Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Jobling


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ian Jobling

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable person; I can't find significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. The only significant coverage is from the SPLC, here: The article also links to articles from the Washington Post and New York Times, but neither one is actually about him; one only mentions him briefly, the other one not at all. The rest of the sources in the article are self-published. I can find nothing to suggest that he is in any way notable. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Someone claiming to be the subject of the article posted on the talk page linking to several other sources discussing him, but I don't believe any of them meet our reliable source guidelines.) Robofish (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and the only significant references there to an "Ian Jobling" are to a minor UK politician.   Will Beback    talk    02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability; no significant coverage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:BIO, no meaningful coverage in reliable sources ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Your hatred of his politics cannot justify blacklisting him [WP:I just don’t like it]. (Orangemike, did you really condemn the subject as “racist”? Did you also organize this cyber-lynch party?)

Being condemned by the SPLC alone would more than justify keeping him.

By the way, all three articles in the New York Times and Washington Post that Jobling’s WP bio links to discuss his scholarly article. That two of the authors cited Jobling’s two co-authors, but slighted him is not his fault, but is typical of what passes for “reliable sources” at WP.

http://www.ur.umich.edu/0304/Oct27_03/14.shtml

Under this “Ian Jobling” (excluding references to others by that name, such as the Australian sports scholar), Google Books lists 10 books and two journals, almost all of which are scholarly works, which cite him. http://www.google.com/#q=%22Ian+Jobling%22&hl=en&biw=1419&bih=813&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&prmd=ivnso&ei=dnTcTZ-6FMO_tgevoazCDw&start=80&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=791c694ea90e5cd2

Under this “Jobling, Ian” (excluding references to others by that name, such as the Australian sports scholar, and previously cited works), Google Books lists an additional six scholarly books which cite him. (I could be off in my count by one.)

http://www.google.com/#q=%22Jobling,+Ian%22&hl=en&biw=1419&bih=813&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&ei=-nXcTcruCdDdgQflibkV&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=791c694ea90e5cd2

That makes for 15 or 16 books, two journal articles, two New York Times articles, and one Washington Post article.

Over three years ago, Jobling made the best case I can think of for his notability, on his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Jobling

Academics

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

[]74.72.23.106 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I've reminded user:74.72.23.106 to avoid canvassing.   Will Beback    talk    05:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * reply to personal attack - I certainly would classify him as racist; I also regard water as wet, consider the Pope an obvious papist, and don't think that Genghis Khan was born in Hawaii. I didn't organize any parties, although I am about to leave for a science fiction convention where I anticipate parties will be held. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: To what “personal attack” would you be “replying,” Orange Mike? Ian Jobling charged you with making personal attacks against him. When I asked you if the charge was true, you confessed, but sought to flip your guilt into a claim that you were being victimized by a “personal attack.”
 * reply - I certainly consider "Did you also organize this cyber-lynch party?" to constitute a personal attack. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note 2: I reminded User:Will Beback that he is an obsessive canvasser, and should not be warning others not to engage in his own favorite behavior. Will Beback canvassed Mild Bill Hiccup to threaten me, and is engaged in retaliation against me, for my opposition to the attempted political blacklisting of Ian Jobling. Gee whiz, guys, you can’t tolerate even a single voice of dissent. So much for “building consensus.” 74.72.23.106 (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I never canvassed Mild Bill Hiccup or contacted him in any way.   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that. Nor have I ever contacted Will Beback. I tried to explain this to 74.72.23.106 on my talk page. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So how did he know to retaliate against me? The Psychic Friends Network went belly-up a long time ago. And when did you stop canvassing? 74.72.23.106 (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. He has published a few academic papers in recognized journals, but that is insufficient to meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete He co-wrote (third author out of three) one academic paper, in Human Nature; it has been cited 31 times, completely failing WP:ACADEMIC. His non-academic writing has not received enough attention to meet WP:AUTHOR. The claim in the article that "The Washington Post[2] and the New York Times[3][4] devoted articles to the piece" in Human Nature is false. Reference 4 actually is about the article but quotes only the primary author, mentioning Jobling in passing; references 2 and 3 do not appear to mention Jobling at all. He personally has not received enough attention to pass WP:GNG; Google News Archive finds several other Ian Joblings more notable than he is. BTW this isn't about blacklisting him over his politics; we have articles about all kinds of people who hold fringe or even despicable views. This is about meeting Wikipedia's criteria, and he doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (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.