Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duane Arnold


 * 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. There is no strong consensus about the subject's notability, but there is a consensus that the article as currently written is not neutral (due to excessive weight being placed on a negative event) and therefore possibly a BLP issue. As the subject has expressed concerns regarding this to Oversight, I am closing this as delete. This is without prejudice to the creation of a new article that is BLP-compliant and which clearly demonstrates notability - this should be worked on in draft or userspace and not restored to the article namespace without consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Duane Arnold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E with a side of WP:COATRACK. He is known only for being kicked out after his CV was found to be falsified. The role is not so notable that all holders have articles. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:BLP1E. GS citations are 42, 44, 8, 7,5 3 and some 2s. Borderline for theology and subject requests deletion (see below). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete - as WP:BLP1E. Borderline notable and subject requests deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight, could you point us to where the subject requests deletion? Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was an OTRS ticket. PhilKnight (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep That not "all holders have articles" is an obvious circular argument that puts absurd faith in WP's comprehensiveness, when eg only about 75% of Fellows of the Royal Society elected 2000-2010 have articles (the male ones that is, obviously all the females do). In fact, of the 10 principals since foundation in 1904, 7 have articles, and they have their own category.  All holders since 1989 have articles.  The long list of publications indicates notability, even if none were best-sellers, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, it's just an indication that this isn't the Archbishop of Canterbury or some such, it's a midrange position that is sometimes, but not always, held by a notable individual. Recentism is a wonderful thing, by the way. And the only thing we know about this guy is that he falsified his CV. That seems to be about it. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? yourself. Who decides who is a notable individual? Why, we do, here. Using "The role is not so notable that all holders have articles" as the main argument for deletion is an obvious circular argument. What are you trying to say, or imply with "Recentism is a wonderful thing, by the way" - puzzling? It is clearly not the case that "the only thing we know about this guy is that he falsified his CV". Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And if he was Archbishop of Canterbury then there would be nothing to argue about, but he's not. Being Principal of St. Chad's is not an inherent guarantee of any public notice at all, especially after a relatively brief tenure. That was the limit of my point. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'll first declare that I created this article. Firstly, this is not a WP:BLP1E: I created this article because he was Principal of St Chad's College, Durham, not because of the controversy surrounding his resignation. Secondly, as already stated by Johnbod, all the principals not having articles is not because it is not a notable position but because I (and other editors who operate in this sphere) haven't got round to creating them. St Chad's College and St John's College, Durham have special statuses with Durham University: They are independent, teaching and research institutions. As a side note, all but one of St John's principals have articles. Therefore the heading of St Chad's throws in a of WP:PROF. He also has an entry in Who's Who (the sister publication of the Dictionary of National Biography for those still living) and he therefore qualifies via WP:ANYBIO. It is not a WP:COATRACK article nor is it an attack page: his falsified CV is mentioned in the introduction because its a summary of his career, in the education section because he was falsifying degrees, and in the career section because it lost him a job; there is also content throughout that in unrelated to that incident. Perhaps rewording is required but not deletion. The "controversial" content is fully cited with reliable sources. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete being the head of a consituent college of a university is not a sign of notability, it does not pass notability guidelines for academics. Nothing else rises to the level of notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I must declare a COI as I know the subject. The 'facts" in this piece are debatable as I've demonstrated that he was not falsifying degrees, nor had any need to (as the college board itself stated). It did not cost him his job as the college was still in full support of him as correspondence would show. My attempts to give proof of his degrees has been rebuffed though the proof is on the talk page. It would seem better to just delete if a fair representation can't be agreed on. Phoenixpreacher (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but rebalance in line with BLP guidelines. To me, this person's notability is not in doubt; he has an entry in Who's Who, which is published by Oxford University Press, is selective and is usually taken to be a strong indicator of notability. The University of Durham is, after Oxbridge and arguably the main London universities, one of England's most prestigious centres of learning, and St Chad's one of its most prestigious colleges; as our article summarises it has the "largest staff, extensive college library facilities, and among the highest undergraduate academic results in Durham" compared to its 16 other colleges. I wonder if perhaps there is some disparity between US conceptions of academic rank and those used by the admittedly peculiar collegiate system at Durham? Otherwise, I struggle to see how there can be much doubt of Arnold's notability; indeed, because St Chad's is an independent teaching institution, he passes WP:NACADEMIC's criteria number 6 ("The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") Now, the major point brought up above is whether the CV issue and its media coverage adds to notability; I think some brief mention of the problem ought to be kept in the article but it does need balancing out. However, that is really for the talk page. What does establish notability (I think conclusively) for the purposes of this AfD is the following list of articles in peer-reviewed academic journals where Arnold's work is the subject:
 * The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (1991)
 * Review by Rodolph Yanney in Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 1, no.3, 1992, pp. 317-319)
 * Review by T. D. Barnes in The Catholic Historical Review (vol. 78, no. 1, 1992, pp. 100-101)
 * Review by Gerard H. Ettlinger in Theological Studies (vol. 53, no. 1, 1992, p. 181).
 * Review by Michael Dimaio Jr in The Classical World (vol. 85, no. 3, 1992, p. 245)
 * Review by Chr. Schäublin in Museum Helveticum (vol. 49, no. 4, 1992, p. 266).
 * De Doctrina Christiana. A Classic of Western Civilization (1994)
 * Review by John Kelvin Coyle in Journal of Early Christian Studies (vol. 4, no. 4, 1996, pp. 538-539)
 * Review by Thomas Renna in Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture (vol. 66, no. 2, 1997, pp. 313-314)
 * Review by Roger Green in International Journal of the Classical Tradition (vol. 6, no. 1, 1999, pp. 117-121)
 * Review by Andrew Louth in Heythrop Journal (vol. 39, no. 4, p. 439)
 * Review by Heinrich Marti in Museum Helveticum (vol. 53, no. 4, 1996, p. 332)
 * There are likely more, but an initial search for these two books has turned up 10 separate book reviews which would substantially add to Arnold's article and, I think, seal the deal when it comes to notability (that is, on top of the Who's Who entry and the academic post). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC).
 * 90% of the coverage is about the CV falsification. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, where or not that is true (and I do agree that the balance of this article is wrong), it actually has nothing to do with my comment. I pointed out that, even if one totally removed the CV issue, then the reviews I've listed + his Who's Who entry are still enough to pass GNG, plus his position which meets WP:PROF. As far as I see it, this BLP CV problem is not relevant to the deletion discussion: it needs to be discussed elsewhere. The question of notability can be settled without it, and I feel that we have enough here to demonstrate notability. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC).
 * His books might be, but has anybody written about him other than a publisher's blurb and stories about the CV? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * which do you think is the publisher's blurb? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So far, all attempts at "rebalancing" have been rebuffed. Is this germane to the discussion?"WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E "applies to individuals who are not public figures...editors must consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction," as well as "limiting the information concerning individuals notable for one event. " Phoenixpreacher (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Noswall59's analysis above. Arnold's notability can be shown by having been the principal of St Chad's College, and his published works.  There is a section in that college's article St Chad's College, Durham listing principals, and while not all have their own articles, the ones that do appear to be equal in notability to Arnold. Anyone who is more versed on the subject of English religious school principals can certainly correct me if this assumption is wrong. I looked up the books and can't find anything in mainstream publications, but since they are religious books that's unsurprising.  They are inaccessible to me, but I'm going to assume good faith and accept the reviews listed above as proof of the books' notability. The unfortunate CV situation is an additional item of notability, but not the basis of my decision.  Lots of people falsify CVs and resign - but thankfully not all of them have it permanently enshrined into history on Wikipedia. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Herein lies the issue. The college maintained that his CV was not falsified and I have noted the validity of two of the diplomas in question without it being corrected. Saying that he resigned because of his CV is speculation not fact. That is the problem with this piece as currently written. It does not meet the standards for a BLP Phoenixpreacher (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC) striking duplicate vote. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the info differently. The college didn't say he hadn't falsified info, only that what wasn't falsified was enough to keep him on.  Others in his department who disagreed with the college resigned in protest - that act carries some weight also.  Nonetheless, how the event is covered in the article is different from the overall question of whether he's notable or not.  Also, each person is only allowed to vote once - you voted delete above as well. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.Phoenixpreacher (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I supported deletion on those grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2018 (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.