Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Traynor (Royal Marine)


 * 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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. Of note is that there is disagreement herein about whether or not WP:FRINGE and fringe theories are applicable to the subject and the article. North America1000 09:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

John Traynor (Royal Marine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable recipient of an alleged miracle Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  03:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Article just needs better references, which shouldn't be too hard to get IMHO. 04:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC) He is mentioned in a number of books, and I found one book on him specifically "John Traynor: His Miraculous Cure at Lourdes" 1858 - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=NIuHNQEACAAJ&dq=John+Traynor+miracle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUlOKU3N3MAhURtJQKHbJrBCIQ6AEIIDAB Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - seems to be among the list of published historical miracles associated with Lourdes. Quick Google check of this man brings up info published about him http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/09/france.religion and he is notable enough to get some debunking coverage in Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/zdxtb/investigating_the_alleged_miraculous_recovery_of/
 * reply - that might justify a paragraph in the article on Lourdes, but not an entire separate article, especially one with such NPOV sources as the one you mention; falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E. -- Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  04:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough to have an entire article to himself. Article runs into problems of fringe issues. His supposed 'miracle' cure seems to be presented as fact. Only unreliable paranormal books seems to cite this guy. Reddit is not a reliable source but I see what you were getting at, but even those comments do not list any critical or skeptical evaluation of Traynor's claims. There is no in-depth coverage from any reliable academic books, so I would have to say delete. HealthyGirl (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The above book that was mentioned "John Traynor: His Miraculous Cure at Lourdes", I believe to be an error. No publisher is given and appears to be self-published. If you search for this book on Google Books or any search engine, literally nothing comes up. The book is not listed or sold anywhere. The date is also wrong. It is listed as being written in 1858, but Traynor's story occurred in the early 20th century. Whatever this is, it is not a reliable source. HealthyGirl (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it may (or may not be) worth there actually does seem to be an entry for "John Traynor: His Miraculous Cure at Lourdes" in Worldcat.org (pls see here - ). Given the lack of bibliographic details though (i.e. no date, no publisher and no place of publication) you may be right about it being self published. Anotherclown (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all here better convincing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  18:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 21:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Adding sources to article now. Agree with [[User:Deathlibrarian, sources exist, page needs improvement.  The Patrick Marnham book on Lourdes that I just added to the page has a long section on Traynor.  Note that although I often run paywall-protected and archive searches on subjects at AFD, all that was required here was to glance at the first page of a simple google search on John Traynor + Lourdes.  Then, after reading two articles in newspapers, I clicked books.   There are lots of good sources, including the sort of "in-depth coverage" form reliable books and scholarly article taht an editor above sweepingly assers do not exist.  It clearly passes WP:GNG even without taking the time to assess the reliability of the many Catholic pietist  websites. I am NOT accusing anyone of bad faith, but I do think that running couple of simple WP:BEFORE searches ought to be the least an editor should do before dragging an article to AFD or iVoting keep, let alone making sweeping assertions that turn out to be falsifiable with a cursory search.  End of rant.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment What you are doing is adding sources written by believers into the article that support fringe claims. This is a problem for WP:Fringe. You are writing this article like this miracle is factual. This is a problem. I have been reading skeptical articles and books on the paranormal now for over six years (I have an extensive library of over 400 books), and I am telling you there isn't a single academic or skeptic source that evaluates Traynor's claims in a critical manner. All we are left with is sources written by believers endorsing his claims. The article is seriously in violation of WP:NPOV. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian?? Patrick Marnham??? the Liverpool Echo  Believers in saints and miracles?? Seriously??   Those are the sources I added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that I did not add, nor do I maintain, that a miracle happened at Lourdes. If we can please return to reality in this AFD, all that I am claiming is that pilgrimiages and milagle claims can be notable in the same way anything becomes WP notable, by being discussed in multiple reliable sources.  Of source, I don't edit about ghosts.   I do read sources before commenting about them at AFD.  And I respectfully request that  User:HealthyGirl rescind her remarks about me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Pious sources I do wish to clarify that books by Christians can be used to established notability. For example, Father Paul Glynn is notable author and a Catholic Priest.  His book, Healing Fire of Christ: Reflections on Modern Miracles has an entire chapter on Traynor and THIS IS A KEY POINT I do not know what he says in that chapter, but I do know that that chapter counts towards notability even if it proves, upon reading, that he what HealthyGirl calls a "believer" in Traynor's miracle cure.  In other words, an article on a miracle might pass WP:GNG  even if "there isn't a single academic or skeptic source that evaluates (it) in a critical manner."   Just as many, probably most, WP articles meet GNG without academic sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that had User:HealthyGirl taken the trouble to read my edits - or the page - before commenting, shoe would have seen that among the sources I added was an article from the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association.  I apologize to other editors for this lengthy post, but I take sourcing seriously and I'm just ticked by that accusation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I have come across too hard, but I am afraid I am not convinced this article should be on Wikipedia from only sources that present this 'miracle' as factual, there are serious fringe problems here. The Guardian piece for example only mentions Traynor on one line that says "Royal Marine John Traynor was wounded in world war one. In 1923, he was dipped in a bath nine times. His paralysed legs then supported him again." The content in the piece in the Liverpool Echo is also entirely unreliable (it even spells his name wrong as "Jack" - "Jack was a Royal Marine severely wounded during the First World War,” explains Michael. “He was from Liverpool and he went with a group of fellow Catholics from the area to the shrines at Lourdes. While he was there he went to services and visited the baths nine times, even though he couldn’t walk or move one of his arms. After a blessing from the Archbishop of Rheims he went to bed. When he woke up he walked straight out of his hospital bed and ran into the town. He went to the Grotto and prayed the rosary." Whilst these might be considered reliable sources because they are newspapers we are dealing with fringe claims here so I do not believe this is acceptable weight. These are not academic sources and this to me is just endorsement of fringe claims. Of course it is not up to Wikipedia editors to question what is in reliable sources, we just cite them but it's impossible to have a neutral article if we are citing sources like this. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jack and John are the SAME English name, Jack being an very old and accepted nickname for John. President John Kennedy, for example,  was called Jack by all of his friends and family.  That is NOT an error of fact, but even if it were, newspapers are RS even though thy do make the occassional error of fact.  Please familiarize yourself with sourcing on Wikipedai.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * respond This is not relevant to notability.  The article can be written in the same tone we take with any other miracle story.  "According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad flew in a single night on his mount (whatever that horse's name was) from Mecca to Jerusalem where he ascended to heaven, returning in  the same night to Mecca."  We do this all the time.  Not just on Wikipedia. It is the way people write objectively about miracles.  It is not all that different form the way objective people write in the articles you usually edit, about ghosts and people with paranormal abilities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The article runs in violation of WP:Fringe, the book that has now been cited The Healing Fire of Christ was written by Paul Glynn a priest and believer in miracles. His book is described as "This book draws our attention to the intervention of God in the lives of those devoted to his mother. The blind see, the lame walk, the poor have the Gospel preached to them. Miracles are real but they are metaphors as well, calling our attention to the power of God and our destiny beyond time." . So much for "objectively" writing about miracles on Wikipedia. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does not claim that a miracle happened. It states that the both notable author, journalist and travel writer Patrick Marnham and the   notable author and  Jesuit priest, Paul Glynn wrote at length about the topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I am done trying to communicate with you, you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia policies on fringe theories. I think it is time other users have a look at this, I will not be further responding. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added more sources, both academic historians and popular books, I remain flummoxed by Healthy Girl's inexplicable characterization of article/sourcing, let alone a justification for posting this on the FRINGE theories noticeboard. Religion, history - but FRINGE????18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge/Redirect over to the main page about Lourdes apparitions and miracles as he, as an individual, is not that particularly notable other than within the context of the long-running claims about the site. Both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E are very much on my mind. I don't think the justifications are proper for him to have his own page, let alone one with the details that it now has. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who he was "As an individual" hardly seems relevant. More to the point is the fact that for a century he has been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable newspapers and, to an even greater extent, in books: in pious books; in humour  books, in travel books; and in serious, scholarly considerations of pilgrimage, miracles, and belief. In re: WP:ANYBIO, it is certainly  easy to source the facts about his life to mainstream sources.  But in re: WP:GNG the sourcing is so strong that he passes, he just does. (full confession, I stumbled on this one, but was provoked to source it by the patent falsity of HealthyGirl's assertion; "Only unreliable paranormal books seems to cite this guy.")E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Fringe is not applicable - you could apply that to any religious belief. There are source that indicate this was believed by some, and there appear to be a number of sources written on him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note That while there may be sources characterizing this as "fringe" or "paranormal" no such sources have been found. Many discussions of Traynor exist, so such sources may exist.  But we cannot add "fringe" to the article unless sources are brought to support it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Article was posted on Fringe theories/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, Prefer Merge and Redirect - I can see that this fringe theory is well sourced and apparently generally notable, however, I'm not convinced there is enough content to justify a solo article. I think that the autobiographical details could be cut or significantly trimmed, and the relevant claims about the miracle could be merged into the Lourdes article.  I do not support a complete delete, but I'm not fully comfortable with keeping everything we have here either. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but think that our collective secular bias is showing. The sourcing already on the page is strong, although I pandered to the secular bias I share with other editors in choosing to add secular sources to the page. I could have added sections in books from pious publishers, such as Saints Who Raised the Dead: True Stories of 400 Resurrection Miracles by Father Albert J. Hebert published by TAN Books.  It covers Traynor in some detail, and is not the sole pious book to do so.  Note that the publisher's page is paltry, although it looks like a reputable house .  We lack good articles not only on Christian publishers and Christian pilgrimages, but on many significant historical and contemporary Christian topics - and I would argue that this is a result not merely of the fact that we skew secular and edit on topics that interest us, but that we have editors who apply different standards to articles of interest to secular people and  topics of interest to believers. End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the recent work of E.M.Gregory this topic does appear to have the legs to be notable per WP:GNG due to the amount of coverage it has received (not just at the time but many decades later in some cases). Given that the article is now in decent shape (with the potential to continue to move forward) there seems little need point in binning it. That said just because there is enough to write an article doesn't mean our readers would need this level of coverage for this topic, and I agree with Fieari's suggestion that this could be covered just as well by merging and redirecting (baring in mind any undue weight issues in any possible merge target. Dealer's choice. Anotherclown (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2016 (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.