Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Dillahunty (3rd 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   no consensus. This discussion has been relisted twice but we're no closer to finding a consensus to delete after three weeks. No prejudice to renominating at any junction in the near future. Daniel (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Matt Dillahunty
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly primary sources, lecture announcements, self-written stuff. Notability tag was recently removed with edit summary referring to a blog post, reviews of documentary which includes/mentions the subject, etc. EEng (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  01:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  01:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional sources - I'm trying to walk a tight line of neutrality so I'm not going to add any of these, but there's Hemant Mehta's blog and some articlea in the Austin-American Statesman. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to List of atheist activists and educators. Found a source at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/atheist-experience-child-rape_n_2434198.html AadaamS (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Huffington Post piece is 300 words about a nasty person who called the radio show cohosted by the subject -- mentions the subject three times. EEng (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AadaamS - I don't know much about merging but how would this article merge into the list? Would it be simplified to fit the layout in the list? All the names there have their own article and it just gives a very brief overview of the person. ツStacey (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have added additional sources just to back up statements from less reliable references. I have also removed a paragraph that I could not find any information on. I think there is enough coverage of this guy to make him notable. It seems unnecessary to delete an article which has a good variety of different sources and is fairly well written. ツStacey (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Among all these routine announcements, self-published stuff, blogposts, and so on, could you just list the 3-5 sources that constitute the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" called for by GNG? EEng (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS isn't a blanket condemnation of blogs. Blogs of established experts who have published elsewhere are eligible sources, which would on the face of it allow the citations of Greta Christina (Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, The Humanist) and PZ Meyers (numerous scientific works and the not irredeemable Los Angeles Times). Meyers' blog itself is recognized by Nature as "the top-ranked blog by a scientist" so I don't think it can just be discounted. In addition, there are these two substantial pieces explicitly about Dillahunty as should be obvious from the titles: cite #40, "'It is foolish for skeptics to spare religion': Matt Dillahunty has converted many Americans to atheism...", Norwegian Humanist Association (translated from Norwegian); and cite #12, "Is Intelligent Design a Circular Argument? A Conversation with Atheist Activist Matt Dillahunty", Discovery Institute. — Brianhe (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only problem you've got there is that WP:SPS, which you're citing, says
 * Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
 * EEng (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per substantial 3rd party coverage noted above, including but not limited to blogs written by notable bloggers who have been published as experts in other 3rd party publications. — Brianhe (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. Could you list 3-5 independent, reliable sources (whether blogs or not) providing significant coverage? EEng (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, PZ Meyers' Pharyngula (blog) appears to no longer be covered by WP:SPS but is ineffect a National Geographic outlet. From the article, "In April 2011, ScienceBlogs was taken over by National Geographic. While Seed would still maintain ownership of the site, National Geographic would acquire editorial control..." So the easiest to defend substantial-coverage, independently published sources would be #12, #13, #32, #40. Brianhe (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, so to be sure we're on the same page, you're talking about -- -- Right? EEng (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Confirmed. I also am asking at RSN whether is acceptable. — Brianhe (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even assuming these are RS, this is awful slim for GNG. I'd like to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to list the Austin American-Statesman piece, which is quite extensive. Their site now has a paywall but I'll assume good faith that this reprint at richarddawkins.net is authorized: Brianhe (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep especially because of the Trouw reference. That is a national newspaper in the Netherlands, with a circulation of 317,000. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. The article is a patchwork collection of non-reliable sources, speakers bureau write-ups, primary sources, and American Atheists Convention news. The articles that do quote him, such as Evolution News and Christian Today, are better suited as sources for The Atheist Experience, not Dillahunty himself. The article should also be tagged for overly-promotional writing; it reads like a resume of Dillahunty's activities, with some of his favorite quotes thrown in for good measure. Rather than take information from independent sources and make an article out of it, the page writers appear to be gathering any and all sources to back up each point that they wish to make to present Dillahunty as a notable person. Numerous sources only mention Dillahunty in passing. The Austin American-Statesman piece and the Dutch article does not "significant coverage in reliable sources" make. Dillahunty already has his own paragraph at The Atheist Experience; that's where he belongs. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment to the delete !voters. I don't get it. Are we talking about the same sources? In what way is this insignificant? I'll list the >1000 word articles below, without conceding that the other sources add to notability, and would point out that this represents a broad cross-section of views, both pro- anti- and neutral-to-religion, in both general newspapers and specialist publications, and across many countries and languages. Surely no one can claim there is a "localist" bias here, or a viewpoint overly sympathetic to the subject.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Publication ! Words (round to nearest hundred)
 * Evolution News and Views
 * 1100
 * Christian Today
 * 1100
 * Trouw
 * 1200
 * Austin American-Statesman
 * 1300
 * fritanke.no (Norwegian Humanist Association)
 * 1500
 * }
 * Are we sure this is being held to a reasonable standard along the par of other articles? Example, Session of Christ is a Philosophy and Religion GA that has, best I can tell, at most 14 pages of independent citations (I'm discounting the Bible as it constitutes a primary source). Now I know people are going to say "other stuff exists" is not a defense; however, a Good Article review does establish a bar for "good", let alone "don't delete". I've just shown that this article has about half as many pages, using a rough metric of 1 page=1k, and actually more sources.  — Brianhe (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The word count in each article has nothing to do with notability; it's the quality of the coverage that we're looking at. If a major newspaper conducts an interview with Dillahunty, or focuses on his work exclusively, that's "significant" coverage. If an article mentions him in passing, as most of the sources do (they refer to Dillahunty as the co-host of The Atheist Experience, and then get on with the real subject of the article), then it does not count toward "significant" coverage. As I mentioned in my !vote, the Evolution News and Christian Today articles are focusing on the show, not Dillahunty himself. It's nice that you came up with 2 or 3 good sources, but that doesn't satisfy the more widespread requirement of "significant" coverage. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a curious view. To me an article rebutting a speaker's world view and dissecting his arguments is about the speaker, not about a television show. Even if Christian Today can be portrayed as objecting to the tone of the show, it's the tone set by Dillahunty, by name. That covers the ID and Christian works (the first two in the table). The American Statesman piece is a straight up biographical sketch. The Norwegian Humanist piece is an analysis of his (not anybody else's) positions, and the Trouw piece mixes his positions in with some others but couldn't reasonably be described as "in passing".
 * Another curious point you present is "the page writers appear to be gathering any and all sources...to present Dillahunty as a notable person". This is probably because folks have been working hard to defend the article on its third deletion attempt. No doubt the article could be improved. — Brianhe (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I urge the closer to simply review the links above to see how inappropriate they are. For example: Christian Today mentions the subject once and goes on to make miscellaneous generalized complaints about atheists in general, not the subject. An almost classic passing mention. EEng (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be helpful to go read that article because when you do, you'll see that EEng is factually wrong. Christian Today mentions the full name Matt Dillahunty once, then mentions "Matt" three more times. Not just that, a facile namecheck isn't the salient point here. David Robertson (Free Church Minister) is arguing that debaters who adopt Dawkins' admonition to mock and ridicule religion should be treated seriously and treated harshly in return. He names Dillahunty and analyzes one of his debates with Robertson as an example; a podcast created by Premier Christian Radio by the way, not The Atheist Experience. This endorses Dillahunty's position and his debating style as significant to Robertson, himself a notable and influential person, and significant to the movement Robertson is a part of. In his concluding paragraph Robertson urges his readers to shape their response to "mockers deceivers and destroyers" referring back to Dillahunty. Robertson is telling his flock, and us, that Dillahunty and his ideas matter. He is notable. — Brianhe (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. He's mentioned four times (in two paragraphs) and then the author goes on to make general complaints about atheists in general, not the subject. (I missed it because of the weird first-person style these people seem to use.) That's way different. EEng (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a curious view. To me an article rebutting a speaker's world view and dissecting his arguments is about the speaker, not about a television show. Even if Christian Today can be portrayed as objecting to the tone of the show, it's the tone set by Dillahunty, by name. That covers the ID and Christian works (the first two in the table). The American Statesman piece is a straight up biographical sketch. The Norwegian Humanist piece is an analysis of his (not anybody else's) positions, and the Trouw piece mixes his positions in with some others but couldn't reasonably be described as "in passing".
 * Another curious point you present is "the page writers appear to be gathering any and all sources...to present Dillahunty as a notable person". This is probably because folks have been working hard to defend the article on its third deletion attempt. No doubt the article could be improved. — Brianhe (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I urge the closer to simply review the links above to see how inappropriate they are. For example: Christian Today mentions the subject once and goes on to make miscellaneous generalized complaints about atheists in general, not the subject. An almost classic passing mention. EEng (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be helpful to go read that article because when you do, you'll see that EEng is factually wrong. Christian Today mentions the full name Matt Dillahunty once, then mentions "Matt" three more times. Not just that, a facile namecheck isn't the salient point here. David Robertson (Free Church Minister) is arguing that debaters who adopt Dawkins' admonition to mock and ridicule religion should be treated seriously and treated harshly in return. He names Dillahunty and analyzes one of his debates with Robertson as an example; a podcast created by Premier Christian Radio by the way, not The Atheist Experience. This endorses Dillahunty's position and his debating style as significant to Robertson, himself a notable and influential person, and significant to the movement Robertson is a part of. In his concluding paragraph Robertson urges his readers to shape their response to "mockers deceivers and destroyers" referring back to Dillahunty. Robertson is telling his flock, and us, that Dillahunty and his ideas matter. He is notable. — Brianhe (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. He's mentioned four times (in two paragraphs) and then the author goes on to make general complaints about atheists in general, not the subject. (I missed it because of the weird first-person style these people seem to use.) That's way different. EEng (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:09, 25 January 2015 (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.