Talk:Daniel McClellan

Notability
There are three sources in the article: RNS is generally reliable, and although the write up is about the podcast, it contains significant and non trivial mention of the subject. This is an interview, so is not independent. This is primary. So we have just one significant reliable secondary source, independent of the subject. It needs more to demonstrate notability for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, IAR. he’s an extremely prominent modern theologian, (see: TikTok profile), and thus ought to have an article regardless of whether technically compliant with GNG Jack4576 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * IAR is never a good argument for notability. If he is a prominent theologian we would be looking at WP:NPROF. I'll put back the publications section that was reverted and do some initial cleanup, but I would still be concerned this does not meet WP:NPROF, yet he may also be notable under WP:NAUTHOR or just the notability guidelines. That still needs to be shown. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This site would be greatly improved if IAR was followed more often. Having an entry for a prominent theologian like McClellan serves only to improve the Wiki.
 * NPROF doesn't apply as his massive TikTok following doesn't allow him passage under that set of ridiculously narrow criteria. Yet again the guidelines as written are hamstringing this site's ability to document prominent public figures. Sad really. IAR IAR IAR. Jack4576 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If IAR were applied to notability then we might as well close the site as a spam haven. But this is not the place for that discussion. Your point is that he is a prominent theologian. If so then he will pass the notability guidelines. I have just spent some time trying to show that. You are welcome to help. But if he doesn't meet the notabilty guidelines then someone at some point will take this to AfD. It would be better to avoid that by showing how the subject is notable on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. IAR has a worthwhile and valid usage in exceptional cases.
 * I've spelled out why this is an exceptional case: the subject is an extremely prominent theologian on TikTok with hundreds of thousands of followers. In that respect he is unique.
 * Nevertheless, because of the dumb set of criteria contained within NPROF, he doesn't qualify under that guideline.
 * Therefore, this is an exceptional case where IAR has a worthwhile use.
 * Claiming allowing such an exception would enable "spam heaven" is a slippery slope argument and is also just plain silly. IAR has a very important pragmatic function for increasing this encyclopedia's value to readers.
 * If someone wants to drag this entry to AfD then they're entitled to do so. Jack4576 (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, IAR -does- apply to notability. It applies to every rule on this whole website. Jack4576 (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I say, this is a wrong place for a meta discussion about IAR. To the page subject: he is far from unique in this respect. But if he is a extremely prominent, it won't be hard to show notability. NPROF allows us to assess the claims an academic theologian is notable, NAUTHOR allows us to assess based on published works and then there is just GNG. If this person is so notable, there will be multiple significant mentions in independent reliable secondary sources. What are they? Again, I have re-added a whole bunch of references to this article and am working my way through them. Could you assist with that at all? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're the one who claimed "IAR is never a good argument for notability", hence you've invited a meta discussion. I'm merely pointing out why that isn't the case.
 * This subject is extremely prominent on social media, (~700k followers, ~18m liked videos) and so is notable in the colloquial sense. However, it is still likely not possible that the subject meets Wikipedia's artificial "notability" criteria.
 * > "If this person is so notable, there will be multiple significant mentions in independent reliable secondary sources". This is just circular logic. This subject is an extremely notable person in the ordinary sense of the word, due to his prominence on social media. He is uniquely prominent on social media for a theologian in fact.
 * There is nobody comparable amongst academic theologians with his level of profile amongst Gen-Z's on TikTok. Hence he is unique in that respect.
 * I don't feel like it'd be a worthwhile use of my time to search for additional secondary sources. It shouldn't be necessary to do that work, because this subject ought to just be included for the IAR-based reasons that I've spelt out above.
 * There are some secondary sources available that I've found, however, they include an interview component, and so would be excluded anyway under Wikipedia's artificial "notability" guideline. Jack4576 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability for an article is largely about whether an encyclopaedic article can be written (see the start of WP:BIO). If he is extremely notable "in the ordinary sense" there will be the information about him to write an article. That is, secondary sources. You seem to like him because he has TikTok followers. That's not a good argument. Notability is permanent. Reading WP:TOOSOON would be useful here. Starting a bio for someone who gets a brief bit of primary coverage and then is never heard of again will create useless permastubs that tell no one anything. Anything that can be said is often better placed in some more general article.
 * What are the secondary sources you found? I'm happy to look at them. You have seen that I found reference to a major award and placed it in the article yesterday. That one is not just a secondary source but also helps towards WP:ANYBIO. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The way you're explaining your understanding of "notability" is circular logic. What I'm saying, is that people can be 'notable' in a colloquial sense without meeting Wikipedia's requirements for secondary sources. Where this is the case, we should include them anyway in exceptional cases on the grounds of IAR. e.g. On the basis that a subject like McClellan has a unique public profile that justifies inclusion.
 * Secondary sources are not a requirement for writing an entry. Clearly not, as we have an entry as it stands, without those secondary sources you're talking about.
 * You're not actually engaging with the point that this is an instance where an IAR exception is justified. Instead, you're making slippery slope arguments.
 * > "Starting a bio for someone who gets a brief bit of primary coverage and then is never heard of again will create useless permastubs that tell no one anything."
 * That doesn't apply here. This article already has enough substance from the other sources alone. Jack4576 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The argument is not circular. Notability is demonstrated by the evidence of objective criteria. Where is that conclusion couched in the premise? It seems to me that your colloquial sense boils down to you have watched his TikTok. That is not objective. Yet what you don't seem to have noticed that neither of us is denying that he well may be notable for an article. I am simply asking you to focus on the objective evidence of notability, for which we have some excellent guidelines. On that, secondary sources are a requirement for writing biographies of living people. Per WP:BLPSTYLE: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When you say that 'notability is established by the criteria', that is a circular definition of "notability" with reference to this site's guidelines.
 * I am saying that 'notability' as a concept goes further than this site's guidelines. I am saying that this subject does not meet those guidelines, but that an exception should be made on IAR grounds due to their high public profile.
 * His high TikTok following is 'objective evidence' of someone being notable to the world at large, it just happens not to be a form of objective evidence that the guidelines allow. I strongly disagree that the guidelines are "excellent", to put it mildly.
 * The requirement for secondary sources is another artificial and silly requirement that should be ignored on the basis of IAR in this case. Jack4576 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * that is a circular definition. It is not. Consider:
 * X is notable or X is not notable (tautology)
 * If (P or Q or R) then X is notable. (Where these are the objective criteria)
 * P. Therefore X is notable.
 * How is the conclusion couched in the premises there? What it comes down to is that you don't like the guidelines. A point that is off topic here. Please focus on what makes this subject notable per the consensus view of Wikipedia editors. As for secondary sourcing for BLPs, okay so you don't like the policy on Wikipedia. Again this is not the place to discuss that. This is the talk page of the article and the article will comply with the policy until such a time as you change the policy. I suggest you raise the issue at the BLP policy page, or the teahouse or some other suitable forum. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * McClellan is notable objectively, in the colloquial sense of the word, but he does not meet the artificial definition of “notable” contained in the guidelines
 * His TikTok profile is ‘objective’ evidence of this
 * This is the place to have a policy discussion (confined to this article), as advocating for the use of IAR requires a policy-grounded justification as to why an exception should be made Jack4576 (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * but he does not meet the artificial definition of “notable” contained in the guidelines I think he may, in fact, meet the definition of "notable" that represents the wikipedia notability policy. But that is what we need to focus on, and with every message in which you rail against the system, that is not a message in which we are focussing on the subject. Did you mean to remove the collapse of this meta discussion? Why? Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not railing against the system. 'IAR' is incorporated within the system. I am advocating for the invocation of IAR in this exceptional case.
 * My reasoning is that the subject is 'notable' in the usual sense of that word, but does not meet the strained and artificial definition contained within the policy.
 * Hence, we should refer to the IAR policy, for the purposes of ignoring the usual notability policy, for this exceptional case.
 * This is not a forum, this is not a meta discussion. This is a discussion about what we should do in relation to this subject Daniel McClellan. This talk page is the appropriate place for that discussion. Jack4576 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Additions and Revert
I understand why this revert was made, but despite not being in the style we use, and although a lot of the information was probably undue and often referenced to self published sources, I do note that there were some good references in there (just not properly formatted). Any of those references that demonstrate notability (see section above) should be in the article. , even though your edits were reverted, I hope you can discuss them here. We might find a consensus to put some of it back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Would’ve been better to clean up than a revert Jack4576 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion above, I have re-added much of 's edit - the publications - and am working on checking and reformatting them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Spam citation?
At May 21, 2024 at 20:51, Jack4576 added a qltuh website as a source. Currently, it's Source #5, and it says "Click Allow". It looks like spam to me. I'm not accusing Jack4576 of necessarily intentionally adding spam (maybe Jack4576 accidentally added the wrong link). I'm just pointing out that it probably shouldn't be there. I qualified that with "probably" because I don't know for sure. I.e. maybe it's a legit website. But I'd be cautious about clicking the link, and if anyone can weigh in one way or the other on whether it's spam, then please do so. PiratePablo (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If it’s a spam/scam website happy for it to be removed. All good. Thanks for raising this. Jack4576 (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It would not even open and appeared to be attempting a BING search. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Thanks for raising this" You're welcome, @Jack4576, and thank you for your contribution to this topic.
 * "I removed it. It would not even open and appeared to be attempting a BING search" Thank you, @Sirfurboy.
 * PiratePablo (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH
This revert in of a source is WP:SYNTH. The source does not support the statement it is being used for. It does not state that he is a "personality". The reader is asked to assume that by the fact that the source is arguing against him. Inviting a reader to reach a conclusion that is not stated in the source is SYNTH. Also, per WP:ONUS, you should not be reverting back challenged material without consensus and per WP:OVERCITE you only need one good source to support a statement. It should come out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To require a source for the word ‘personality’ is absurd. Would you rather ‘social media person’ ? ‘social media figure’ ?
 * He is known for his social media presence. Social media personality is the ordinary English language term for such a person.
 * To invoke SYNTH in such a context, is fastidious, and misapplies the SYNTH rule. Jack4576 (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is literally someone taking issue with his views on the inspiration of scripture. It is in no way about his social media presence and all we have that supports is "If you’re not familiar with Dan, he’s known on TikTok for debunking biblical misconceptions." That does not verify "is an American biblical scholar and social media personality". Neither does it need to. It is the fourth source you added to verify that statement. It is unnecessary and insufficient. I'll remove it again. Per ONUS, it should not be placed back in that position without a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone who is "known on Tiktok" is by definition, a social media personality. Please stop with this. Jack4576 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am known on social media for certain activity. Saying that does not make me a social media personality. Again, you are inviting the reader to reach a conclusion from a source that is not stated in the source. This is SYNTH. Again, you don't need this reference because you added 3 others for the same statement. And in addition, it should not be necessary if the lead is a summary of the main text. I have reminded you of ONUS. Your revert against that is edit warring. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your presence on social media is clearly not analogous to somebody with ~500k+ followers.
 * Invoking SYNTH in this context is fastidious. Not to mention tedious. We don't need sources to state the immediate, synonymous, and obvious.
 * The reference is worth including in part because it establishes the notability of the subject under GNG. It additionally discusses the subject in their context as a social media personality, albeit critically. Jack4576 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your presence on social media is clearly not analogous to somebody with ~500k+ followers. Isn't it?
 * As for GNG, if the reference counts towards GNG, then use the reference to write something that the reference supports. If nothing can be written from the reference, it doesn't support GNG (the guidelines are there to point to the sources from which articles are written). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh. No. I suspect your follower count is ordinary, and so, much smaller. Hence the phrase 'social media personality' is more applicable to Dan than you. Baffling I need to spell this out. Jack4576 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite the assumption. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an overwhelmingly fair assumption that the average internet user has a follower account below ~500k. "Quite the assumption" ... Give me a break. Jack4576 (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you demonstrate an incorrect understanding of GNG. References can be used to support the notability of a subject, as a SIGCOV source; even if the source isn't actually relied upon for any particular prose in the article. Jack4576 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, That is for deletion discussions. Which you will note we are not having. At AfD a source doesn't have to be in the article for it to count towards the notability of an article, but the purpose of locating the sources is so that an article can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * GNG is also important and applicable outside of deletion discussions. Sources can be used to establish that a subject merely exists.
 * To say otherwise demonstrates misunderstanding and is a cause for concern. Jack4576 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am going to remove the source again as it is clearly synth and unnecessary there. However, as you feel it is an important source to establish that this article meets the General Notability Guidelines I will place it here, where it may easily be picked up and used in the article in a more appropriate context: Let's also look at this source. To count towards notability there must be significant coverage of the subject, it must be independent of the subject, reliable and secondary. Now the question as to whether a source is primary or secondary will depend on what question you ask of it. The article is written by Erik Manning, a youtuber. Youtubers responding to youtubers are a primary source. What we have is a kind of public conversation or ad hoc debate. One youtuber says something, another replies. Historians will make good use of this rich seam of information in the writing of history, but Wikipedia pages are not history essays, they are encyclopaedic articles, a tertiary source. That is not to say the issue is cut and dried. Inasmuch as the youtuber is analysing the actual positions of McClellan, the information may be a secondary source. But we need to be clear that this is a kind of discursive primary source. It has both primary and secondary material. Better sources are possible. As for independence, that too has some greyness about it. But it is not just a conversation, because it is written up as an article and published in a website "Is Jesus Alive?" But that website is a private registration. The registrar name is concealed using the right of private individuals to do so, but the blog heading contains only articles by Erik Manning, so it appears that this is Manning's blog, although he may allow guest contributions. This is thus a self published source. It is not, therefore, a reliable source. The coverage of McClellan's views on one subject are reasonable, but the coverage of McClellan is limited to this statement: This is not significant coverage. So we have a self published source of primary sourced information but a samll but insignificant level of secondary coverage that is occasioned by an apology for (that is, a reply to) McClellan's views on a subject. This source would not count towards GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This excessively long reply merely demonstrates that you misunderstand how SYNTH & this site’s sourcing rules; do operate and should operate.
 * SYNTH does not mean that extremely basic and obvious statements and a subject need sourcing. The task of writing Wikipedia is to construct a new text about a subject from existing secondary sources. We can’t copy paste prose or exact wording from the sources we use.
 * There is nothing wrong with using a self-published source; so long as it appears likely that they are independent of a subject.
 * Calling the blog a primary source means you don’t have a competent understanding of the distinction between a primary and secondary source.
 * Jack4576 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with using a self-published source is incorrect. WP:SPS is quite clear: . That alone should lay this one to rest. The rest of your comments are directed at me and not at the argument that this source will not count against GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * what a silly guideline that is Jack4576 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Dan McClellan
He and his fans refer to him as Dan. I understand WP:NATDIS may be at play, but I am wondering if the page should be moved for WP:COMMONNAME. — Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] ⋮ 21:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)