Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael O'Brien (Canadian author)


 * 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Michael O'Brien (Canadian author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable author, insufficient citations from reliable sources Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been around since 2006, and only ever had these references:, , , ,, , ,. That is clearly insufficient. However, someone wrote a biography about him, and that biography was (favourably) reviewed in the National Catholic Register, https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/writer-michael-obrien-and-the-mission-of-catholic-art , a source that is used over 700 times on enwp. We even have an article on his publisher, Ignatius_Press. Other sources exist, for example in Le Figaro, https://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2012/11/15/03005-20121115ARTFIG00666--michael-d-o-brien-un-prophete-venu-du-canada.php. Vexations (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out below, Ignatius Press, which published the vast majority of O'Brien's novels, is also the publisher of the biography, so the existence of the biography doesn't really speak to whether O'Brien is notable or not, nor does the existence of our article on the publisher (we have many articles on non-reliable sources). If I had found a  single  unbiased reliable source on O'Brien of  any  kind, I wouldn't have filed this nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see what you mean about unbiased. I don't see any unbiased sources except maybe Le Figaro, which is consistently conservative, but not necessarily O'Brien's brand of Catholic. The only people interested in O'Brien appear to be people with similar convictions. That IS a problem, because all the "criticism" that exists of his work is by people who already agree with him. Whatever "analysis" they do will show that they were right all along. Some of those people hold positions at academic institutions, like the author of this article published in Logos (Catholic journal)), Anthony M. Wachs, who teaches at Duquesne University and his biographer, Clemens Cavallin, who teaches at the University of Gothenburg. So yeah, are horribly biased, from a very small (possibly fringe) group of fellow religious authors, and the subject doesn't appear to have received any critical attention in mainstream publications. His paintings are also really terrible and have not been collected by any reputable museum or been exhibited anywhere that would confer notability. On the other hand, sources do exist. I don't think we should have an article if it is really not possible to write about him from a NPOV, but I'm not quite convinced that that is the case (yet). Vexations (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist reviews, while not biographical sources, are unbiased critical attention in mainstream publications. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I am seeing decent sources here, here and here. One of these is a review of a published biography. The article needs work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your sources are National Catholic Register, Religion News, and Catholic Register. The biography was published by the same firm that published the vast majority of his novels, Ignatius Press.  I can find  no  reliable sources outside what might be called the "Catholic Echo Chamber".  Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out some sources. I would say I am  Delete on this as I tend to agree with the nomination reasoning, as well as the "echo chamber" comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You may wish to re-review given the further evidence provided. 24.77.42.223 (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The ABC-CLIO Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Fiction has a substantial entry on him. Cheers, gnu 57 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I found reviews in the standard trade publications: Booklist, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal; and in one with which I am unfamiliar, The American Spectator. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He is also the subject of an essay in Between Human and Divine: The Catholic Vision in Contemporary Literature, which I have found reviewed in JSTOR and Gale Literature databases. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The trades are reliable sources for the publication of the books they review (about which there is little doubt), but do not confer notability to the author, since they review a very large portion of all books published. The essay is a more substantial source, but, again, the book it appears in is published by a Catholic publisher (Catholic University of America), so we've still yet to break out of the "Catholic Echo Chamber" into non-Catholic reliable sources with it. The American Spectator is a conservative online magazine which, as far as I'm aware, is not Catholic in its orientation, so that could be useful.  Can you post a link to the review? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * NM, I see you've added it to the article as a cite for one of O'Brien's books. I think it's a matter of debate if pro-forma reviews in trade publications and one review in an online magazine do much to confer notability to the author. Certainly he appears to have some notability within a specific contemporary religious circle, but is that enough to fulfill WP:AUTHOR?:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * His works have received a significant amount of attention from a range of publications. I added some sources I found as citations, some as external links; I also added some provided on this page by other editors. Some, but not all, reviews from 1990s authors are on the open internet... I assume there are more reviews out there to which I don't have access or which haven't been digitized at all. I see no reason to need to exclude Catholic publications with which the subject has not been affiliated and which are not owned by the same parent organization; indeed, as that is his niche. And he's received attention outside of the popular Catholic publications. O'Brien meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What "attention outside of the popular Catholic publications" is that? One review in The American Spectator does not confer notability, in my opinion.  True, Catholicism is his "niche', but the question remains open, I think, if his notability has reached beyond that "niche" -- or the "Catholic Echo Chamber", as I've referred to it -- to be notable in the Wikipedia sense.  I'm still doubtful that this is the case. As I said, I discount the trades as being pro-forma reviews of a published book, which does not confer notability (or else every published author would be notable, which is not the case), and I discount the biography as being published by his in-house publisher, so the only breakout from his "niche" that I can see is The American Spectator review.  Is that enough? It certainly doesn;t seem to satisfy  any  of the requirements of WP:AUTHOR cited above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you not see my additions from this morning? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you not see the bullet points from WP:AUTHOR? Which one do you think he fulfills?  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you're fleshing out the sourcing of the article, that's great, but I'm still not sure that he meets our requirements. Note that my nomination rationale had two parts, and that "insufficient citations from reliable sources" was only one of them, the other was about his Wiki-notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 4c. And if he's been reviewed/coveted in trade/popular, Catholic, and academic publications, and that's not enough, where else should we be seeing him? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i don't see what we've got as "significant critical attention". What we have, essentially, is Catholic publications reviewing the books of a Catholic author published by Catholic publishing houses.  He never breaks out of the "niche", in your words. And even in that niche, it's rather a circular arrangement: Ignatius Press or Justin Press publishes almost everything he writes, and the biography about him, and a work on his art (written by the biographer), and then a small number of Catholic publications review them.  The outside world is represented by the Alberta Report, an obscure defunct newsmagazine and The American Spectator, an online magazine.  I'm simply not seeing significance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  However , see below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, you put in the wrong publisher and ISBN for the biography. I've corrected it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The copyright page reads Justin Press, but if you prefer it as on the title page, be my guest. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The first edition was by Justin Press; I updated the year, publisher, and ISBN accordingly. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that ISBN leads to nothing. It's a disservice to our readers to include a dead end in a "Further reading" section.  I've restored the edition with a live ISBN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, a question: Have you actually read any of the citations you added as "via EBSCO"? I ask because you don't seem to have included any URLs for them so they can be examined, and I'm assuming you didn't include them because you don't have them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ouch. I don't use hyperlinks in citations when I go through library-owned subscription databases. Editors are not required to do so, which I am sure you know. I did include a DOI of an article that had one. Any interested parties may seek out the sources. Regarding the biography, I have filled out the original year of publication field -- now we can have it both ways. Looky there. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great compromise, wish I had thought of it. If you have the URLs, could you add them, as a service to the readers, not all of them will have access. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not how it works. If they clicked on the permalink, users would be met with a library-specific subscription wall and then would have to go to their library's page to access the databases (if available) or request via interlibrary loan using the citation information provided. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the " However ": The one source that I've been overlooking -- and not by choice but by happenstance -- is the review in Le Figaro. It does indeed qualify as a reliable source outside the circularity of the "niche".  It is probably enough to allow me to withdraw the nomination - let me think on it a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw this article in a deletion sorting list and that's why I worked on it. I found two critical non-Catholic reviews on the open internet within the first minute of searching. (The nominator has said had they found any unbiased source of any kind, they wouldn't have made the nomination. I'm not criticizing; I know it's a different story when the nomination is made--I roll that way too.) I know that not everyone has as good of access to the same databases and knows where else to search as I do. The more I looked, the more I found. I don't care a hoot about the subject, and I don't care whether the article is deleted. But just so people don't just skim the discussion without looking at the article or understanding the changes I spent a good couple hours on: please note that the man has been written about. To summarize for everyone who hasn't been following this and may be unfamiliar with many of the publications in the reference list (some of which can probably go after this AfD is complete, If it survives). O'Brien has been noticed-- by Catholic publications, conservative publications, mainstream literary publications, and still others. There could be more sources that aren't digitized or weren't in the several databases I searched. He's not a household name but is a known novelist. Catholic but lay and not a theologian. A scholar but self-taught and without qualifications. He is a conundrum. Maybe it's not enough, and that's fine. Just make it a good discussion. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Two comments on this which may sound contradictory, but really are not. (1) I think your summary of the situation very much overstates the evidence at hand for O'Brien being notable.  I place no weight on the trades, the "Catholic Echo Chamber" does not confer general notability (it would for Catholic Wikipedia if there were one, I suppose), the "academic" citations are from, again, Catholic journals, and the other non-Catholic sources are minor and trivial and some cannot be verified by me without URLs.  The only evidence I place any substantial weight on is the Le Figaro review.  (2) As the same time, there is the existence of that La Figaro review, and on the basis of that, I'm willing to formally withdraw the nomination.  Since we were are 2 deletes and 2 keeps, and have been for days, there was likely to be a lack of consensus anyway, so the practical result of withdrawing is the same, that the article will be kept.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would Roman Catholic sources be necessarily discounted? And is this particular to religion or does it apply to specialized fields generally? 24.77.42.223 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Echo Chamber" being Catholic, it has to do with it being an Echo Chamber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you characterize all periodicals particular to specialized fields (religious or otherwise) as being part of "echo chambers"? And if so, would that not limit us to covering authors discussed in "popular" media (ruling out, e.g., most academics)? 24.77.42.223 (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per keepers above, and a very steady 30-ish views a day over several years - far more than many very clearly "notable" topics get. I know that views aren't supposed to show notability, but they should be - the title is very narrow & precise. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per overwhelming evidence from . 24.77.42.223 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep no doubt, if sources are an issue then the Template:Refimprove BLP should be used on the article to further improve, the discussion here does seem to cover everything on the reasons why it should be kept already.  Twin Turbo  (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2020 (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.