Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rectenwald

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) wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rectenwald

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

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

Could possibly be notable but would require extensive rewrite. Article was thrown into the mainspace by an editor mad his draft kept getting denied, it's the exact same as the draft that was declined in the draftspace. ~~'Draftfiy if possible but user who created has since been banned for WP:NOTHERE~~. Keep per GirthSummit, I would withdraw but there are other delete votes here.TheMesquito^buzz 04:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC) TheMesquito^buzz 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rectenwald himself has (Redacted) and identifies its creator (WikiAssistance) as (Redacted). The fact that Rectenwald also thanks (Redacted) for writing the article suggests that some of our COI policies may have been violated here. In addition, Rectenwald appears not to meet WP:PROF based on his low citation counts and h-index or his accomplishments listed in his CV. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I helped the user in #wikipedia-en-help yesterday where they maintained they were an independent researcher but had asked and received emails containing photographs for the article from the academic in question. They also expressed frustration at the size of the OTRS backlog and demonstrated a clear unwillingness to work on a collaborative project, as has subsequently been evidenced by their NOTHERE block. It is for this reason that I am opting for delete as opposed to draftify because the user showed no interest in using the process, and the article is wholly unsuitable for the mainspace. SITH (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete h-index of 6 on GS not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Page advertises subject's work and there seem to be several questions about the creation of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not remarkable. Rscottjensen (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's possible that the subject might be notable on account of their academic writing. I found one credible review of the book 'Nineteenth-Century British Secularism...', I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. This article would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up however, both to conform with MOS and to achieve NPOV, so I think WP:TNT would be the right approach. Regarding the reported identity of the author, please can we stay away from mentioning that again - we shouldn't be doxxing users based on off-Wiki stuff, even if their account is blocked. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my opinion in light of changes made to the article - see new comment below. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please will somebody explain the reason for this[1] edit to the AfD? Has a user account been pirated? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Some comments in those edits revealed the real life identity of an editor. That's not done - see doxxing. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit did not reveal anybody's details, so why was it removed? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe I don't think your edit was problematic - I requested the revdel, and the only thing that I saw as a problem was IntoThinAir's comment that they've mentioned below. There were several edits after that however, and it's a bit tricky for an admin to disentangle later edits when revdelling an earlier one - I think yours was probably removed by accident. I'd suggest that you restate your opinion - so long as you're not discussing the identity of the article's author, it's not any kind of problem. Sorry for the inconvenience GirthSummit _(blether) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the explanation. My edit is back in place. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, that was my fault, I apologize. What I did was link to a tweet that contained (apparently) someone's real name; I don't want to get into more detail, for obvious reasons (and because many people who read this will know what the edit said anyway). IntoThinAir (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as it stands certainly has structural and sourcing problems, but the subject appears notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Sources:

a. general

b. reviews of Springtime for Snowflakes

Jweiss11 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has lots of issues, but subject appears generally notable. Aside from the sources listed above by Jweiss11, there's interviews with Stefan Molyneux, Tucker Carlson, and he also has 11k followers on Twitter. So, I think it is a case of keep and then smack some tags on it and hopefully someone will step in and fix it up. Deleet (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above are reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, Newsweek isn't reliable? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTube and a blog. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, Newsweek is not YouTube or a blog. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This figure is certainly notable enough for a dedicated article. His international media coverage alone qualifies him under WP:GNG. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote in light of the work that has been done to the article since I looked at it, primarily by Jweiss11, and also by Theroadislong (who copped a fair amount of vandalistic flack from the (now blocked) original author), and from wbm1058. When I originally cast my vote, I was worried that the article would just fester in its previous state indefinitely; a lot of work has been put into making this a reasonably neutral piece. I've made a few more tweaks to the language myself, to put a bit of distance between his ideas and 'wikipedia's voice', and to remove a bit of WP:EDITORIALIZING, but in it's current state I'd be happy for it to stay. I'd encourage others to take a fresh look after the hard work that's gone into it. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but significantly cleanup — being interviewed by fringe far-right people isn't notable, and it needs much better sourcing than his book's own website. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that there is more cleanup work to be done on the article - I just no longer feel that WP:TNT is required, a mop and bucket (and perhaps a stiff scrubbing brush) should suffice. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant person and authority with published works. Clean up, of course, always. But, the edits of some are not in keeping with the NPOV of Wikipedia but are of spiteful resentment against the individual and at odds with the truth. Rauterkus (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous references have been added to validate the claims made, and the links are to major media, including media from across the political and educational spectrum. Please note the added references to validate the subject's notoriety, notes 8 through 46, all to major media. Further, the article has been cleaned up significantly. --Laughingpillow (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

</gallery>

Caption1
Caption2

Keep He would pass ACACEMIC for the IMPACT of his work on 19th century secularism (RECTENWALD, MICHAEL. “Secularism and the Cultures of Nineteenth-Century Scientific Naturalism.” The British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 46, no. 2, 2013, pp. 231–254., www.jstor.org/stable/43820386.), and Nineteenth-Century British Secularism: Science, Religion, and Literature, but in addition to his scholarly work, his intervention in the culture wars has drawn significant attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (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.