Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich


 * 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. As mentioned by Jo-Jo Eumerus, all "delete" opinions are mere assertions of non-notability, which isn't that strong of an argument without a discussion of the proposed or existing sources.  Sandstein  07:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Rich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A user has been repeatedly trying to get this article deleted through PROD, citing their belief that the creator of the article is the same person as the subject himself.

I don't know if that's the case, but I would argue that the subject is not notable; although I don't care one way or the other if the article is deleted, I'm placing it here so we can stop the conflict and resolve this issue. Rockstone  talk to me!   17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Rockstone   talk to me!   17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Rockstone   talk to me!   17:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable. This looks like it was pushed through with a set of sources that reference back to a single source.--Jorm (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have indef'd users and  for violating WP:Harassment.  has been indef'd for violating WP:PROMO. Sasquatch  t&#0124;c 21:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I think that was a good decision. All three of them have had problems... I'm starting to think just made an account to hound, it does seem really suspect..  Rockstone   talk to me!   21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This person is not notable, it's basically quackery and spam. Praxidicae (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nathan Rich is a notable author and researcher of Chinese/American issues. And he has a work history that is listed on the hollywood work database: imdb.com -. Ginjanglez (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a source for notability.--Jorm (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - After finding reliable sources following a Google search, I went to the article to improve it and discovered it is fully protected and I am unable to do that. Re: notability, the subject was featured in A&E's documentary series Scientology and the Aftermath, he wrote the book Scythe Tleppo: My Survival of a Cult, Abandonment, Addiction and Homelessness, and the subject attended a controversial school of which The Hollywood Reporter featured the subject. Subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. If the article could be improved upon and editors were not locked out, the article could be improved and reliable sources added. While the article may be full of POV, it can be fixed and it does not necessarily mean the subject is not notable. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen the Rolling Stone source and it is purely a description of the show and not really of the person. I cannot find a single published review on his book. Notability does not transfer from the school to the pupil. At best, I think what you have laid out is perhaps a case to leaving it as a redirect to Leah Remini's docuseries. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 15:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone article is a review of the film and is clearly not "purely a description of the show," as you put it. The title of the article, "Children of Scientology: Life After Growing Up in an Alleged Cult," indicates that. The article goes into great detail about children of Scientologists, including interviews and statements from the subject. Also, the subject attending the school is not the only thing covered in Rolling Stone about the subject nor are other reliable sources featuring the subject. Saying it does not make it so. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - My name is Aaron Smith-Levin. I was on the same Scientology & the Aftermath show that Nathan was on. After the show aired he started a YouTube channel which now has about 220,000 subscribers. After starting the YouTube channel he published a book about his time in Scientology. Because I got to know Nathan through the show, and because I have published about 15 hours of interview with him for my own YouTube channel (Growing Up In Scientology) we have stayed in touch, and I am aware that he has been mentioned many times in pieces by various notable US media outlets in relation to the scientology stuff. Examples are: Hollywood Reporter  & Rolling Stone . After the Scientology stuff, Nathan published a Dolce & Gabbana parody video of a Chinese D&G ad, and this blew up, went viral and so then Nathan got mentioned in a bunch of other press for stuff having nothing to do with Scientology. Examples are: CNN  Associated Press  HuffPo  Then, as Nathan's YouTube channel started to focus more on Chinese issues, he really started to blow up over there and has over 1 million subs on Bilibili and Weibo and I know he has been interviewed by several of the major Chinese sites, like TenCent and Weibo. Asmithlevin (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC) — Asmithlevin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The pieces I've seen related to scientology solely mention the fact that he was on this series. I'm not sure that's enough to pass WP:GNG as notability is not inherited between the show and subject in all cases. The parody video, while I'm sure it went viral and got some coverage, is also not enough in my eyes to make the subject notable. I don't see having a single viral video in 2019 being enough to pass WP:GNG. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems to be more than a small handful of new-or-low-activity users who have found their way here. I suspect this discussion has been canvassed.--Jorm (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The point of the dialogue on this page is to determine whether Nathan is a notable person. My input provided links to articles from mainstream media to support the argument that he is. Instead of acknowledging the links as being valid evidence, you raise yet another objection not to the information itself, but to who is providing it. It would be easy to just do a Google Search for NATHAN RICH and see how much content there is of people writing about him and talking about him. How do you expect anyone to come and contribute information to this dialogue if they are not invited to do so? Asmithlevin (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When a lot of new users show up to an AFD, it certainly looks likes stealth canvassing has occurred, which may legitimately factor into how arguments are weighed. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. This article seemed to have been vandalized since I last edited on it (e.g. mention of his book deleted etc.). Clearly not a strong case/definite borderline.  The Rolling Stone interview is very recent (June 2019), and even though he is not the sole subject (which would have made it a stronger case), it is a large article and he features in a major section of it.  He also appears as more than just a passing mention in other pieces from the Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath series (e.g. Inquisitr  Hollywood Reporter ).  Even from these sources, a larger BLP article could be written about Rich's experiences in Scientology.  I would think that a casual reader interested in Scientology would expect to find something about this character and his bio details. I see that he also appears in various Chinese news sites, like this: . Britishfinance (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have also only just realised that his three references to Tony Ortega's website are probably better quality than I had assumed. Ortega seems a notable journalist and author on Scientology, and in this context would probably be considered decent RS. Britishfinance (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Even after discarding some low-activity/SPA accounts, it seems like there is room for disagreement on notability. Not helped that a lot of arguments are blithe "he's not notable" arguments. So I think more discussion is warranted here.
 * Keep Nathan Rich appears to be a great thinker in somewhat controversial fields. The recent invitation to take part in the Coffee with Ren Huawei CEO might be a sign of some notability besides what already in the vandalized article. A-Bee-Honey (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. Appearing in a segment of a single episode of a series and self publishing an autobiography does not make him a notable person Xiaoyun64 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Xiaoyun64 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: Not notable at this time. May be notable later. --云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 10:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I have read all the comments on this page, as well as re-read the Wikipedia guidelines for notability; I believe this page qualifies for retention, though I understand how others might not consider it so. In the area of Scientology watching, Nathan's work has contributed to the body of knowledge about the treatment of children in the church, a topic of increasing coverage. As Britishfinance has noted, Tony Ortega is a professional journalist (not a former church member with an ax to grind) who's been writing about Scientology for more than two decades; all Scn watchers would consider his coverage "mainstream" in this sense. I do concur with AuthorAuthor that the page does need fixing (I consider it weakly written), but that doesn't make Nathan not-notable. SJFriedl (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I took another look at this with an eye to how an outsider to the subject of Scientology-watching would look at it, mainly at how the references contribute to notability. I've been following Scientology for a long time (but was never in), so this is a space I'm familiar with. I hope formatting like this is OK:
 * Refs 1, 8 and 11 are coverage from Tony Ortega, the most-respected journalist covering Scientology; I deem them high value.
 * Ref #2 (Rolling Stone article) is likewise high value: it's not just rehashing the show, but provides original coverage of a retreat of former Scientologists and their experiences, especially about the treatment of children in the church.
 * Ref #9 is high value also because Scientology itself decided that Nathan was notable enough to create an attack site that is far more than a casual dismissal of claims.
 * Refs 3 and 4 (Inquisitr and Hollywood Reporter) articles get low weight because they seem to be rehashes of the show and don't really provide new coverage (though THR would have more weight due to its wider readership)
 * Ref #12 (Mace Kingsley) gets no weight at all because there's an actual Wikipedia page for it; this reference seems gratuitous and should be removed.
 * Ref #5 ("Aunt Julie") has no weight at all; linking to a non-famous family member provides no notability.
 * Ref #7 (Adam Carolla podcast) gets at best medium weight because it's mainstream popular media, though being a book tour interview reduces that weight some. Maybe this is low.
 * Ref #6 (Surviving Scn Radio) gets low notability weight because all those folks know each other and are not really independent sources
 * Ref #10 (link to the book) - I don't know how much a book contributes to notability. Surely some?
 * Ref #13 (Presence in China) - I don't know anything about this, but it appears to be something. SJFriedl (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Before this page was vandalized and locked I believe there were closer to 40 references. Is it possible that it can be reverted to that state so that someone (or you) can provide commentary on the value/weight of all the references that were there previously? Asmithlevin (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject worthy of a well referenced stub, not this thesis of self glorification Cheerio042 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)  Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A well referenced stub would be a keep on WP; note, just joined Wikipedia today and their first 18 edits have been !votes at AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure I follow what's going on, but user Cheerio042 has been blocked for alleged sockpuppetry; perhaps that factors into the discussion here. SJFriedl (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced article that proves the subject passes GNG Lightburst (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There have been other cases where a writer/article-subject made thinly-veiled attempts for years to obsessively control the content and/or tone of their WP page (Rachel Marsden comes to mind), and this is also the reason that the Rich article was brought here. To me this is a strawman argument to avoid the convincing claims of notability presented in some of the previous comments. StonyBrook (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2019 (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.