Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich (2nd 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrIdiot (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Rich
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is non-notable. A Google search turns up: his Twitter, his YouTube channel, a Reddit discussion thread, his books on Amazon. He has never been the primary subject of coverage in any reliable source (e.g. he is not the main subject in the Rolling Stones article). He appears to mostly be known for his appearance in various anti-Scientology documentaries and for his YouTube videos, but in the former case he doesn't play a central role and in the latter case, 300K subscribers is not that notable. To address specifically some of the notability claims above: (1) Ginjanglez claims Nathan is notable for his "research" on China issues, but this is patently false. He has a YouTube video where he talks about China. This is not notability. I want to emphasize that he is never cited by any serious China scholar. (2) Other users comment that he is notable for his appearance in Scientology-related media. Again, in the Rolling Stones article he takes up a paragraph or two and in the Hollywood Reporter article it is even less. (3) The links to his "coverage" in CNN, HuffPost, etc. do not actually mention him at all, but merely link one of his YouTube videos which is touches upon the subject of the article. He is never actually mentioned by name in any of those articles. These justifications are really really stretching it: passing mention in a two publications over the years and does not mean notability. DrIdiot (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. To further clarify, his most notable appearance was in a single episode of the TV documentary Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath. Everything else currently on his Wikipedia page is stuff he has self-published or details about his personal life.  I propose that (1) appearing in a single episode of a documentary is not enough to be notable and (2) while there's nothing wrong with self-publishing, his self-published works have not received any coverage in reputable sources.  The section that discusses (1) in his Wikipedia article contains three sources.  One is a Hollywood Reporter article which is primary about the episode, and the other two are from a mostly unknown pro-Scientology website and from a mostly unknown anti-Scientology website. DrIdiot (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. For example, his last AfD - only 3 months ago - has a large Rolling Stone article in which he features prominently. Your 2nd nomination above doesn't bring anything new to this recent AfD, and seems to ignore most of the WP:RS that was used at that AfD to reach a Keep decision? I don't think this is a good way to operate. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete This Nathan Rich guy is probably more known now for his pro-China views than his background in Scientology. As pointed out by DrIdiot, his appearance in Scientology articles is not enough. Now, I vote "weak" because he does have some coverage from strange media about his China views. However, the media in question are all not independent sources (WP:IIS). A search on him gave these articles from Global Times 1 2, another one from China Daily 3 and an article from the think tank antiwar.com 4. In the first 3 articles, it is clear that the sources are not neutral and are drawing attention to him because they share the same political point of view, while the last article only quotes one sentence from one of his videos. I would wait for more neutral and reliable sources to cover him properly before giving him an article, or this Wikipedia article seems to fulfill the same goal as the Chinese tabloid. Sociable Song (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. But that is not true.  Even a casual read of his AfD from 3 months ago Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich, shows that his China work was not relevant to his article being Kept.  You seem to ignore any of his actual WP:RS that was quoted. Britishfinance (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Nathan Rich appears to be a thinker and a political commentatorCGTN, comparing china and US cancer treatments with a high density of facts backing up his statements. Huwaei 5G facts as well as the tradewar facts in videos filled with facts. Nathan Rich viewpoints from both US and China gives a rich width seldom represented in the debate otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A-Bee-Honey (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the links you provided are reputable sources. They are either his own videos, Chinese state media (CGTN) on topics where they have a clear conflict of interest (Hong Kong protests), or blogs. DrIdiot (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok so CGTN one of the largest TV networks is not a reputable source? That sounds more like a political opinion than a factbased expression. In Nathan Rich examinations of NYTimes statements about Chineese healthcare he rather proves that the wellknown and reputable source to be wrong, and that is to me pretty strong. That is the foundation of reputability to me. Have we ever seemeed anything like it with that quality recently? Nathan Rich appears to be more pro-china in his views than other westerner vloggers ìn China represented in Wikipedia, but does that make him less reputable? A-Bee-Honey (talk)
 * First, state owned media has a conflict of interest when discussing protests which are aimed against the state. See WP:IIS.  State owned media in China neither have editorial independence, nor do they lack a confict of interest in coverage on Hong Kong protests.  You'll note that even YouTube (in the link you provided) felt the need to note the organization which owns CGTN.  Second, the blog you linked is not even close to being reputable, and it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is incorrect or correct. DrIdiot (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep America’s greatest core value is freedom of speech. Nathan Rich’s views may deviate from what mainstream media in America would like US to know, but they are always fact-based arguments. He has never promoted racism and bigotry against any group in his arguments. He does however have strong opinions about certain subjects related to China that is different than the views shared by the anti-China groups. For this reason, his contents and stories are constantly subjected to suppression. This is highly un-American. We are nothing if we allow our core constitutional rights robbed by those who chose to suppress dissenting views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstwok (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, no reputable sources, and Wikipedia is not a messaging board. I want to point out this is their first edit by the above user to Wikipedia. DrIdiot (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Articles for deletion are not violations of free speech. Wikipedians are not acting on behalf of the government, which includes the US government. The free speech argument can be made to keep literally anyone on the site, yet Wikipedia's mission is not to have an article for every single person. Sociable Song (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Britishfinance's argument in the first AFD nomination. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the RS-based arguments that I (and ) made just 3 months ago at the last AfD Articles for deletion/Nathan Rich. I don't think this should have been re-nominated so soon from its last AfD (which was closed as a Keep), the nom seems to ignore all the RS from the last AfD and they reasons why it was Kept? Britishfinance (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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: . His three references to Tony Ortega's website are 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) 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have fixed up AfD header which was absent; clarified the nominator (whose vote is assumed at a Delete; no need to re-vote). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am the nominator.  There are some points brought up here that were not included in the previous discussion, in particular regarding his content on China, which some seemed hesitant to touch on in detail, but as a person interested in Chinese issues I can say that none of the Chinese news sites that refer to him are both notable and independent (see comments above, e.g. by User:Sociable Song).  He is mostly known for taking a pro-CCP stance on issues, but this isn't the problem.  The problem is that all of his coverage comes from pro-CCP sources, and he just simply isn't notable enough to have received coverage from sources with different viewpoints.  I submit that his only claim to notability is his appearance in the anti-Scientology TV episode.  Since then all his appearances are self-published or from non-reputable fringe-interest sources.  If you strip away all of these fringe-interest sources (and we should) you're not left with much, and there's a further problem: the subject isn't notable enough to get coverage from reputable media on his own.  Finally, let me say explicitly what I mean by these fringe sources: (1) there's a lot of detail about his family, which appears to be the result of original research by contributors (i.e. it is not reported in any reputable sources), (2) the criminal convictions section is based entirely on a non-reputable source, (3) none of the sources regarding his China content are reputable and independent and (4) the entire section "YouTube" just cites his own self-published videos. DrIdiot (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. At the very least, I think the page should be trimmed down significantly.  But at that point, one wonders if it's just better to give Nathan a dedicated section in the various articles on the Scientology-related subjects where he appears prominently (e.g. Mace-Kingsley Ranch School). DrIdiot (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are not making arguments regarding the RS on this BLP subject.  His most recent AfD was not passed based on his Chinese RS (far from it).  Writing a lot of words about this Chinese material and then ignoring the rest of his RS (despite the link to his AfD of 3 months ago listing out all of this RS), is not helpful, or efficient, to those who took the time to participate on that AfD.  I can't see the WP:PAG argument from you as to why the RS listed at most recent AfD was wrong. Britishfinance (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't dispute the Rolling Stones, Inquisitr or Ortega sources. Maybe listing as AfD wasn't the right approach, but I think a lot of the content on his current page should not be there.  In particular, sources [5], [8], [9], [10], [12], [16] are non-reputable.  Removing them would amount to removing: the part identifying his mother (never verified by name in any source), the criminal convictions section, the youtube section, and the personal life section. DrIdiot (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of these issues could be addressed by reverting to the July 31 version of the article. DrIdiot (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Happy to withdraw nomination and revert to July 31 version, in addition replacing Followcn source with the Stones article (which already says he lives in China), if that sounds like an agreeable solution. I also think the aunts aren't particularly relevant, so I would also propose deleting the "personal life" section (there is plenty on his personal life in other sections) DrIdiot (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree  that this BLP has gone in crazy directions since the 31 July (last AfD) - there are many edits now that are not appropriate on a WP:BLP in both directions.  If you are going to withdraw the nomination, I would support restoring the 31 July version (I would do it myself now but if would be a major change to make during an AfD).  I am fine with the Personal Details section - it is important in BLPs to chronicle core biographical facts, and one of his aunts Sharon Rich, has her own WP page (which makes the connection notable).  I think this BLP needs more serious protection and perhaps long-term ECP, as it is getting abused/vandalized in both directions (same happened in run-up to 1st AfD); he is clearly a controversial figure on several counts. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will withdraw the AfD, revert to the July 31 version, refer to this discussion in the Talk page.  Regarding ECP, I'll leave it to you to propose it if you feel it's necessary. DrIdiot (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Actually, Nathan Rich's entire & only noteworthy content should be merged into a subsection on a Scientology article. There shouldn't be an article on Rich, unless he gets more coverage from reputable and independent sources. I know comparisons on people's notability usually don't work. But I'd compare Rich to the occasional expert/prof/activist that the news talks to for one specific topic/event. And these occasional interviewees are not notable enough to stand out with a Wikipedia article. I would say that the interviewee crosses the threshold when they are consulted on many topics by the news, hence becoming a pundit. And/or when they are consulted on the same topic by many outlets for a significant period of time, at the point where the topic cannot be properly covered without them. Rich's presence in Scientology are not crucial to covering Scientology in some unique way. Rich's pundit status is only viable among the pro-CCP media and hasn't been identified by any media outside of that political leaning. Sociable Song (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your !vote above shows that you are either unwilling to read about this subject or worse, are willing to misrepresent the RS on him (As a new editor, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here). There is nothing in the above Comment that relates to WP:PAG re AfD.  I would advise that you take more time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia since you joined before making such contributions at AfD; which is a forum that requires familiarity with PAG to contribute effectively. Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 7 October 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.