Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Bias


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Clifford Bias

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;There is plenty of evidence of "notability" available to satisfy the WP criteria.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None in the article, and the only ghits are non-notable sources. There are a few sparse Google News mentions. That's it. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I only located two hits (one of which was to a college newspaper) and they only announced he would be speaking. Eudemis (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Out of the 60 books linked by the search in the nomination these, at least, seem to be reliable, but I'm not sure how significant the coverage is. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a lack of depth to that coverage. I think it's significant that Google News Archives, which has recently been expanded and is astonishingly comprehensive, has virtually nothing on this person. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Google News archive is far from astonishingly comprehensive for anything more than 10 to 20 years old. It relies on the sources already existing in digital form. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It has the whole NY Times archive and many regional newspapers, thereby covering the wire services reasonably well. Not perfect, surely. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * there is at this point no newspaper there I know to be complete all the way back but the NYTimes. It is extremely unfortunate that they have always refused to make clear the sources they use.   DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I understand the difficulty in uncovering reliable sources for obscure early 20th-century figures, but WP:V is quite clear: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period.   Ravenswing  21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. But I have already identified three reliable third-party sources on this topic above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: And which was promptly dismissed as not discussing the subject in significant detail - something, as to that, you questioned yourself - which is a fundamental element to any source satisfying the GNG.  Ravenswing  13:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was simply pointing out that your previous argument is not as conclusive as you implied by the word "period". WP:V says nothing about significant coverage being required. I agree that notability, which does require significant coverage, may still be questionable. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The general notability guidelines require significant coverage, not WP:V. See WP:GNG. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I said. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right, sorry. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject, whose fame appears to predate the internet, has been mentioned in at least two or three other encyclopedias: J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions and James R. Lewis's The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions and Encyclopedia of Afterlife Beliefs and Phenomena. Also found mentions in Amber K's True Magick: A Beginner's Guide, Kerr Cuhulain's Full Contact Magick: A Book of Shadows for the Wiccan Warrior, M. Lamar Keene's The psychic Mafia New York (magazine), as well as various other books by lesser known "spiritualists", etc. There is enough that I'm convinced that he is notable within his "field". Location (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All these citations lack the requisite depth of coverage. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, folks, this isn't tough. It does not satisfy the GNG for the guy's name to be mentioned in a book. There must be significant coverage. These arguments are the 19th century version of "But there are lots of Google hits!"   Ravenswing  20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if I were referring to just Google hits there would be plenty more. The fact that there are so many references in pre-Internet publications lends credence to his notability. It's all quackery to me, but he was obviously very influential among psychics and spiritualists. Robert Chaney devoted 12 pages (i.e. significant coverage) to Bias in a book about mediums: Mediums and the Development of Mediumship. His life was also the basis for two works of fiction: . Another reference refers to his "international fame" drawing packed houses: . WP:BIO/WP:BASIC states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." We've got substantial coverage in the Chaney book and tons of other references that are sufficient to establish notability. Location (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Bias (and many others) get plenty of passing mentions in 'occult encyclopedia' type books, but it appears he isn't prominent enough to have been the subject of a biography or other work singularly dedicated to him. Also, Bias's life was not "used as a basis" in the two fictional novels (one published by Lul.com) cited, he merely appears as a character peripheral to the main protagonists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only necessary that there be substantial coverage. it is not correct that there needs to be a work "singularly" or specifically devoted to him--such proposals have been made from time to time, and always rejected--there are even a few Wikipedians who would like to restrict the encyclopedia to those subjects about which a full book has been written. That would of course give a very much abridged encyclopedia, and we could all have gone on to other things many years ago   `    DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true, but I'm not seeing enough out there in reliable sources to build a biography beyond a stub. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * keep article needs improvement but that doesnt mean it should be deleted subject is notable Aisha9152 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - After all of the trying above, doesn't seem to be a source beyond the singular one, and the above "difficulties" in finding sources is exactly why sparsely sourced individuals aren't notable. We give a lot of leeway to non-current figures, but if there's nothing better being found here (aside from idle speculation and generalities), then it's a delete. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. If there's any verifiable truth to the claim that he counseled FDR and was friendly with Eleanor, I would keep.  The little hints I can find in a 2 minute search  suggest to me there must be more out there but I won't !vote yet until I look further.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ok, there are enough claims to notability backed up by book sources that merit keeping it, but we can stub out anything we can't source.--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.