Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Kaufmann

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable head of one of the myriad non-notable organisations within the Unification Movement. Only vestigial reliable third party coverage. The article is simply a credulous regurgitation of his blog biography, to which ludicrously tenuous citations have recently been added (when these claims were challenged & deleted). A substantial minority of these citations are to Kaufmann's own writings, and a vast majority are to sources associated with him (particularly through the Unification Movement). They frequently either do not even mention Kaufmann himself, and/or do not mention the activity he is claimed to have engaged in/people he is claimed to have "worked with", let alone actually connecting him with them in any meaningful way. HrafnTalkStalk 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have included a brief history of the article and a response to some of the criticisms on this AfD's talkpage. I do not intend to further respond to these criticisms here on the AfD itself. HrafnTalkStalk 09:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As nominator, and after user-talk discussions with S.D.Jameson, I'm changing my vote to Delete/Grudging Merge, but with the following three strong caveats:
 * I do not accept Jameson's "germ of notability" thesis. WP:NOTE (and its derivative guidelines) do not accept a topics's own writings as evidence of notability, absent reliable third-party opinion that these writings are themselves notable. Further, the UPI-UC connection renders the former's editorial choice in selecting, what are in any case mere op-ed pieces, potentially partial. However, WP:NOTE does not apply to merged material, so a pragmatic approach may (optionally) be taken without violating guidelines.
 * My preference is still for deletion. As I stated above, this article for most of its life has been a poorly-sourced fleshing out of a WP:COPYVIO skeleton. A fresh start would therefore be preferable.
 * Should the article be restarted without "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as defined in WP:NOTE), I reserve the right to "aggressively" seek a rectification of the issue -- up to and including renomination for deletion.
 * HrafnTalkStalk 17:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the information in the article is uncited. As the nominator said, no secondary source has discussed Mr. Kaufman in any depth. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —HrafnTalkStalk 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The discussion on the talk page continues to raise issues recommending the biography is notable. There is an ongoing dialogue that disputes the characterization of the references described above.  This list provided in the initial recommendation to delete, has been modified steadily and consistently in respectful response to the corrections of Mr. Hrafn. The conversation continues on the talk page.96.224.169.155 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The most recent section of the talk page conversation is reproduced here:

===Sick to death of tendentious arguments=== I am sick of this anonymous editor: I am heartily tired of this and will WP:AFD this article. HrafnTalkStalk 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Ubiquitously misrepresenting obscure sources, organisations and individuals as "major", "very elite", "preeminent", "major religious leaders", "a major Christian thinker and writer", "a significant international organization", "an important organization". Such ludicrous unsubstantiated hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.
 * 2) Making arguments that are ludicrous WP:SYNTH based on speculation so wild as to make conspiracy theories look like a WP:RS.
 * 3) A 'Humpty Dumpty' 'words mean whatever I want them to' interpretation of 'peace activist', 'work with', etc.
 * 4) A completely ludicrous claim that "Only one reference was "written by Kaufmann" -- when these stand as obvious contradiction, as well as the following references which are simply links to/sales-blurbs of/abstracts of material written by Kaufmann:
 * 5) *And this is doesn't include the throng of other sources that Kaufmann has close associations with.


 * I thought the rule of Wikipedia was not to make personal attacks WP:NPA, assume good faith WP:AGF, work with civility, and not to communicate in a way that consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress WP:CIVIL. Is it permitted to declare oneself "sick of" someone who is in dialogue in good faith.


 * The writer is responding in sincere dialogue and making changes. Is it permitted to denigrate a fellow Wikipedian, resort to name calling, declare oneself sick of people who differ and are in respectful dialogue?


 * Your list of notes "written by Kaufmann" are not accurate:


 * Footnote 1, lists Kaufmann's position by the World Media Association. This entry (on Kaufmann's work) was not written by Kaufmann.


 * Footnote 2, Shows a website concerned with issues of war and peace using Kaufmann's work. The use of Kaufmann's work was the decision of the site editors, it was not "written by Kaufmann."


 * Footnote 3, yes Hrafn is correct. I didn't notice those articles were written Kaufmann, my mistake. This must be deleted as a reference.


 * Footnote 4, a news aggregate of contemporary published news and opinion is not "written by Kaufmann." It lists his published writing as a function of that site's mission.


 * Footnote 5, The Common Ground News Service uses Kaufmann's published writing, Common Ground News Service is not "written by Kaufmann"


 * Footnote 6, The website of the educational organization Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies uses Kaufmann's published writing as one of its resources. It is not "written by Kaufmann"


 * Footnote 7 is from the website of an scholarly publisher. The listing of Kaufmann's book, that shows the academic fields that Kaufmann teaches, was not "written by Kaufmann" it was written by the Peter Lang Verlagsgruppe


 * It seems belittling and mocking to compare a discussion of peace activism with Humpty Dumpty. That is not a respectful way to make a point. It seems uncivil to describe a sincere effort to dialogue as tendentious. It seems uncivil to describe the efforts of a dialogue partner as ludicrous hyperbole, to say that efforts to comply "add nothing to the discussion could also be seen as hyperbole.  The belittling of sincere efforts to provide referencing, mocking it by comparing it to conspiracy theory, also seems in violation of several of Wikipedia standards and regulations, and efforts of the leadership to create a collegial and welcoming atmosphere for contributors.


 * If there is a rush to delete the article for some reason, a Wikipedia administrator certainly can manage to do so easily, I imagine. But why the rush?  Clear evidence has been provided to indicate that that is a notable biography.  Together with a seeming rush to delete this article, there has now emerged for some reason a string of offense, insult, belittling and mocking.


 * I do not know the rules of how articles are deleted. If administrators are free to do this unilaterally, then of course it is clear from the outset, and all throughout the conversation that this has been the direction of Mr. Hrafn conversation with a writer who is trying to comply.


 * If however Wikipedia is organized so that Wikipedia administrators are not free to personally delete articles unilaterally and without peer oversight, if it is the case that some form of a committee has to review such decisions as a way to protect the integrity of Wikipedia from the possibility of bias in a single administrator, then it should be clear to other reviewers that valid points have been made by both sides. The conversation continues.  The seniority and authority of the administrator has been respected throughout (following initial instruction and apology), and in fact for some reason, late in the conversation the newbie suddenly has come under personal attack, mockery, and belittlement, for doing nothing other than offering differing opinions.


 * If there is a committee involved in decisions to delete articles, there is clear evidence that the biography of Kaufmann is notable, or at least possibly so, and there should arise some question as to why there is so great a rush to delete this particular article while sincere discussion and efforts to comply and modify the article continues? 96.224.169.155 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The "conversation" does not 'continue'. I brought it to an end because of your repeated bad-faith misrepresentations of sources, and particularly of the degree to which the article relies upon material by Kaufmann himself (to the extent of your even claiming that a piece that explicitly states that it is "by Frank Kaufmann" was not written by him). And I have just had to nowiki-tag the section break that you inserted with the hidden material -- as it was disrupting ability to edit this AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The rampant tagging of the page makes it difficult to ascertain where its essential defects, if any, lie, so it should be kept until cleaned up sufficiently that the issues, assuming any remain, are apparent. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: so the fact that the sources to which the article is cited ubiquitously fail to verify the material cited to them, and are frequently unreliable (and therefore have been tagged for such), is reason to keep the article? Interesting reasoning. I think, given that the reliable independent coverage of this topic approaches very close to zero, that we can safely say that 'issues remain' and are already "apparent". HrafnTalkStalk 05:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Having personal experience with the way in which articles can acquire excessive tags, I'd say the current state of the article is prima facie evidence of the appropriateness of keeping it in Wikipedia. That is, an editor who was properly WP:DGAFing would simply tag it and leave it.  The presence of a plethora of tags suggests that some editor has taken an excessive, perhaps unhealthy, interest in the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: given Jclemens desperate measures (both here and on other articles) to 'rescue' non-notable material lacking significant independent & reliable coverage, his invocation of WP:DGAF is hilarious. He quite clearly does "give a f_ck" about these articles. Whether he 'gives a f_ck' about WP:V (the core wikipedia policy at issue here) is a rather different question. HrafnTalkStalk 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, feel free to include some AfD links so other editors can review past contributions.  I think they will find that recently, your evaluation is a good barometer of an AfD outcome: the community seems to fairly consistently disagree with your position. At our first encounter, I took your vehement opposition more seriously, until I realized that yours is just one differing, non-normative opinion about how to apply Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh yes, an AfD where the closing admin accepted your misrepresentations of a bunch of pseudoreviews as evidence of WP:NOTE, an AfD where I accepted addition of material made after my original comment as raising the article (barely) to notability, a highly contentiuous one which resulted in a close of "The result was keep in the sense of 'not delete'. There is no immediately apparent consensus as to whether or not the article should be merged to one of a number of proposed other articles" (when my final vote was to merge), an AfD when even one of the proponents admitted that "it was indeed a quote farm from her books but the books were references when there wasn't much else", and one where half the article was WP:COPYVIO. If this is the best that you can cherry-pick (they are neither the most recent AfDs I've participated in, nor ones that I've initiated), then your accusation of "one differing, non-normative opinion" is clearly baseless. HrafnTalkStalk 07:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: 96.224.169.155 & Jclemens have spent an inordinate amount of space in ad hominem attacks on myself in an apparent attempt to distract attention from the complete lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have started a section on: Talk:Frank Kaufmann to highlight what coverage there may be. Rather than attacking me further, why don't they demonstrate that this article is worthy of keeping by finding some non-trivial independent and reliable coverage and add it there. HrafnTalkStalk 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be happy to, on one condition--from now, until the close of the AfD, you do not edit the artice. If you're willing to raise objections in the article's talk page and let other editors fix them without constantly disrupting the visual flow of the article with tags, I'm fine with that. Feel free to keep a running list on talk, we'll leave the articleissues header as is, and then you can reinsert appropriate tags in the article assuming it survives AfD.  As is, the repeated inline tagging actively discourages improvement.  Since you've nominated the article for deletion, this also gives you a bit of separation from the cleanup work, such that nothing you put on the talk page could be construed as actively interfering with the repair work. How's that sound? Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given our anon-friend's habitual tendency to misrepresent the reliability (most obvious example is the Eden Project -- but numerous other sub-par sources have been represented in superlative terms), content (the Dalai Lama video, claims for working with Muftis, Hindus, etc, etc), and authorship (particularly Kaufmann's own authorship) of sources, why on earth would I want to give him a free hand to do so unchecked? And to be honest, given my previous experience with you, I don't trust you much more. So no deal. WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- so I see no reason I should bargain away my right to highlight poor sourcing for something that wikipedia officially demands anyway. HrafnTalkStalk 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Week keep - Poorly written article, but no problem with notability. --Dezidor (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there rules for arbitrarily adding or deleting article content with the specific result to diminish the notability of a biography? (See here and here) Thank you 68.160.253.64 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In hundreds of AfD's I've particpated in or reviewed, Hrafn is the only editor I've seen remove content inserted by other editors that they maintain improves notability. He should probably respond to this query. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will WP:AGF and assume that Jclemens is not lying about "only editor I've seen" -- just has a very poor memory -- as he himself (in one of the AfDs he links to above, in his previous ad hominem attack) made a similar accusation against DJ Clayworth, who had removed some of the trivia that Jclemens was attempting to insert into that article in an (ultimately successful) attempt to spoof notability. I will not engage this further attempt to distract attention, but will repeat my earlier question: where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? HrafnTalkStalk 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, him. Haven't seen him in that article since the AfD, unlike you. Allow me to amplify my statement: In hundreds of AfD's I've particpated in or reviewed, Hrafn is the only editor I've seen remove content inserted by other editors that they maintain improves notability, while repeatedly inserting excessive tags and challenging cleanup work in progress.  Better? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - perhaps strong delete. This article reads like a padded and glorified CV. The positions (director, editor, scholar, collaborator, nominee) sound notable, but they are unverified, the organizations/awards aren't notable enough to make him notable, and the listed accomplishments (oversight of monographs, responsibility to talk to religious leaders) don't merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. I also urge the editors to discontinue arguments on this AFD page, as it clutters things up and discourages others from voting. A link might draw interested parties to whatever talk pages are relevant. –MT 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep, remove all dubious refs - any that seem affiliated with the subject. The entire article should be three or four properly-cited sentences. Exactly what was done needs to be stated - not "in the areas of". If "he has published X, and did this this and that in these countries" doesn't sound notable, then it should be deleted from the article. A slightly notable article does not permit the injection of non-notable facts. –MT 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us review the facts so far:
 * Hrafn has a recent history of assertive AfD lobbying against keeping Unification church articles.
 * Hrafn has engaged in a pattern of continuing disparagement against such articles once they have been kept.
 * Hrafn has engaged in a pattern of tagging the article in question after submitting it to AfD.
 * In at least one instance in the past, Hrafn has deleted material requested by one of his tags.
 * Given all that active lobbying by the nominator, are you sure you really want to argue for deletion? Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not accept that Jclemens characterisation of these events is in any way accurate. However as these ad hominem accusations (the latest in a series of such tirades that he has launched into on this AfD) are completely irrelevant to the question of Kauffman's notability, and the lack of reliable third party coverage, I will not respond in detail. I attempted to hide Jclemens & the anon-editors' earlier attacks & my responses in keeping with M's request to keep this off the AfD. Jclemens reverted, as he explicitly wants this AfD to be about my alleged "conduct" rather than the underlying facts. HrafnTalkStalk 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Frank Kaufmann contains corroboration of the point M makes on Kaufmann's "accomplishments" being "unverified". HrafnTalkStalk 06:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the interest of full disclosure, I was contacted at my talkpage regarding this AfD. Comment. Let me begin by saying that this AfD has become something of a disgrace. The flinging around of various charges, needs to stop. It has become exceedingly difficult to see past all the heat generated between the two parties central to the discussion. This is unacceptable, and I would propose that both users (Hrafn and Jclemens) not respond again on this page, so that others more dispassionate about the subject can calmly discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of keeping or deleting this article. I will cross-post this request to both editors' talkpages, and then post my recommendation (keep, delete, merge, or redirect) here shortly. S.  D. Jameson 11:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as I was contacted by a party with an interest in keeping this article, I don't think that person will agree with the conclusion I draw. I have looked over the article, the references, and the cogent arguments put forward in this AfD. While I find that there may be the tiniest germ of notability to the subject of this article, most of the references cited do not help the case for keeping the article at all:
 * Some fail to even mention Kaufmann by name.
 * Others are from unreliable sources (basically Unification Church sources).
 * Still others are simple lists of names of people who happened to participate in a particular event, conference, or other Unification activity.
 * So the fact that there are 22 13 inline citations for this article doesn't bear on a keep/delete decision at all. Yet, as I said before, there does appear to be the slightest germ of notability here, as Kaufmann has, it seems, had one or more of his writing picked up by UPI as an "outside perspective." Because of this "germ of notability", I can not argue for a straight delete. Therefore, I propose a Solomonic solution that may not please either party, but may be the best way forward. I propose that we:
 * merge and redirect the page to the Unification Church article.
 * This would allow Jclemens to search for reliable, third party sources that corroborate Kaufmann's notability. At such time as true notability is established, the article could be recreated, with all of the current history intact. If more than the slightest notability that is now present is never attained, it would stay as a redirect, for those interested in Unification theology, who might possibly type Kaufmann's name into a search. S.  D. Jameson 12:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * United Press International is owned by the Unification Church through News World Communications (editors can decide for themselves whether this affects the "germ of notability"). HrafnTalkStalk 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  I thought we addressed this at your talkpage. I guess not. S.  D. Jameson 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of an independent reliable source verifying notability. If an independent sources establishes that he's notable enough for a mention in the UC article, his name can be shown there and a search will lead to that article. . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a "merge and redirect" accomplish the same thing, while keeping the history intact on the off chance he'll become more notable in the future. S.  D. Jameson 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A "merge and redirect" needs a mention of the name on the target page of the redirect, and such a mention needs verification of notability. The fact that he's a minor author of some UP articles does not seem notable in itself, so some better verification is needed to justify him being in the article. Otherwise the redirect gets very confusing for anyone who comes across it when searching for another more notable Frank Kaufmann. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Maybe a move to Frank Kaufmann (Unitarian) or Frank Kaufmann (theologian) or some other appropriate title would be in order. I mention below, in my response to Todd, the need for some mention in the main UC article, if he's truly notable, so I agree with your point there. S.  D. Jameson 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: While the article is particularly poorly written, the subject seems to be notable enough. I believe these refer to the subject (please excuse the amazon links, they're not here for spammage):
 * Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality (Sourcebook of the World's Religions) where he wrote a section
 * Christianity & Western Thought, Volume 2: Faith & Reason in the 19th Century (Hardcover) where he is cited
 * Church and State in the Modern World: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies) James E. Wood where he is cited in the bibliography for another book
 * This is enough for me. However, the article needs to be thoroughly cleaned up.Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind my indenting your last line for readability purposes. If so, please revert.
 * I rather agree with Todd here, and would support keeping the article, cleaning it up, removing unsourced (and poorly sourced) statements, as an alternative to deletion. As more sources are (hopefully) found, it can be expanded further. My above option regarding merging and redirecting might be applicable, as we could allow the interested parties to work it up in userspace, and have it moved and merged to replace the redirect when the rewritten text was ready. Also, if this man is truly notable, perhaps a short mention in the Unification Church article would be appropriate as well. S.  D. Jameson 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cleanup. I'm new at this. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am an ex-member of the church, and a critic of the organization I have rejected. But I have to agree with most of the editors above - "no problem with notability" as Dezidor put it. I'd say Kaufmann easily passes notability in either of two areas by themselves, even without combining them:
 * his work as a "religion and peace" activist hosting conferences for several decades, work in religious conflict hot spots, advising governments, etc., for which he was nominated for the Guru Nanak Interfaith Award.
 * his work as an academic, particularly as editor of Dialogue and Alliance, a "major religion and theology journal" according to the American Theological Library Association, an eminently reliable source of opinion on such matters. This key point of notability should certainly go in the lead, as with similar comments in many bios of academics on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Hrafn deleted the the quotation yesterday and moved the trimmed sentence out of the lead, to the very bottom of the "Activities" section. Here is a version of the page before Hrafn's deletions. Btw, I've made no comment above, including in the "Heat" sections, which I nevertheless think are revealing. -Exucmember (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per 96.224.169.155, Toddst1 and Exucmember. Improve article and clarify what he's done and written, activism, etc. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   21:48, 11 August 2008 (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.