Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David William Parry (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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

David William Parry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable poet. Fails WP:BIO Repeatedly deleted.  scope_creep Talk  22:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt this page and David Parry (poet). I am not convinced that any of the sources listed in the last AfD establish notability, and I was not able to find any of my own. This article looks like a massive WP:REFBOMB. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings Thank you, however, I do not agree with your statement because I do not think we should base our conclusion on a cursory review of references discussed over a previously deleted page. After all, this new article is not only different in every single aspect, but every reference provided supports the content of each account. As such, in this instance, we are not dealing with a WP:REFBOMB, but something that is aiming to maintain reliability. Posen607 (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I count exactly one reliable source in this article. See . AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings (talk) Thank you for your message. However, I do not agree with your statement because I notice several very important reliable references in the original article have completely disappeared? Examples include a review of Parry's first book, from the London Magazine, which is a published reference from a reliable source (first founded in 1732); the BBC; not to mention an interview with E-International Relations, which is another — reliable — source, considering its reputation as a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, as I previously noted, the context of Parry's notability must be assessed across borders (Azerbaijan, Central Asia and the UK). All meaning, other published references include the Astana Times,, and the TEAS Magazine,  amongst others. Regards. Posen607 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Firstly, please, note that the individual is not solely a poet. As it is already indicated in the article, he is also a dramaturge (theatre director, producer, actor), essayist and pastor, amongst other things. Therefore, his notability has to be noted in combination with multiple sources over a number of fields as opposed to one WP:BASIC. Secondly, references support the content of the article, and demonstrate the individual's international notability (in the UK, Azerbaijan and Central Asia), through interviews with E-International Relations ("the world's leading open access website for students and scholars of international politics") and the BBC, or articles about his professional work in The European Azerbaijan Society Magazine (TEAS), OCA Magazine (London), The Astana Times as well as reviews about his books, for example, in the the London Magazine. Obviously, some sources are printed and not available online. Where this is the case, there are specific details about the name, title, journal, year of publication and relevant pages of each source. Lastly, as far as I am aware, speaker candidates for TEDx events undergo rigorous selection processes (according to each individual's significance) before they are chosen as participants. This individual is already listed on the TED Talks website as a speaker in 2019 and again in 2020. All making me convinced this figure meets notability standards. Posen607 (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Posen607 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AleatoryPonderings (talk) Thank you for your comment. Nevertheless, this is simply not true, whereas as an academic, I simply cannot work full-time on every other Wikipedia article, which is why I focus solely on my fields of expertise. Posen607 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I am not even sure why this is being discussed since I have just found an extensive, 5-page review of David William Parry's most recent book by Revd Brian Talbot in the electronic journal of The General Conference of the New Church, a UK branch of The New Church (Swedenborgian), which is a notable international institution. This reference clearly supports Parry's current notability considering his background as a pastor and theologist, amongst the many other sources already included in the article, some of which more than obviously abide by our community standards Identifying reliable sources, namely in terms of reliable and independent secondary sources. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its curious that you just arrived this morning and are classed as a WP:SPA. About every 1/3rd Afd I do is full of WP:SOCKS and they always get blocked and votes struck, and the article is usually deleted. It is very curious how you happen to turn up at this Afd.  scope_creep Talk  20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * scope_creep Forgive me, but hailing from the University of Cambridge, I suppose I am used to a little more courtesy. Either way, the point still stands, while this is a significant new reference. I may be new at this, but hope to be seen as someone having a reasonable level of skill. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC article—in Kyrgyz—pointed to above appears to be an interview. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * CambridgeGraduate (talk) thank you and I have made a note of your reference and its details. Posen607 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep As Posen607 presents the issue about notability. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I count exactly one reliable source in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings (talk) Thank you and, please, see above for my response on this matter, which lists several other reliable sources. Regards. Posen607 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - this could use a lot of trimming down, and elimination of the self-referential or non-independent sources. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am doing that right now, and I am finding a lot of fabricated and misleading content, including several "sources" which are Wikipedia mirrors. So far, the only unambiguously reliable/mainstream source I have found is (The Guardian) and it's a namedrop. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll continue working on it, tonight. This article has been deleted 6 times, I think it is 6 times, so I would like to see exactly what has changed.   scope_creep Talk  07:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed a whole bunch low-quality or bad references, non-notable awards and dodgy claims of notability, like he is actor, and promotional references. There is not a lot there. What I did notice there is load of ISSU references, that are very low-quality as well as most refs seem to be primary. There is not real secondary sources, to speak of. There is a Tedx source which is being used but seems to be self-organised, from Lambeth. I suspect that is probably where they are. It is all him talking. I'll have another look at it tonight.    scope_creep Talk  08:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a Tedx url that User:CambridgeGraduate posted on his talk page,, also organised from Lambeth, with Parry on the list of speakers.   scope_creep Talk  08:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Took off another 3k. About 6-8 refs are event listings and announcements.   scope_creep Talk  14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is also worth mentioning that the articles in other languages were all created very recently by Posen607, apparently by machine translation. Readers should use caution when evaluating notability based on those other articles. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the article is of a sufficient size that each reference can be examined, which I'll do.   scope_creep Talk  17:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference review.

I'm not going to do any more of the remaining eight references. They are all much the same. There is not even WP:THREE sufficient references to establish notability. Nothing in-depth, nothing intellectually-independent and WP:SECONDARY. I'm not convinced its passes WP:NAUTHOR either. It is an obscure publisher. The review that was included above is WP:PROMOTION, that includes selling the book. It doesn't inspire confidence, as much as I can see. Fails WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  21:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Ref is his own biography page. Not independent. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * 2) Ref is own book. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * 3) Ref is own book.  Can't be used to establish notability.
 * 4) Ref is own book. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * 5) Ref is own book. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * 6) Ref: https://www.ted.com/talks/rev_david_parry_haralampi_g_oroschakoff_a_chit_chat_on_conceptual_art. This is a Tedx, organised by its owners, Not TED itself. The other person on the speaker list is: Haralampi G. Oroschakoff, who is mentioned in the URL above in [3]. It is NOT independent.
 * 7) Ref: http://www.today.az/news/entertainment/77024.html Quote by Parry. Not independent. Passing mention. Not in-depth.
 * 8) Ref: https://issuu.com/teasweb/docs/tm-11-12/5 Another quote by Parry. Happy he has found a friend. Not independent either. Passing mention in several pages. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * 9) Ref: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355027 Says on the page, Journalist invited to see it, and Parry's comments. Passing mention again. Can't be used to establish notability.
 * 10) Ref: https://issuu.com/teasweb/docs/tm-13-08 Interview with Nick Pelas. Name drop on Parry. 1 sentence. Can't be used to establish notability. Very low-quality ISSU ref,  which indicate community nature of their theatre group. No regional, city, nor country coverage.


 * Comment Examination each new of the new references that have been added by Posen607
 * 1) Ref: https://issuu.com/teasweb/docs/tm-12-12/6 Another low-quality Issuu article of the The European Azerbaijan Society that states: David Parry, the renowned author, gave a presentation. Not independent, not secondary.
 * 2) Ref:  I was unable to track this down, but it is WP:RS. Assuming the same standard per WP:AGF,  as the other references, its likely to be WP:PUFF and PR'ish.
 * 3) Ref: https://astanatimes.com/2014/11/winners-announced-open-central-asia-literature-festival-almaty/  states: Poet David Parry of the U.K. and other Western writers commented. This is another passing mention.
 * 4) Ref: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/12/06/interview-david-parry An very short interview. Not independent. Not secondary. In the opening sentence it states: Rev. David Parry is an award-winning theatre director, producer, author, poet and Valentinian priest. None of it is true. I've not seen any evidence being him being a poet. Not a single poem. He is NOT an actor or a dramatist, per WP:NACTOR He held several community plays. He is not a director per WP:DIRECTOR or WP:PRODUCER. It is all WP:PUFF, just like what happened to the article.  Certainly an author in an fringe publisher, but were not swimming in reviews.
 * 5) https://www.bbc.com/kyrgyz/entertainment/2015/01/150116_iv_devid_parry_literature BBC Kyrgyzstan interview. Reliable and independent, but very short and no biographical details and also no name editor name the article, which suggests its a press-release of sorts.

Another attempt to present a supposed poet, author, dramatist, writer. No indication of notability. No major reviews of his work in the mainstream press. The Guardian reference comes closest to a mainstream reference, but it's not about him, so is a passing mention. As an author he should be able to pass WP:NAUTHOR but the books are obscure, from an obscure publisher, they have never been reviewed in depth, from multiple sources. There is no in-depth, independent, secondary sources of his work, in the mainstream press. Not one. The whole exercise of puffing the article up, is to disguise the fact that there nothing there. Hence the reason he has been deleted six times.  scope_creep Talk  07:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment  scope_creep Talk  Thank you for your comments, even though I do not agree with your assessment of the above references or your final conclusion. I have listed some of my suggestions below:


 * 1) Unfortunately, not all references are online. This is firmly stated in Notability: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". Furthermore, you are inappropriately applying WP:PUFF because I have a printed copy of the aforementioned London Magazine reference myself, and I would be more than happy to upload it online as per Offline sources. Please, note that "While Wikipedia:Articles for deletion may sometimes appear to be a battleground, it is not the venue for unfounded accusations of 'wikipuffery.'"
 * 2) TEDx events are all fully licensed under TED Talks. In other words, speakers are accepted if TED approves only. This, to my mind, is more than enough to evidence Parry's reputation in the field of art (the subject of his talk), and satisfy the following guideline in WP:NAUTHOR, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." To further emphasise his proven notability, Parry is speaking at this year's TEDxLambeth event yet again (https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/38604).
 * 3) The BBC Kyrgyzstan reference (https://www.bbc.com/kyrgyz/entertainment/2015/01/150116_iv_devid_parry_literature) is an obvious reliable, independent and secondary source, and cannot simply be dismissed. Indeed, it distinctly says Parry is a "British poet", while the questions illustrate the fact he has demonstrable international reputation as a poet. This decidedly fulfils the guideline that the material discussed "may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." Undoubtedly, then, your above statement that he is not a "poet" is absolutely NOT true, because the BBC (an independent and reliable source) clearly recognises Parry as a "poet". Either way, you can read Parry's collections of poetry yourself in the British Library as per WP:BKTS.
 * Having one's work in the British Library—one of the largest libraries in the world, which collects virtually every book published in the United Kingdom—does not confer notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings (talk) According to Wikipedia's own guidelines having books in a National Library is essential towards being notable. Also, his most recent book is registered in the catalogue of the National Library of Australia (https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/8077233?lookfor=mount%20athos%20inside%20me&offset=1&max=107718). CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) The reference provided by CambridgeGraduate (talk) is a review of Parry's most recent book by The New Church (Swedenborgian), which was founded in 1787. This review is a reliable, independent and secondary source and is highly appropriate in this case because Mount Athos Inside Me (Parry's third book) concerns theology, which can only be assessed by a religious institution – not all books are commercially published, of course! The review "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" as per WP:SECONDARY.
 * 2) To add another point of reference, Parry is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Indeed, as it is stated in the "Fellowship" section of the Wikipedia entry: "Fellows must have demonstrated a high level of achievement related to the arts". The RSA is a prestigious institution founded in 1754 in London, something that, in my opinion, shows he is NOT a "fringe" poet or author. What is more, Fellows are reviewed by a "formal admissions panel", whilst To corroborate, please, find attached a clear reference to his Fellowship here. and a reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding royal societies here Notability (academics): "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)."
 * This claim is highly misleading. Parry is a member of the RSA fellowship, not a Fellow of the Royal Society. You can apply to be a member of the RSA fellowship—which is akin to a "friends of the RSA" organization—online. Being named a member of the Royal Society is a prestigious honour. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings (talk) to my certain knowledge, there is a complete difference between membership and being elected as a Fellow. Indeed, anyone going through the Fellowship process needs to be initially proposed before being seconded following which an Admissions Panel agrees to confer the status of Fellow. So said, Parry is listed as a Full Fellow on the RSA website through their "FIND A FELLOW" service, wherein his number is 22926 as listed on the URL. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

All in all, every single other reference equally adds to Parry's notability across the board. Lastly, as far as I am aware, the article has been deleted once only — NOT 6 times! — whilst I am still convinced of Parry's significant notability as it meets all the criteria mentioned above. Posen607 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 13:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Posen607 Your whole approach on this Afd as WP:SPA is to try obscure, obfuscate and disguise the fact this person non-notable, by presenting a whole series of smoke and mirrors references. I find it funny when you present a list of references that you claim are valid, when you personally WP:PUFFed the article to above 50k in size, with 128 references, where a full 110 of them were found to be totally invalid and non-RS. Examples included event listings, image references, raw search urls, loads of blog refs, self-published sources and claims to notability that don't exist or can't be proven, like being an actor or theatre producer. And no you present another set of supposed reference.  scope_creep Talk  14:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having looked at some of your  scope_creep Talk  bewildering comments, I find your approach similar to a pot calling the kettle black, or in other words akin to a squid deliberately squirting a confusing cloud of ink to disguise its movements. To be sure, you yourself have adopted these tactics to achieve your own end. For instance, you have removed references, which contradict your argument, exaggerated the number of deletions significantly from 1 to 6 and misrepresented a number of points within the article as clearly seen below. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the reference again:


 * 1) London Magazine. I managed to find a copy. There was three poets discussing their poetry in a article. It didn't focus on person, it is WP:RS and its independent, but it is not in-depth by any means.
 * Regarding the London Magazine, Parry is very clearly reviewed in a five page analysis, called Wine, Smoke, and Flesh, in which case he is manifestly not one poet amongst three, discussing their own work. This is clearly a WP:PUFF on your part especially since this journal is not available online. Perhaps Posen607 (talk) can upload scans to clarify this point once and for all?


 * 1) Tedx event can be setup by anybody including myself. Like any controlled system, the entry is rigorous, but doesn't indicate notability holding one yourself. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As for TEDx, Parry was one of 12 speakers in their overall 2019 programme, which boasted a very high calibre group of participants - each of whom was invited to speak due to their notability. At no point was Parry an organiser, is not listed as so and was clearly chosen because of his reputation in art literature (https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/33524).


 * 1) The review   isn't mainstream. It on a very obscure site @  Can't make head nor tail of it. Where is the rest of the reviews that are needed to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR.
 * When speaking of the General Conference, we are of course talking about the Swedenborgian (New Church) and not the Church of England, in which case, it is merely partisan and point-scoring to say that this is an obscure website. Instead, this is a link belonging to that denomination in its entirety, and not other Church body. As such, the review is reliable, informative as well as in-depth, while there is a full Wikipedia link that can shed further light in this instance The New Church (Swedenborgian). CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 scope_creep Talk  14:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) FRSA. It is paid service. Anybody can join. It entirely Non-RS.
 * This item has already been answered above. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment As Scope_creep notes, the article has changed significantly since it was nominated. Participants are invited to compare the nominated version and the current version for claims about RS and N. Endorse Scope_creep's reasoning about both in the comment above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings (talk) I welcome additional impartial voices who are not simply trying to win an argument, while I singularly do not endorse all the points raised by both   scope_creep Talk  and you. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (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.