Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Raymond


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nathaniel Raymond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

notability Blander2 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC) It's clear from Talk:Nathaniel Raymond that several people have notability concerns about this article. It's basically a citation farm, though the references are weak (none concern Raymond). He's quoted in one of them, though this would establish the notability of what he is knowledgeable about and it doesn't confer notability to him.Blander2 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs to be modified, but Raymond is notable. WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is significant coverage of Raymond in The Boston Globe, Guardian, Nature, Newsweek, International Business Times, and other publications. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is not a single cite in this quote farm that is about Raymond. In the instances in which Raymond is cited about the Human Rights Organization, that establishes the notability of the organization, not of Raymond.0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Juan, WP:GNG states that significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Here are three references where there is significant coverage of Raymond in a well-known publication. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Guardian article - The article opens with a discussion of Raymond's work, and he is mentioned 11 times.
 * Boston Globe - The entire article is about a group that Raymond directs, and he is mentioned 17 times.
 * Nature - The entire article is about a report that Raymond authored, and Raymond is quoted several times.
 * Finally, someone with evidence. The problem with these is the Guardian piece could be understood to confer notability to the initiative; he's a mouthpiece. The Nature piece refers to the report, not to Raymond. The only one that discusses Raymond in the context of his expertise (i.e., an in-passing reference to him and not just the initiative) is the Globe piece. So what we've got here is a quote farm and one in-passing mention.0Juan234 (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DavidinNJ--significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'd also like to note the unusual situation that two of the accounts driving the call for deletion here are new accounts with less than 50 edits apiece; since this is a very low-traffic article, it would be remarkable for two such new users to converge here, and suggests to me that some form of offline shenanigans may be happening here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note the sockpuppeting that has already occurred in support of this article, and that we have three supposedly "different" editors posting in 13 minute in support of this article, while the talk page is replete with opinions to the contrary.0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think DavidinNJ, ColHenry, Quadell, and I are sockpuppets of a single individual, that would be one of the most elaborate hoaxes in Wikipedia history... did you look at our contributions? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, this person is prima facie notable, and is subject of significant, independent secondary coverage. – Quadell (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The coverage, if you read each of the cites, concern other topics and Raymond isn't the subject even in passing of all but one of them. One passing citation, thr0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP per DavidinNJ. While the article can be improved (hey, can anyone point to an article that is perfect?), the subject is entirely notable and verifiable and passes the test for inclusion. Raymond is the point man on human rights violations in Sudan and during the Afghan War. His work to shed light on such human rights violations, and specifically his work with Physicians for Human Rights are all per se notable given its significant coverage in the press with regard to Wikipedia's policies. I'd like to see this article improved with Raymond's fight to get access to public records (his FOIA requests and litigation with the US Government in the Dasht-i-Leili massacre), the publication of those documents on Wikileaks, and that his research was the backbone of the excellent 2002 documentary "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death" (which can be seen in its entirety on youtube). The forcing an AfD despite the sources and despite the discussion on the talk page does smell fishy (per Khazar2's observations), and I do wonder if this is a coordinated campaign by Raymond's detractors, professional rivalry, or human rights violation deniers.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep noted expert (pioneer) on using satellite technology and other intelligence information gathering techniques to monitor human rights violations in otherwise difficult regions such as the Sudan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove, of course* There are some sketchy things occurring here and on the Raymond talk page. As I noted there:
 * All the text recommending deletion was mysteriously archived a few days after it was posted - while everything else on the talk page remained there for nine months. I cut and pasted it again here last week, and -voila!- the same text recommending deletion was archived again today! Hmmm... Anyway, these above entries are nice reports, though unfortunately they do not add much to the questions on notability. The concept of notability must be established through certain types of references (regardless of a person's opinion of the individual). The question is why/how does these references establish notability? If he's interviewed about something, that establishes the notability of the subject of the interview. Rather than saying "this seems to me to [this or that]" - responses on this topic need to be "this reference establishes/fails to establish notability because..."
 * One might bear in mind that the talk page has a history of sockpuppet editors posting, and we find some nice coincidences that these people are all here at the same time:
 * DavidinNJ (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quadell (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Green Cardamom (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But who cares about sockpuppets, wikipedia has notability safeguards against quotefarms and editors (like those who have posted above) who haven't interpreted the citations of a quote farm. But don't take my word for it, read their lack of reasons why the citations establish notability. This is about the best of the bunch: "here is significant coverage of Raymond in The Boston Globe, Guardian, Nature, Newsweek, International Business Times, and other publications" says DavidinNJ. No, there isn't. There are references there that do no even in passing concern Raymond. There is a single reference that could be construed to be an "in passing" reference.0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the ridiculousness of your position, going on the warpath by accusing five accomplished editors (together who have been recognized with dozens of FAs, GAs, and other achievements, tens of thousands of edits, and probably about a combined 40 years worth of work on the project) of being the work of a "sockpuppet" is not convincing and rather offensive. You might want to learn a little before spouting off like a disruptive little gnat with such an absurd claim.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort! I said "it's a nice coincidence" - if I wanted to accuse you of sockpuppetting, I would have said as much. Aside from the ridiculousness of your position, going on the warpath by accusing an editor of accusing others of being "sockpuppets" is rather offensive. You might want to learn a little before spouting off like a disruptive little gnat with such an absurd claim. And while you're at it, have a look at the references for Raymond and, if you still feel that the page warrants existence, explain why 0Juan234 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The editors above who have encountered your agenda during the talk page discussion, and who you've commented on their keep votes above, likely do not wish to continue discussing this matter with you, and neither do I. Your behaviour and tediously repeated argument show you cannot be reasoned with, that you are intransigently stubborn, and that you will persist in your refusal to acknowledge consensus just because it isn't to your liking.  Further, quite frankly, harassing editors and throwing around accusations (veiled or not) simply on the basis of their voting in opposition to your position is bad form. Doubtlessly, if such disruptive behaviour and hostility continue, it will be reported accordingly to your detriment. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As you point out, harassing editors and throwing around accusations (veiled or not) simply on the basis of their voting in opposition to your position is bad form. Rather than being petty and personal, why not just explain why you feel the references support notability.0Juan234 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clever, my two-year old likes playing the repeating-what-I-say game, too. Except when she does it, it's cute. I can't say the same here. Already did explain my "why" and sufficiently did so--as did other experienced editors. If you desire to insistently refuse to listen to those reasons, your refusal doesn't negate the validity of my judgment or their judgment. If you want to continue ignoring opinions that disagree with yours, that's your problem, not mine. If you want to be disruptive because of it, well, you only have yourself to blame. This is my final comment on this AfD, I've explained my reasons sufficiently to my own satisfaction and that of other reasonable editors. If you don't agree, well, too bad. I don't intend to make any further accommodation for your intransigence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Already did explain my 'why' and sufficiently did so." Where? Here: "the subject is entirely notable and verifiable and passes the test for inclusion." The test is: which citations make him notable? He is mentioned in passing on one of them. Maybe you meant here: "Notable given its significant coverage in the press with regard to Wikipedia's policies." Again, which citation? Because wikipedia policy says that ""A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources." So, for Raymond, the answer is no, as he's not the subject of any of them. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." There are not multiple sources that concern Raymond. Again, that's why I am asking why - as it's clear either you didn't read the references or you don't understand notability.0Juan234 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the references and Mr. Raymond's work at PHR. Typically when someone is interviewed by a newspaper regarding an event, they're either connected with or know a lot about that event. Newspapers and magazines don't interview random people who are clueless, they support their stories with experts. Raymond's work with PHR is specifically connected to the events in Afghanistan, he's an expert on that event. Newspapers asked him about the event. The newspaper establishes coverage (a) of the event and (b) of his expert opinion on that event. Therefore, conferring notability as an expert, a participant, and as a researcher on that event. Seriously, it's that simple. If you refuse to accept that, no answer anyone gives you will be sufficient in your skewed world. Any editor here at Wikipedia who has a little more than 60-edits worth of experience would accept that this article's subject meets the notability guidelines. I suggest you read a little more policy before you deign to pontificate on matters of its application. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Congrats on finally addressing the topic! Get this (wo)man a BARNSTORMER! I won't go into your pontificating here, as that's off-topic.) As I noted before, and you note here, there is one source (the Globe article) that could be understood as in-passing reference, as Raymond is not the subject. The notability guidelines say "multiple" such references are necessary to confer notability. Yes, it is "that" simple.0Juan234 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Congrats on finally addressing the topic! Get this (wo)man a BARNSTORMER! I won't go into your pontificating here, as that's off-topic.) As I noted before, and you note here, there is one source (the Globe article) that could be understood as in-passing reference, as Raymond is not the subject. The notability guidelines say "multiple" such references are necessary to confer notability. Yes, it is "that" simple.0Juan234 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Juan, The material on the talk page that was removed yesterday was old material that was auto-archived by a bot. Here is the thread that the bot archived. There is nothing wrong with citing archival material in a new thread, but I suggest that you don't restore old threads from the archives. When these restored threads archive, the same material will be in the archives in duplicate. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I was pointing out that it's interesting that the text that recommended deleting the page a year ago was immediately archived while other topics were left on the page for nine months. Then, when the delete-the-page topic comes up again, and discussed (by me and others) it's archived in a week. That means: it's not old. Just pointing that out that such selective archiving is a bit coincidental...Another Comment: Let's get to work explaining  why the citations confer notability. No one seems to be able to do that. 0Juan234 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Juan, I'm really confused by your comments. The archiving bot is a computer program that follows a formula. It doesn't play favorites. The reason why one thread was left on the talk page for many months is that there were no other threads.  The bot for this talk page is programmed to always leave at least one thread (the oldest one). I have added some new material under my original comments above that explains how the references confer notability. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we have established why/how/etc. that they confer notability, but apparently you continue to not comprehend anything other than your way, so we can't establish it sufficiently to meet your skewed expectations that is founded on a misinterpretation of policy and how it's applied. Learn how things work before you insist on your limited understanding of it. With only 60 edits, you're forgiven for not knowing how Wikipedia works. However, your lack of willingness to comprehend is unforgivable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which sources? Oh yea, that. It's a touchy subject apparently. Congrats, though, again, for actually discussing the topic in this edit [].0Juan234 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can someone provide links to examples of the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - asked and answered several times above and on talk page discussion. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ample secondary sources establish notability, and the page is being substantially improved beyond the original mess created by a sockpuppet.  Spurious accusations of censorship and further sockpuppetry (against widely known and respected editors) don't do anything but push me even further into the "keep" camp. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, let's base decisions that supposedly concern sources on petty matters. That's a fantastic approach. There are about two worthwhile comments here, which is to say there are two comments that actually discuss the topic. Sorry Ninja man, yours isn't one of them (neither is this post of mine, in fact). Ninja, your post could be improved (which is to say it might mean something) if you were to discuss which references you feel establish notability and explain the reasons why. .0Juan234 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Juan, you might check out WP:BLUDGEON. We're all familiar with your views at this point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm the sockmaster, I performed all the edits of all other above editors and would finally like to take credit for that! Actually, I'm also Jimbo Wales. Come to think of it, add Barack Obama and Napoleon, too. Seriously: the sources posted by DavidinNJ clinch the deal. Two sterling references in major newspapers (I'm less impressed by the Nature one, which is more in-passing). --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2013 (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.