Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Jarvis (author)


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 16:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Edward Jarvis (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author, couple of works, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello. I would argue for notability for two reasons. First, originality of approach, technique, and subject (in the spirit of item 2. of WP:AUTHOR as I read it - apologies, I am a novice), and the author's participation in a notable collective body of work (in the spirit of item 3. of WP:AUTHOR - this point I will seek to clarify, with refs, promptly).

The three works listed are recognised as 'firsts' on the subjects, which would not be notable in itself except that those subjects are significant (an indication of this may be the significant attention / discussion that the corresponding Wikipedia articles generate) - Carlos Duarte Costa, Ngo Dinh Thuc, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. It could be considered remarkable that there has been no previous monograph ever written on these topics, and therefore these first scholarly publications on the subjects are notable.

I will aim to add more references and sources as they appear (the works are fairly recent).

Another aspect of notability, I would argue, is the subject's significant founding role in the UK branch of a significant international movement, the Catholic Worker Movement.

I would argue that it is in keeping with the overall goal to properly identify the significant individuals of a) a notable but comparatively little-researched area of academic and social interest, and b) a notable and comparatively little-researched international social movement.

I hope these comments help - as I say, a mere beginner! Apollinari (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that source does not state that he helped found the Catholic Workers Movment - which was founded in 1933, by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin - but only that he was part of a group that established some sort fo a "house" for a London branch of that movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR. Much/most of the sourcing is PRIMARY.  The claims to notability are co-founding a Catholic Worker's house, sourced to Catholic Worker.  Writing 2 books, but no book reviews are given.  If, someone manages to find INDEPENDENT reviews of the books in WP:RS publications, please ping me to revisit.  I am always willing to change an iVote when shown solid sources.  This, however, appears to be PROMO for a non-notable author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep To clarify, three book reviews are given, one from a journal (an established print periodical) and two from a serious blog. May I ask whether the subjective comment about the article being a PROMO (above) is intended to cast doubt on the good faith of the submitter? Apollinari (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with "RENEW" magazine, but the like given on the page is, which did not look like an edited periodical, and may not be INDEPENDENT. A wrodpress blog by an non-notable person is not useful in establishing notability.  The forward to the book is not INDEPENDENT of the book.  Is there a review that I am missing?
 * Nor does PROMO posted on the publisher's page. And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute unless those articles are discussed in reliable publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I see that you are new here, and, therefore, probably unaware that it is customary when comment at AfD about a page you created to identify yourself as the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking good faith duplicate iVote made by new user presumably unaware that although we can comment repeatedly, only one bolded iVote per customer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the guidance, it is truly appreciated. Sorry to insist but I see this accusation of doing promotion as unwarranted conjecture and speculation. I am new, yes, but Wikipedia guidelines enjoin us to presume good faith, and I am doing my best! And what does "And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute (etc.)" mean? Who had written articles? Me?Apollinari (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It refers to Jarvis. Publishing a book or an article does not show that a writer is notable. Books only support the notability of the author by Wikipedia standards if multiple WP:RS publications review or engage with the book.  Such material must be WP:INDEPENDENT.  And if Jarvis publishes an essay in a the New Statesman or The Guardian, that does not establish notability. But if he publishes such ab article, and The Nation and The Times  write articles about the article Jarvis wrote, the discussion about his writing contributes ot establishing his notability by Wikipedia standards.  for a dramatic instance of this, see Michael Anton.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Indeed. I believe I never contested that. Apollinari (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep with caution? Could there be an appropriate alternative to deletion? The article has issues but also potential. The Sources problem looks like a quantity issue rather than a quality issue. The Notability question does not look cut-and-dried, but difficult to assert. Edits are being made. Vintage-vintner (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Vintage-vintner (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep sources may be Catholic-related, but that has not necessarily stopped us from using them to establish notability in the past.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. As my editing record will show, I am happy to cite small faith publications. Even happier when they are WP:RS. If you are familiar with the editing process at RENEW, please share what you know.  Or, if you can access the article cited to 2019, please let us know whether it is by or about Jarvis.19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)
 * The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the sources, one by one:
 * Soources # 2 & 3 are a blog VagrantVicar are NOT WP:RS.
 * source # 4 : Alexandre Christoyannopoulos,'' Christian Anarchism: a political commentary on the gospel,]] (Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2011, pp 355-356, p 408ff) is a WP:RS, althogh I cannot access the relevant page online. The page, however, uses this source only to claim that Jarvis was part of a group that established a residential house in London as part of the Catholic Worker Movement.  A worthy activity, but not a notable one.  The fact that a newsletter of the Catholic Worker movement mentions him does not contribute to notability.
 * to understand how inadequate the sourcing here is, look at citation #5: . It is an announcement for a Catholic Worker panel discussion, but Jarvis isn't one of the panelists, he's the contact person.  Ditto for source # 6, 7, 8 & 9.   \
 * Source # 1, #11 not INDEPENDENT; it is the preface of a book by Jarvis.
 * Source # 12 is a blog
 * 13 is Jarvis' publisher
 * Sources # 10, 15 are to a Catholic magazine called RENEW.  The 2018 reference is to an article Jarvis wrote; the 2019 reference is behind the subscribers-only paywall.  it is very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote, as the 2018 citation was.  This would leave us with the mention in a book of the fact that he was part of a group or committed that opened a Catholic Worker residence in London as our sole SECONDARY, WP:RS source. It ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. I wonder why it appeared "very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote" when the reference is clear and we are Assuming Good Faith Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for identifying this citation (Paul Dean, 'Book Reviews', RENEW, No. 189, March 2019, p 17 ), the nature of which was not at all clear to me. I guessed that it was "very likely" to be an article Jarvis wrote because the first citation was to an article Jarvis wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Renew - small publication backed by Hans Küng, Mary Grey, Elizabeth Stuart, Tony Flannery and others, among the most influential (and controversial) figures in the field. Leaning is progressive, feminist, LGBT theology. No question it is WP:RS. So the total is two WP:RS references? As I commented, the issue seems quantity of quality sources, not quality itself. Could use more voices, insights and sources on this but I imagine that would require some time to pass (WP:POTENTIAL). I don't think deletion would be a travesty but this is not clear outright fail of WP:AUTHOR WP:GNG either, as I'm sure many cases are. Borderline case.Vintage-vintner (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * summing up We have 2 WP:RS items for Jarvis' career. 1 review of  a book he wrote.  1 book (page view not available when I searched) that discusses or mentions the fact that he was part of a group that established a Catholic Worker Movement something in London.  Not clear what it was that the participated in crating.  a newsletter?  a residence?  a London chapter of the movement?   It is  not clear what the claim is.  One book review in a WP:RS does not pass WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I find the claims clear from the article, which is where the claims should presumably be found. Catholic Worker is described as an international network of branches, co-founding London Catholic Worker would mean co-founding the London branch. It's amazing what can seem clear to one person and not to another, I agree that it's terribly confusing sometimes. I don't think it can be a decisive argument that an editor cannot access one of the WP:RS book references and therefore discards it. It is not a criterion of WP:RS that it be free online access, how would that work? But I get it, the more you contribute the more rules you get to invent.Vintage-vintner (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We still have only 2 sources on this person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment -- That is much more a discussion of verifiability of sources, not of notability. He has clearly undertaken research on dissident Catholics.  I note that he is now in his mid-40s, and has recently published three books, all with the same publisher.  The article says nothing of what he has done before.  I suspect that his doctorate is a recent one and the three books are a spin-off from his thesis.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * His books may have impact going someday, in the form of scholarly discussion, citation - but they don't have it yet. I have searched - I presume some of the editors arguing keep have also searched - and I just can't find sources.  Plus the fact that User:Vintage-vintner is a WP:SPA account created the day after this discussion began, and has edited only on a narrow range of closely connected topics edited by the page creator, User:Apollinari. (The arrival of this 2nd editor, so similar to page creator, makes me suspect WP:PROMO & WP:COI.) The only other editror arguing to keep this newly created page, User:Epiphyllumlover, argues that Catholic-related sources are WP:RS. I do not dispute that .  I only argue that we need more than a book review in a single, very minor publication and a book that names subject as one of a group of founders of the London branch of an organization.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Something to keep in mind is that this is a niche topic area, additionally Wikipedia articles on Independent Catholicism are currently often challenged by lack of notable sources/authors. I understand deleting a fringe non-notable church, but in general leaving the author/scholar articles undefeated will help people find reliable sources in the future. BTW, I have not searched for sources for him, at least not yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete unfortunately for the article I agree with the source analysis done by E.M. Gregory - this is a borderline AfD on a niche subject so don't terribly mind if it's kept, but he just doesn't quite pass WP:AUTHOR IMO. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:25, 22 July 2019 (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.