Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Clark (consultant)


 * 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 delete. The consensus is that the article's subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:BASIC. Deor (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

David Clark (consultant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP article that does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. The given sources are either not reliable sources or only amount to passing references. Tgeairn (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep published author, secondary sources. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. It's a stub. Zambelo ; talk 01:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a published author is not a reason to keep an article, what matters is whether these publications have been noted. There is no evidence for that here and the references given in the article are either not RS or just in-passing mentions. --Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is a month old. Existing sources demonstrate notability (he is a representative of FECRIS, for example, and part of the AFF. He has also given testimony as a "cult expert". He is notable as an anti-cult activist. I've added a bunch more references describing him as a cult expert, and more. Zambelo ; talk 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant published work, or any other indication of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: He is notable as a "cult expert", not as an author. He is mentioned as such in a number of sources. He also belongs to and is notable within, several notable anti-cult organizations Zambelo ; talk 23:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * and I don't see any evidence for that, either.  DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the 9+ references? Zambelo ; talk 00:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Insufficient coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to satisfy any of our notability guidelines. Non-RS sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Non-reliable secondary sources? Please explain. There are multiple references that establish his notability from notable publications. Zambelo ; talk 07:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Zambelo, after the AfDs that we have gone through in the past couple of weeks, perhaps you should consider the notion that your idea of reliable secondary source is out of sync with what the rest of the editors here think. I know that you think that "the other side" is ganging up against you, but, first of all: there's only one side (we all want to improve the encyclopedia) and, second, perhaps we really just honestly think that the sourcing is insufficient to show notability. Look at the contribution histories of all editors involved and you'll see that all of them make efforts on many articles to improve them. That they don't do this here may mean they are all biased against you, but Occam's razor (and AGF) suggests that the simpler explanation probably is true. --Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Randykitty, none of the sources are ever discussed, and none of you want to admit that you were either wrong or premature in proposing the article for deletion. Each time I've added new sources and these have been ignored, and not even touched upon. Proposing an article for deletion without first discussing the issues and allowing me (the only editor interested in looking for sources) time to look for them and correctly format them into the articles is low - how am I expected to find references for multiple articles all nominated simultaneously over a week or two? It isn't feasible, and yet the sources are out there, if you'd care to look - but you don't. Orchestrating deletions like this bypasses due process, and is a pretty crappy thing to do, generally. Zambelo ; talk 11:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment about sources
 * Please provide pages and quotation -- from the info provided, it's likely to be a mention.
 * Please provide pages, and quotation -- from the info provided, it's likely to be a mention.
 * Mere mention, along with a quote from him
 * Mention of name
 * One of the guests on a program
 * Quote from him. It shows that the NYT called him an expert on cults.
 * Self-written promotional bio
 * Mention that he gave a paper at a conference
 * Multiple mentions a a "known operative"
 * directory luisting
 * spoke at a conference
 * not mentioned
 * reference to a Chapter he wrote in a collected work.  DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * # need to look this up again (or you could)
 * p303
 * reference for being a 1) cult expert and 2)exit counselor
 * reference as cult expert
 * reference as cult expert
 * reference as expert on cults and certified counselor
 * It can be attributed, and backed by secondary sources.
 * He gave a speech at a conference, as a "cult intervention specialist" at an anti-cult conference.
 * A known operative. Notable. Also reference to the fact that he was a deprogrammer.
 * Spoke at a summit for the world's largest multinational anti-cult organization, for who he is the United Nations representative in New York.
 * The reference mentions the “Day of Affirmation and Protest”, an event at which he spoke and testified (see other source
 * He is a published author in a peer-published book.

Were you expecting a book on the man? What we can see from the sources, is that 1) He is notable for being a "cult expert" 2) Notable for being an exit councelor 3) Recognised by his peers as being a notable expert

Zambelo ; talk 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There has to be SUBSTANTIAL coverage in MULTIPLE RELIABLE INDEPENDENT SECONDARY sources. All five of the words in bold are required. I see some, but not much, routine, tangential and/or trivial mentions that fall way short of any of our notability guidelines. As for your three "criteria" listed above, if you make the fish tank small enough, even a guppy will appear large. I see no evidence whatsoever that he is widely recognized as anything at all, never mind an "expert". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Passing mentions, sometimes even less than that. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2014 (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.