Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee (2nd nomination)


 * 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. And salted Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

David G. McAfee

 * – ( View AfD View log  G. McAfee Stats )

Article was deleted per Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee and recreated but there has been a lack of improvement. Still fails WP:GNG and lack of exclusive coverage in news, books, etc. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 5.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎</b>) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Mramoeba (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I concur. Article still fails WP:GNG and lack of substantial coverage in news, books, etc.Knox490 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Meets notability through his work, books and political 527 organisation. This page has been nominated on the grounds of ‘lack of improvement’ which is patently incorrect as a considerable amount of work has gone into adding cites and information since 2012, most pertinently the 4 further books (published by independent publishers) he has written in those years and the political organisation he runs, all properly cited (and incidentally might I remind that there is no requirement that any coverage has to be ‘exclusive’, exclusive isn’t mentioned on WP:GNG). The Party of Reason and Progress alone has The Raw Story, Vocativ and Motherboard. His various books have been recommended on CNN, CBC and Salon as well as the prominent sites in the field like Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and if you have the time to read the cites he is clearly a notable atheist in the field, I’ve read them because I improved the page, took care to make the page NPOV and remove anything i suspected of being puffery.

As Raymond has also brought up the previous AfD i’d also like to point out that of the five voters in that AfD only two of them haven’t been banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry and both of them voted to keep (I don’t count the IP with a single contribution, to the AfD.) Mramoeba (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Still no improvement. Subject is just non-notable and article is a self-promotion. Talking about blocks of other editors who participated in previous AFD doesn't make non-notable individual a notable individual. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn’t bring up the previous AfD, I am responding to another editor. What makes this individual notable is the coverage I brought up in my vote, the seven citations i listed above. Simply gainsaying the vote of every editor who votes differently from you isn’t adding to what is supposed to be a reasoned debate. Mramoeba (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt: The subject is not notable but seems to be using Wikipedia to establishing his notability in the real world, as evidenced by the promotional way the article is written. Many of the sources in the article are either self-published, or uploaded on non-notable blogs, such as this one. Other sources only have a passing mention and lack in-depth coverage about McAfee. Both the previous AfD on this subject, as well as the talk page, mention that "not unlikely that he wrote a lot of this article himself". --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry but you can’t persist in accusing people of being McAfee, particularly since both Epicurus and Skepticalraptor have already pointed out they are not. For the record neither am I. Stop being disruptive. I get you don’t like McAfee because he doesn’t believe in god but he’s not ‘using Wikipedia’. Mramoeba (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop accusing people of having ulterior motives. Sources are unreliable, self-published and if you continue to promote them in breach of Wikipedia policy then obviously people would doubt your motives. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and start over with a lot of loving WP:TNT. I think McAfee probably is notable, but this article is overly sourced with references that aren't independent of the subject, and feels very promotional. There are, however, enough mainstream secondary sources which discuss his books which, in my opinion, make him pass WP:NAUTHOR #1 as being cited by his peers. Some are already in the article itself. I haven't seen the older article, but this article has too many primary/non-independent-of-the-author/irrelevant sources. SportingFlyer  talk  07:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per SportingFlyer and Mramoeba comments. RobP (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "per SportingFlyer and Mramoeba comments"? They haven't addressed how the subject pass notability. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and works on promoting himself even on Wikipedia. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Google the title of his books instead of his name - they've been very widely discussed within the atheist community and have been cited in Salon and CNN and other articles. The article as it stands does a terrible job of demonstrating this and needs a little more self-confidence, which is why I recommended WP:TNT. I'd also like to note several of the delete votes in this topic are from users who based on their user page may not have a neutral point of view on the topic of atheism. SportingFlyer  talk  18:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:AUTHOR. David G. McAfee meets none of the criteria that are required for notability. The sources in the article are non-notable websites from advocacy groups . The one Washington Post article has only a passing mention . As this article has been recreated and there are WP:COI concerns, it also might be wise to salt this article to prevent further promotional abuse. desmay (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete clear failure of WP:AUTHOR and the article is apparently a promotion. Lack of coverage in independent references. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article does not meet WP:GNG and seems to be written to advertise the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I do think the Salon, CBC, and CNN mentions of his books, founding the 527 org Party of Reason and Progress, along with publishing 7 books (only 1 of which was self-published), support him being notable. And, to Mramoeba's point above, exclusive coverage isn’t mentioned on WP:GNG. I don't see why people are calling the article "promotional." I'm not seeing puffery or advertising that would suggest that. Dustinlull (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How come this is your first AfD in last 5 months? Passing mentions don't really establish notability. Issues are same as they were during Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw notice of this AfD on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism page. I did some work on this article back in 2013, so I wanted to weigh in.


 * Keep I was brought here by a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard‎. Sufficient number of sources that are independent of the subject. Granted, some of the references are poor quality, but the subject easily meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The original AfD is by now too dated to have any relevance. When the discussion occurred he had only one self-published book.  He has subsequently had 5 books published by publishing houses as well as articles printed.  He has surely moved from not notable to at least a minor notability in the last 6 years Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Few articles on patheos.com (unreliable source) doesn't count as notability. So far that's all he has got. There is a lack of exclusive coverage which makes him non-notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Check out the references section. He's being cited by the likes of the Washington Post and CNN. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN and WashingtonPost makes slightly more than a passing mention,https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/22/living/matrimony-atheist-wedding] now whether it is enough for making a stand alone biographical article is yet to be clarified. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Several of the Delete voters are parroting one another and are highlighting what is a spurious rationale for their vote. The subject of this article does not need to meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (which is in the ADDITIONAL criteria section) to be be notable, if he meets the criteria in the Basic Criteria section of Notability (people) -- which I and the other Keep votes maintain that he does. Also, the repeated use of "salt" by some people is quite obnoxious and hints at ulterior motives - not wanting an atheist activist to be the subject of an article no matter what he accomplishes. As I understand it, salting implies making it damn near impossible for a resurrection (pun intended) of the article no matter what future news-worthy accomplishments may occur for the subject. That seems just wrong on the face of it, and openly calling for that seems to me to display an ugly bias in some of the people voting to delete. RobP (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeated creation of articles about non-notable subject does result in salting. All I see is spam of patheos.com and "keep" votes from accounts that haven't participated in an AfD for a very long time (WP:CANVASSING) and they talking about everything except the notability issues of this subject including you. You don't have to show your own "ugly bias" by badgering delete votes based on your beliefs. Focus on subject only. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. So it is an ugly bias to point out possible bias? Nice attempt to deflect. What's my ugly bias in thinking this article deserves to be on Wikipedia? Not going to even get into the "badgering" dig, as one vote and a comment can only be construed as badgering by someone not understanding the word. 2. Again, perhaps a problem with understanding a word: there is no way that a second version over 6 years later with significant additions could reasonably be construed as "repeated". That "policy" is clearly designed for someone quickly bouncing an article back that went through AfD. 3. How often one participates in AfD discussions is a ridiculous criteria for considering their opinions. As was mentioned, if that were the case, a small group of dedicated people could control the process entirely. Seems to me by what I generally see in AfD records is that is exactly what often seems to happen. Perhaps in fact, editors should be prohibited from voting in AfDs too often! 4. And most importantly, you claimed I was "talking about everything except the notability issues of this subject" when in fact, my main point was that holding the subject to WP:AUTHOR is an improper use of notability rules, and several did that... and you conveniently did not address that at all. RobP (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how regularly participating in AfDs (presumably just adding "me too" !votes to keep the numbers up) is a prerequisite for ever participating? You cannot know how often people read the discussion and find that others have already raised the points they want to make, so keep quiet.  Your argument leads to a closed coterie of permitted AfD regulars dictating to those interested in the subject under discussion.Martin of Sheffield (talk)
 * Particularly when a voter is specifically using a rationale (notability of Patheos) to vote delete that they’ve been quite happy to use to support a keep vote previously Mramoeba (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done extensive research on the topic of atheism. I follow Google news on the topic of atheism.   I have a couple of friends who write about atheism and current events. I also have a friend who posts on a popular social media page on atheism. I have never heard of this guy up until now. I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help make this guy notable, when he is not notable. Knox490 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help anyone become notable, when they are not. However, a personal anecdote concerning your (or your friends) level of knowledge of someone is not a fit argument for notability on Wikipedia. If that were a valid argument, I could urge delete for a huge percent of the millions of article in this encyclopedia. Including bios. Many with many less sources than this one. Please stick to arguing the number and strength of the sources used in the article - as is specified by WP policy. RobP (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no in-depth coverage of this guy from reliable news sources, etc. New Atheism was a fad that has petered out and news coverage of it has very greatly diminished. And now Wikipedia has articles on Postsecularism and Growth of religion. In the current environment, it will be more difficult for David G. McAfee to become notable. And he is certainly not notable now.Knox490 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * THIS IS WP:Civil POV pushing and has no place here. Mramoeba (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it POV pushing? You may disagree with his conclusion, but I don't see him violating NPOV. BTW, this is the second time you appear to have violated WP:AGF on this AfD, the first time apparently being against me. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

" I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help make this guy notable", where's WP:Civil POV pushing there? I don't have any doubts that WP:AGF has been violated enough times here. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:GNG. Majority of sourcing is comprised of press releases, self-published sources, and looking at the few reliable sources we find only the briefest of passing mentions. – Lionel(talk) 04:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Article it obvious PROMO. Whether article creator is McAffee subject or  a fan, he doesn't help his case by overstuffing it with passing mentions.  I tried a g News separate search on  McAfee + athiest, and got not much .  WP:HEY 2 things could ould persuade me to switch, 1.) multiple book reviews in significant publications, and/or, INDEPTH, SIGCOV in the from of reported profiles of McAfee or substantive interviews  in significant publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GNG issues and WP:TOOSOON. If this is all you have after over 7 years of promotion then we need to wait for something that would really convincing. Has authored a few books and they have been mentioned along with his name, doesn't means we should create article about anyone who is mentioned by another person. Lorstaking (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Authors get coverage in reliable source for writing a book, but it has to be significant and more than a passing mention. WP:TOOSOON.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 17:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.