Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis E. Dec (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. The policy-based opinions are firmly pointed towards deletion, seems a shame though. J04n(talk page) 01:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough notability to meet WP:BASIC. Article has Wikipedia calling the subject a kook, paranoid schizophrenic, etc. based on secondary sources that appear to be fan sites, forum posts, and obscure publications. He may in fact be a cult figure, but apparently hasn't gotten the attention of reliable sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Please examine the reasons given during the first AfD resulting in the original Keep consensus. The article may fail WP:NOT on several fronts, but it is such an entertaining, feverish masterwork of homage I'd hate to see it gone.  (I've copied it to one of my Sandbox pages in case it gets blown up).  Might I also add that, as a former Reverend of the Church of the SubGenius (in 1988, ordained by the Rev. Bob), I can attest that Dec has been a well-known fringe figure both in and out of the Church for decades.  Sadly, it's, um, the sources for this that are missing.  There are thousands of Wikipedia articles less sourced and more deserving of AfDs than this shrine.  Or maybe it's just WP:ILIKEIT.  Anyway, Keep. Thanks.  --Seduisant (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The last AfD assumed reliable sources where there were, in fact, none. Or maybe they hoped a huge WP article would provoke interest in Francis E.Dec, lead to mainstream coverage, and result in better sourcing. But he's no more notable now than he was then. Remove Wikipedia from the picture and the fan-club website becomes the top search engine hit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * delete, sadly Having expressed my admiration elsewhere for the pure fannishness of this article, I have to say that his notability seems, in the end, to be perpetuated within a very small circle of, well, not his admirers exactly, but you get the picture. This guy has been around for decades, but if you mask out the various Wikipedia repackagers, he simply disappears except for one really confusing bit which only comes into focus when you find out that you're looking at an obscure "alternative" novel. I haven't gone over every reference in the article but my impression is that they are all either fan sites or primary sources. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Francis E. Dec. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Francis E. Dec. Please see reasons for "keep" during first deletion discussion. — 109.58.109.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Having looked at the previous discussion, I have to say that the general rationale of "we want to have an article on this guy even though the sourcing stinks" is not compelling to me. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, it's poorly sourced. But not unsourced.  I'm persuaded that WP:NOT may be satisfied after all, as one of Dec's rants was reproduced verbatim on the back cover of R. Crumb's Weirdo magazine; and Nassau County DA Frank Gulotta prosecuted Dec in his forgery trial.  Gulotta later became a judge  of the New York Supreme Court.  Dec's a footnote character, to be sure, but notable enough to have an article.  --Seduisant (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. That a notable judge, before he achieved notability, once prosecuted the man doesn't make Dec notable any more than the opponent in every trial Abraham Lincoln argued automatically merits a page.  That one of his rants appeared on the back cover of a notable fringe magazine does not make him notable. That a Danish periodical once published one of his rants does not make him notable.  Show me a few significant sources that discuss the man, such that we don't have to cobble together an account of him through original research of primary sources, fanboy websites and obscure small-run periodicals and then we will have something to discuss.  Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Danish academic, peer-reviewed publication Trappe Tusind apparently considered Dec "notable" enough to publish an article and a translation of one his rants written by Danish author and translator Harald Voetmann Christiansen (http://arkiv.trappetusind.dk/SaernummeromOversaettelse.pdf, pp. 95-103). 109.58.109.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Peer reviewed" is a stretch. A literary magazine that solicits experimental prose, yes. An academic journal, no. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on what I see so far, Delete. The arguments in the previous AfD mostly amounted to the bold assertion that he was notable, in spite of the small number of ghits that refer to him.  Even the closing admin indicated that there would be little left were the article to be made policy-compliant (no attempt to do so has been made in the interim.  For all I can tell, this Wikipedia article may be the only full biography of the man that has ever been written.  If the best that can be found is the 5-sentence introduction to his Danish-published rant that basically says he was a disbarred attorney who lived with his brother and then didn't and wrote a lot of rants, that is not the makings of an article. That is not what we are supposed to be doing here, writing new material to build a shrine to someone otherwise obscure.  I just don't see the level of significant coverage talked about in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's such a shame to dele this article. I understand that it really doesn't comply with Wikipedia guidelines in general, but honestly what is gained from deleting this article?  The point of Wikipedia is not to be the most accurate and proper encyclopedia in the world.  On this front Wikipedia will never be able to compete with Britannica or Americana.  Its true purpose is to be an accesible store of unparalleled amounts of information.  In this case, because Wikipedia is the only website I could find with this amount of information about Francis Dec, and because he is pretty borderline when it comes to WP:GNG,  I believe common sense should trump Wikipedia guidelines, and the article should be KEPT. --Ben Knapp (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SOmeone out there has a website where an article can be written. It's not our job to do their job. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a fun article, and it speaks to the value the Wikipedia has over most other knowledge compendiums in that we are truly a repository of obscure subjects otherwise left unnoticed by history. That being said, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to grant notability to said obscure subjects by maintaining an unsourced article. If you are truly a fan of this man, then commit yourself to establishing valid sources. Deleting this article should not be confused with erasing it; should you develop the required sources, the article will be here waiting for you. That last fact is, of course, our true value as a project. The existence of our deleted page archive is an oft forgotten and undervalued treature trove of randomness... Hiberniantears (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – The fundamental question here is "notability" and however quaint or entertaining the subject of this article may be, a careful check on Google shows no significant news coverage but only sideline references to Dec in articles about other people or subjects and the books items apart from reprints of wiki and similar articles proved pretty negative as well. Alumni lists and disbarred lawyers.  Note there was apparently another man of the same name who died in the 1920's and there are some hits on him. Jpacobb (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:RS. A closer look at the references provided show that this article is crafted upon fan sites and primary source information compiled by those fan sites. In order to establish notability, a Wikipedia topic needs significant coverage in secondary reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot find any sources on which to build an article that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability and sourcing. An argument could be made that an absence of those sources makes this OR. Location (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2013 (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.