Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Bayda


 * 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. Given the controversy surrounding this religious leader, we might see recreation of this article but that shouldn't stop its deletion today for lacking WP:SIGCOV. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ezra Bayda

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I noticed edit wars around this article and some possible COI issues and sock puppet blocking around this subject. Seems like one sock has been enthusiastic about creating this article and making sure it stays one way, versus the other. It stood out to me, and made me dig deeper. I don't think this subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR.

Tricycle is a well known publication in the field, but, it seems to be the only one that covers this subject at all. That's not multiple reliable sources, that's just one. Everything else are passing mentions or primary sources - bios about him or passing mentions in books.

I believe the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. But, as always, perhaps others can prove me wrong and establish in sourcing that this subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia for WP:GNG and/or WP:NAUTHOR.

Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Buddhism,  and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Has a few paragraphs for book reviews in Publisher's Weekly, so just barely passes AUTHOR. The New York Journal of Books ] has another review, website looks like a wix site though... Lots of press on the lawsuit, I guess he got too touchy-feely with certain individuals. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Publisher's Weekly literally reviews everything that is submitted, so, I'd consider it a pretty weak source and used sparingly. It doesn't really establish notability. I can submit my own book (which I've yet to write, lol) and they'd review it. FYI the New York Journal of Books is not a reliable source. It's just a personal blog about books. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is something in Proquest (paywalled/work won't let me view it) and he's quoted over three paragraphs here:  with a full text of the paper here . Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was able to access the ProQuest article through my university. It appears to be a review of an edited collection which Bayda contributed to. Here is that book via Google. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is some coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. The mentions in the John Welwood and Pema Chödrön books are trivial mentions, and the only third-party source that mentions him with any significance is Tricycle discussing his lawsuit. He's got books and has written in compilations, but none of those are independent sources. If we were just looking at WP:GNG then he would fail, as it requires multiple third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and Tricycle is only one such reference; there are not multiple sources that meet that description. Being known in a reliable source only for a lawsuit where you've been accused of sexual abuse isn't great look when viewed through the lens of WP:BLP, and would fall under WP:BLP1E. I don't think WP:CRIME applies since he was not criminally charged and the accusation is via a civil lawsuit. Per WP:BLPCRIME, having a Wikipedia article associating him with sexual abuse when he wasn't convicted of such seems to skirt the wrong side of WP:BLPCRIME, even if the fact that the lawsuit took place and was settled is verifiable, it still creates an implication. The BLP issues combined with the lack of third-party sources means that we really should not have an article on this individual. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note - FYI: A user self-identifying as Erza Bayda commented on the talk page today stating they want the article deleted. Missvain (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note, the user claiming to be the subject removed the crime/lawsuit related content on the article. It has since been returned and I have protected the article to allow for reviewers to continue to examine the article without interruption. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I came expecting to "keep" (and the subject wanting it deleted has no bearing on my opinion here), but the sources aren't reliable and independent. I'm shocked it's lasted this long.  Book reviews from companies selling the books, passing mentions that aren't WP:SIGCOV, etc.  The way the sources are padded, it looks like a paid article, but the history doesn't really look that way.  He simply doesn't pass the criteria for inclusion, as a bunch of passing mentions of your name doesn't pass WP:GNG.  He's published plenty, but with so much out there, if someone was going to notice, they would have by now. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:27, 12 August 2022 (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.