with cameras looking for a "Marxist professor" to pillory - arguably that wasn't even about Furr as an individual at all, and using such single-incident personal attacks with the intent of blackening someone's name in the media to drag someone into Wikipedia strikes me as an extremely bad precedent on BLP grounds (hence BLP1E being a thing). For the other points, please enumerate how he does on the nine criteria of WP:PROF - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deleting this article will reveal that Wikipedia can't tolerate alternative opinion on Stalin. The people who want this article to be deleted has anyone even read a single work of Prof. Furr? In his books, he hardly speaks; he simply presents what archives tell. First read his works and then say anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesadi (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for reasons listed by others thus far. --DracoStraybyrn (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)— DracoStraybyrn (Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • My account is 6 years old - hardly "registering to participate in this conversation". I just haven't used it for edits frequently, but if that's the defining characteristic for whether my opinion counts, perhaps I should start. --DracoStraybyrn (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, September 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - If there's consensus for deletion. I'd like to add this to my rehab collection. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An output of 12 books (even if some may be Russian and English version of the same) surely satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. It is notable that one of the books is published by Penguin, a general publisher, suggesting they think the work notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - we speak about censorship in the former Soviet Union, but what I see here is censorship at its best. Grover Furr's scholarship which is impeccable is not the issue being contested here, but the conclusions derived from his research. I may not like the fact the sky is blue,but it is. If Wiki removes this page it is proving the fact there is no freedom of speech in the US and that research and scholarship are irrelevant and that ideology is the only thing that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicacoco2005 (talk • Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - The arguments given for deletion are at best questionable. This looks to be little more than an attempt to censor an unpopular position. After seeing this page listed for deletion, I have taken the time to read two of Grover Furr's work, and in cross-referencing his positions against citable references, I have found nothing to disqualify him as a genuine historian, admittedly one with a viewpoint which is not generally popular. We do not delete unpopular historians - even discredited historians remain on Wikipedia. If Grover Furr is to be deleted on the grounds given, we would have to hold this standard up to others which they could not meet. Who would be the next writer to eliminate under this new standard? Edmund Morris? David McCullough? Joan Wallach Scott? No, like Grover Furr's position or no, deleting him is just censorship. (Downix (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Doing some checking, I discovered that this is not the first time someone has attempted to have this article deleted. It was agreed to keep, and that it met the qualifications based on WP:GNG as noted by Bgwhite on the talk page. Now we have David Gerard inventing this new WP:PROF standard in order to force the deletion. (Downix (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sure there are more sources, but this is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to David Gerard, I would just like to note that the claim he was "literally set up by libertarians with cameras looking for a 'Marxist professor' to pillory," assuming it's true, has no bearing on if an incident is notable or not. The fact is that Grover Furr was criticized by various conservative outlets (which are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles on them) for his comments on Stalin in the context of a debate. Even more importantly, however, he has been criticized in the past by David Horowitz (as noted above, and the reference used to be in the article until it was removed for being "biased" against Furr), and in the book In Denial (also noted above), which was written by professors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.
I would also like to comment on your original message, where you referred to Furr's writings on the USSR as a "history hobby." Furr has been writing about Soviet history for at least 28 years. He published an article in the Summer-Fall 1986 issue of Russian History/Histoire Russe, In that same issue there were articles by J. Arch Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick, William Chase and other historians. The fact that he's published various books on this "hobby," and is clearly most notable for said "hobby," demonstrates that it probably isn't a hobby. No one would say Simon Leys had a "hobby" of writing about the Cultural Revolution just because he taught literature instead of history. --Ismail (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am Hank Glocklin. I am no stranger to the controversy surrounding the writings of Professor Grover. I see here that his page is marked for deletion and I am surprised. Professor Furr's work is well researched. He cites sources and qualifies all of his statements. It seems that the only reason that his work is being targeted is because some editors at Wikipedia disagree with his findings. Let them prove otherwise. Until then, let his work alone. It is not the job of Wikipedia to sensor university professors. It is their job to confirm the accuracy of the subject. There is no reason to doubt the authentic and reliable statements made by Furr. Hank Glocklin

  • Delete as per the initial reasons offered by David Gerard. I haven't found notability inside his field, let alone actual credibility inside the field of Soviet History. The irony is the accusations of this deletion being politically motivated are themselves, politically motivated. SomeLeviathan (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC) SomeLeviathan (Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note for anyone reviewing this AFD. There are a number of users on this talk page claiming the AFD is "politically motivated", etc. Please take the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of political motivation in this AFD, and considering the nominator is an active Wikipedian, who has probably hundreds of AFD noms, and probably none of them related to Soviet apologist academics. Bastique ☎ call me! 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is clearly politically motivated. Based on David Gerard's writings on RationalWiki, he is clearly trying to delete this page because he is opposed to Grover Furr's teachings. Also, regardless of whether it is politically motivated, other users here have already proven Furr's notability. Unrequestedsillything 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, it would be really nice to see anyone actually addressing WP:PROF, point by point. However sincerely-aggrieved, not addressing the notability guidelines doesn't advance the discussion - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As has already been said several times, even if Grover Furr does not qualify under WP:PROF, there are other forms of notability under which he has been PROVEN to qualify under, especially WP:GNG. I don't need to give my personal arguments for WP:GNG, because other here have already given more than enough evidence for this. Unrequestedsillything 04:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and you shall receive David Gerard. The following numbers correspond with this page
  • 1. Furr hasn't done this to my knowledge. If someone is willing to provide information that he has made in impact in his field (Medieval English lit) then fine, but his historical work is outside of his field so imo his work on Stalin isn't worth considering for this criteria.
  • 2. I can't find any awards he has been presented.
  • 3. He isn't.
  • 4. It hasn't. Similar to #1.
  • 5. He doesn't. per his own site.
  • 6. Again, he doesn't.
  • 7. He hasn't made an impact outside of academia with his work inside his specialty.
  • 8. He isn't.
  • 9 He isn't. SomeLeviathan (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF states that "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines." Furr isn't a history professor so I don't see how WP:PROF applies. --Ismail (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't notable on GNG either. "Best seller in Russia" turned out on examination to be "author claimed it sold well in one section of one bookshop in Moscow". Assorted scattered reviews. Claims that turn out not to be supported by the references at all. This is what puffed-up BLPs look like - David Gerard (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enough people know who Grover Furr is for him to be notable. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, David Gerard, I see that you wrote an entire section dedicated to bashing Grover Furr on RationalWiki. You took the time to slander him there. Is he somehow notable there, but not here? Unrequestedsillything (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's utterly irrelevant to this deletion discussion, but since you ask - I wrote up something on Stalin apologists (Holodomor denialists) and so forth) on RationalWiki, which has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia apart from also running on wiki software. I added Furr there since he's a favourite reference of Stalin apologists and Holodomor denialists. I looked him up and found a Wikipedia article. He looked ... really not very noteworthy at all. I asked on the talk page if there was more evidence of notability. Getting no answer, I added a PROD. Ismail removed it and insisted he'd make notability clear; I was glad to hear this. He then added stuff that doesn't actually evidence WP:PROF (either as an English professor or as an independent historian) nor GNG. So I put it up for deletion. Because he really isn't noteworthy, even as he has a few fans who share his views on Stalin and the things Stalin did. That's the story of this nomination.
So, rather than continuing to make personal attacks on me, I would ask you: please go through each of the nine criteria of WP:PROF and show how Prof Furr meets them, either as an English professor or an independent historian. This is not a vote, you need to bring arguments and refrain from personal attacks. One hundred "I like him and you are a political censor" with no arguments relevant to notability criteria ... equals no arguments relevant to notability criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth also noting that Stalin apologetics and Holodomor denialism is an extremely fringe position, as fringe as Holocaust denial (a similar denial of an extensively documented event widely considered an attempted genocide); Furr's views are well outside the mainstream of history and historiography (and he is not a professional historian). That he has fringe fans does not show that his views are actually notable in the wider world. If you could show notability under WP:FRINGE, that would count too. ("The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.")
I want to stress: I am willing to be convinced. I don't agree with Furr's views, but if Furr is actually notable then he should have an article. So convince me, with relevant arguments - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unrequestedsillything, David Gerard is not David Gerald whom you so helpfully linked to, twice. Bastique ☎ call me! 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is my proposal that David Gerard be removed from discussions on this topic, as he has continually invented new criteria to validate deletion, despite it having been acknowledged in discussions back in 2008 that this article qualifies under WP:GNG. This appears to be a personal vendetta of some sort, and not a legitimate attempt to edit Wikipedia. First he attempted to claim it does not qualify as WP:PROF and had that argument dismantled. Now he is attempting to claim it should be deleted due to not qualifying as WP:FRINGE, and has attempted to further muddle the issue by attempting to claim this is over academics. Grover Furr was found in 2008 to qualify under WP:GNG and that this is happening now 6 years later is ridiculous. This is not a place for personal vendettas, which is what this appears to be at this point. I reiterate, this is an attempt at censorship. (Downix (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
No, I'm saying WP:FRINGE is another way to qualify. Any of the methods would qualify. Do you have a pointer to this 2008 discussion? (I've asked for pointers above to claimed previous discussions.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You already commented on it, referenced from the main article's talk page. (Downix (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
That's just a talk page discussion on whether he might pass or not. It's not sufficient to replace a proper AFD discussion, which is what this is. Specific arguments that cite the notability guidelines need to be brought right here to the discussion. I don't understand your apparent resistance to doing so - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I understand why you are continuing to push despite having met the qualifications for now three different categories of noteworthiness. (Downix (talk) 06:05, 18 September 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 / 22:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grover_Furr&oldid=626046190"