Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pitcavage


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Pitcavage

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * delete: subject not notable TrevASLer 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC) — TrevASLer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Ghits seem reliable, but nothing there is independant as far as I can see. Giggy  UCP 06:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment has two edits: one to create this page and another to add this AfD to the deletion log.  He/she tagged the article under an IP address.  The IP address,  has few edits outside of this topic.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I, on the other hand, have about 5000 edits :P Do you have a reason the article should be kept? Giggy  UCP 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply No, as a matter of fact, I think that the article should be deleted.  I just thought that was info the closing admin might like to have.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note TrevASLer is the IP user who has commented here, and a sockpuppet of a long-established editor. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I did a LexisNexis search for the subject of the article, and although there were 200+ results, Pitcavage is not the subject of any of the articles.  Within the results, he is often quoted as an expert on radical right-wing groups, but I don't see that as sufficient notability to be included on Wikipedia.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep based on the improvements in the article and other arguments below.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no knock on the gentelman in question, but there does not seem to be any notability consistent with WP:NOT.Calgarytanks 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comment is made by a sock of the nominating user TrevASLer. As well as all the IP edits as Morven points out. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Found lots about him and apparently his work is noted in a few books. Give me a bit to update article and cite sources etc. While it may not pass, its best the full picture is present before deciding. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - nice work on the recent update, but it still reads like a resume. Pardon me, but what exactly is he notable for? Having a job?139.48.81.98 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - where is the information of these recent updates coming from? Do you actually have the books that you are citing in your possession? Can you provide quotes? Nothing you are adding to the site is actually cited in any verifiable way. And even if SLATT has trained 10,000 law enforcement officers, you havne't proved that the subject of the article has had anything to do with that - where is your source? He could be in another department. see WP:VER. In fact, his title of "research director" kind of suggests he is not training them - so how does any of this info establish notability? What is it he is notable for? All you're doing is padding the article with info on his employer and not answering the basic question - why does the article exist?139.48.81.98 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are talking about. I have even provided page numbers for all sources, so they are surely verifiable. As for the training, he is the director of research for the group, a section explaining what they do, and his role in it, does not seem over the top. As for quotes, I am not sure why they would be needed, looking for something you can google? Not really sure why you say it reads like a resume, do you mean the bio talks about the person in question? I can find out more about his home life, but that is surely not why he is notable. He is notable due to being a member of the ADL and founding the Militia Watchdog site which is used for other books and references. He gained so much notoriety through his site that he was given a position with SLATT as director of research, seeing as the training that they go through is not physical, and based on ... research, I am sure he has something to do with it. I even cited a source for how the Militia site lead to the SLATT position due to it being highly respected, and used by other watchdog groups. You can do a amazon.com search if you are bored and see how often he is cited and his work. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep per my recent additions, the article is greatly expanded since nominated. It now shows his creation of Milita Watchdog, which is often cited regarding militias and their activities, as well as his position in SLATT as Director of Research. A run down of what both groups are have been included as well as sources. I can add more to support the fact that his work is often cited in regards to militias if needed, let me know. Just to add, he is apaprently often quoted in news articles regarding miltias as an expert, just look at the pages on google news. Tjere is 16 pages of articles that reference him, not including the articles they group with others ... Looks pretty notable. Also just to satisfy, two of the books cited have chapters on the Watchdog Militia cite. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - you haven't demonstrated that he is "notable" for anything. You've noted that he created a website, but look at the actual WP rules for notability of websites - does Militia Watchdog qualify? You've proven that he has a job and that his "work" has been mentioned in books - but you don't cite anything specific. You haven't proven his work has been important enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry about him. If every research director or every person who was ever "mentioned in books" had en encyclopedia entry, there'd be no room in the database for them all. So the question is raised again - why is he notable?68.146.179.223 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you stop cycling your IP please. I already demonstrated that the website Militia Watchdog was very notable, so notable that it is a frequent source on militia's. Further it was so notable that it caused the ADL to pick him up and absorb the Militia Watchdog site as well as to get him recognized to become Director of Research for a program that trains thousands of state law enforcement officials. His research is credited quite often and referenced. Again, if you want me to present more sources of just people citing his research, just let me know and I will. Also get a username as what you are doing are violations of WP:SOCK, or at least sign your posts with the same common name so people get that you are not trying to make it look like a larger concensus. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not cycling anything; my IP does that automatically. As for getting a user name - feel free to bite me. I had over 20,000 edits by using a WP user name, and like the majority of WP users, got disenchanted with tyrannical petty bureacrats and idiotic rules, so I can't be bothered. If my rotating IPs bother you, go cry to the admins; its not deliberate sock puppetry, and if you want to think so - I really don't care. XOXOXOX In any event, I agree with the comments below that simple cites don't prove notability. What are his duties as "Director of Research" and how does that make him a candidate for an encyclopedia article? Publishing a thesis, by the way, is standard for millions of MAs and PhDs. Again, we couldn't hope to list them all in an encyclopedia as per WP:NOT, as that would make WP an indiscriminate list. So again, what makes this guy special? Even if he is an "expert", what's he done to stand out among the other "experts" besides publish his own thesis? There are separate criteria for authors also, by the way, and his theses fail to meet them based on circulation.68.146.179.223 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * His thesis alone is cited by 5 books, his works together cited by over 20, he has been quoted in over 200 articles. He is cited as an expert in many of those news sources. I am not sure if you are just ignoring but I went over it below. Please read the full discussion as I prefer not to repeat myself. Also IP's are either static or dynamic, but they do not jump between two numbers constantly. You are either randomly assigned one via your company everytime you lose connection back to them for a significant ammount of time, or you are given one that you stay with. The fact that both do not trace back to your ISP, shows thta you are using an alternate connection, as both would reverse DNS back to Shaw, however only one does. But if you wan tto continue the conversation about the topic, feel free to do so below. I laid out the requirements of notability as applied to academics and cited how he meets each. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources found below. Weak delete back to the article. Could you please furnish page numbers or quotes to show that the references are more than mere mentions? Print is fine, but some more detail would seem appropriate. I fixed the refs a little--the first item is his thesis, I found a second journal article, but the items published by the "Institute for Intergovernmental Research" are held in between zero and 5 libraries only, and are apparently reports not formally published, and lacking ISBNs. Without something further, notability seems unproven.DGG (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Question - Pitcavage is cited in over 20 publications on google books alone and over 16 pages of news articles on google news. He is a premier expert in his field. I guess I am done looking, if the improved article, plus the citations through google news and constant mention in relation to militas in the news is not enough ... *throws hands up* then I do not know what to say. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer You can use Lexis Nexis if you have access to it. Like I said above, none of the 200+ articles that I found were about Pitcavage, but he was quoted a lot.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I found two interviews that I added and mentioned in the article. I do not have Lexis Nexis, however found the tons of quotations and references to him as an expert through google news, 16+ pages of him being quoted. His work is cited in over 20 books that google books had as well. As noted above, I was able to find 2 books that actually discuss him and the two groups, but only devoting a chapter to each group and his link to them, which I guess is more then a short article anyway. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Promise my last, but per Notability (academics) Pitcavage clearly passes The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources This is demonstrated by the 200+ articles quoting him and many reffering to him specifically as an expert. '''The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. ''' This is demonstrated by the 20+ books I was able to find citing his research, some citing multiple works of his. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. Hard to say, but Michael A. Bellesiles quoted Pitcavages work as invaluable to one of his books. Not sure how many of these need to be satisfied. Also did not know academics had their own rules for notability. I hope this is taken under consideration and after all this work my head hurts. Goodnite all. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment by practice here, and as stated in the guideline, meeting any one of these is sufficient; they overlap considerably, so if someone is notable, usually more than one is met.DGG (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a direct quote of him being referred to as an "expert" - or are these mentions really just passing mentions? If he is indeed listed as an "expert" then you are correct in that he meets the notability criteria.68.146.179.223 05:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the sources directly following the statement. It is why they are there. Your style of argument, the whole refusal to read sources is quite familiar. --SevenOfDiamonds 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not entirely agree with his perspectives, but I agree that he is considered an expert in his field. --WacoKid 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep eems notable, with the number of references against text and his bibliography. Will (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP Notability is proved by various references, as Sceptre points out. He might not be notable as a historian, but he is as an analyst of the radical right, and his cite certainaly is notable, as well. As direcctor of the SLATT Program), he is often cited as a terrorism and extremism expert by the mainstream media and interviewed. So this also proves notability. Moreover, Pitcavages' work has been cited by other authors, such as Michael A. Bellesiles as "invaluable to the development" of his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.Giovanni33 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've voted keep too, but I find it strange that you put so much stock in the fact that he was cited by a discredited historian like Bellesiles. --WacoKid 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't put any stock in that historian, per se, I simply note that this author is notable enough to be cited by him, a historian who himself is notable, I make no comment about Bellesiles work, but he does have his defenders and he is a legitimate historian, even if the fame he received for his work on guns turned out to be seriously flawed.Giovanni33 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough refs/cites to establish notability. Fairsing 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not sufficiently notable. John Smith&#39;s 16:47, 26 July 2007 (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.