Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Ellis (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 delete.  A  Train talk 06:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Ellis (author)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References given here are either the subject's own writing or are not about the subject (i.e., they are works that mention his work, but are not about him per se). Article would need to have references that relate directly to the subject in order to be retained. KDS4444 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * keep As the creator of the article, is it considered appropriate for me to vote? At any rate, I would like to respond to . WP:AUTHOR gives 4 criteria for judging the notability of an author. I believe that Ellis qualifies under (2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique and (3) 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 multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. WP:PEOPLE specifically says that many scholars are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. JerryRussell (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but to answer your question: it is perfectly appropriate for the author of the article to !vote in an AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been mentioned at WP:FTN. — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * keep There is not that much but we do have articles about him and his work in RS. I would like more, but I think it does just scrape through.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Finding more sources now, IBT, Catholic Online.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Ellis's only marginal claim to fame is his pseudo-theories about the Bible. It's relevant to point out that Ellis is not a scholar and that none of his writings satisfies WP:RS. He does not satisfy a single point of WP:AUTHOR. He did not come up with the fringe theory he espouses, he is not taken serious by any actual scholar in the field, and his books have had no impact on the field. Jeppiz (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have a question. If Ellis didn't invent the fringe theory he espouses (specifically, that King Agbar Manu VI of Osroene and Edessa was Izates Monobazus and also Jesus Christ), then who did invent that theory? JerryRussell (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the wider CMT. As for this "theory", which nobody else believes nor devote any time to, I do not think every tinfoilhat amateur deserves an article, and it most certainly does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR as you claim. Being the first with a mad "theory" is not notable if nobody else picks it up. If I would write a book tomorrow claiming that Napoleon was Caesar and have it published by some obscure publisher, it would not entitle me to an article here. Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but having it reported in multiple RS would. That is what being notable means, you have been noted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right - and that's another reason I think the article should be deleted. I have no claim to fame, but I've been in the news more often than Ellis, at least based on what's in the article. Being in his local paper, the local paper of a small city, is hardly notable. If it were, there would be tens of thousands of articles to write about people who've been in the local news. We do have the one article in The Independent, no doubt about that. Then there are the few links to Ellis's books, of course of no value for establishing notability. Then there is the article in International Business Times, in which actual scholars describe Ellis's ramblings as "so wacky it's completely beyond the realms of scholarly debate", "on a par with people who claim that aliens built the pyramids" and ""completely crackers". So that's basically what we have in terms of notability. One article in established national media, and one article that clearly establishes that the scholarly consensus that Ellis is utterly incompetent and his theories complete rubbish. Hardly much in terms of notability. If we do keep the article, it would probably need to be rewritten entirely, as the negative evaluations of actual scholars are significantly more important than Ellis's own works. It's perhaps beside the point for this discussion, but I doubt we'd be doing the man any favour by having an article on him establishing his incompetence in the unanimous views of experts. Jeppiz (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What scholars views of him is irrelevant, we do not exclude material because it is wacky. The fact is he has been reported (and commented on by experts) in multiple RS means he has been noticed (and thus is notable). Notability does not mean "respected". Also I believe Forbes might be an RS. Nor is it our job to do him any favours, we report what RS have said, we do not exclude material just because it is negative. As to needing to be rewritten, sorry that is not a reason for deletion unless if is so bad (this is not, it would take no effort) it is beyond rescue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know that "scholars" (as ordinarily understood) are quite relevant here. But in that Ellis' supposedly "significant new ... theory" (that, contrary to massive and well established scientific knowledge, CO2 is not involved in global warming) is ostensibly a scientific claim, which he submitted to a scientific journal, what is relevant are the views of scientists, applying scientific norms. In that regard Forbes (however reliable they might be for corporate views), The Sun, Daily Express, Catholic.org, Ancient Egypt, etc. are not reliable sources for scientific issues. (Nor, I suspect, for novel theories of biblical history, but such have not been presented in the article.)


 * As to "it would take no effort" to rewrite, sorry, no. Ellis' claim is so totally contrary to basic science that it would take MASSIVE evidence and review to be accepted, and that is simply not there. There are no sources showing any kind of scientific notablility, let alone acceptance, and therefore no basis for any acceptable rewrite. It is at best fringe science, but hardly better than a claim of perpetual motion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

*Keep, the article already has multiple sources, so demonstrates that subject meets WP:GNG, Comment, here are some more: Ellis' jesus coin theory/book widely reported/discussed ie. by The Sun (United Kingdom), Daily Express, Catholic.org, Solomon theory/book in Daily Star, Ancient Egypt (magazine), Daily Mirror. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More sources , Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps Coolabahapple is being ironic and the irony is lost on me, but the comment above seems serious so... Coolabahapple, are you aware that you just provided a rather extensive list of media that Wikipedia explicitly bans from using as sources? We explicitly state that The Sun, Daily Express and Daily Mirror should not be used as sources and cannot be used to establish notability. That's what the reliable in WP:RS stands for. It's not just about finding any source, which, I'm afraid, some people in this discussion seem to be intent on. Jeppiz (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * does it? I thought they had not been expressly banned. Can you provide a link to the RSN thread please?Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * hi, i am aware that the Daily Mail is not reliable (see Daily Mail RFC here) and apologies about listing catholic.org (here is a discussion about it not being reliable), but the others, although being tabloid and need to be used with caution ie. "The UK newspapers we (on WP) treat as generally reliable are, in alphabetical order, The Daily Telegraph, The Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Independent, The Scotsman and The Times, as well as their Sunday equivalents ("the broadsheets"). Regarded as less reliable are, in alphabetical order, The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Record, The People, The Daily Star and The Sun ("the red-top tabloids")." (from here at about line 30), have not, as far as i am aware, been "explicitly banned from using as sources", if i am wrong about this please direct me to the relevant discussions (and trout me:)), thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Slatersteven and Coolabahapple, this is an interesting discussion, and I see how we can all be in perfectly good faith and arrive at different conclusions. What you say above make perfect sense. We all agree on The Daily Mail as we have a clear decision here. That far all is clear. Now, in my reading unreliable sources here, the fact that The Sun and The Daily Mirror are equated with the Daily Mail would mean that the same applies to them. Furthermore, as the same paragraph states that the Daily Express is even less usable than the Daily Mail, and the Daily Mail should not be used, I take that to mean that the same applies. Again, this is how I have interpreted it. Others could interpret it differently in the best of faith. If you interpret it as meaning that only the Daily Mail should not be used, then we have a different interpretation - and I'm sure you agree none of us can state categorically that our interpretation is right. Perhaps it would be good to highlight this potential ambiguity in the appropriate place? Thanks for highlighting this! Jeppiz (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well one (the ban on the Daily Mail) is an official policy decision (arrived at by community consensus) the other (the comments about the Daily Express) are an Essay which actually is not a policy (and indeed has not been vetted by the community and so may represent minority views (see the disclaimer at the top.)).Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Having said that, I doubt many people would dispute that The Sun is at least as unreliable as Daily Mail, and that Daily Express is far worse. That's why I think it would be good to ask for a clarification on these sources, as this (somewhat marginal) discussion is hardly the only place where it will come up. Jeppiz (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually did argue just that at RSN, and said all should be treated the same (that is blocked from use as RS). I was overruled thus they remain RS. Feel free to raise it again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * hi and, thanks for the above discussion (i will be adding this to my afd interesting list), on reflection the sources i listed may not be good enough for a definitive "keep" from me so i am striking it, treat it as a "comment". Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not a Brit, but I would have thought the Independent was a reliable source. If so it is the only reliable source that I can find in the article.  On the other hand the Independent article reads like gibberish - I suppose everybody has a bad day once in a wile.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably delete -- While newspapers are reliable sources for the fact that he wrote and published the books, neither the author nor his books seem notable to me, and I do not think that his FRINGE theories are so notable (or notorious) as to need a WP article. The newspapers may have published articles on his books by way of lampooning the author; I* cannot believe they were supporting his views.  Linking Joseph with the Hyskos period of Egypt might be a feasible theory, but not Solomon who can be dated to c.1000 BC, from regnal dates in the Bible.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * delete for lack of reliable sources with significant discussion about him. This WP page is all about his books and even the books aren't discussed in the relevant historical literature so are not notable either. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article has nothing about the author himself, let alone why he is notable, only about two of his books (also not shown to be notable), and a brief mention of a dubious scientific claim.


 * Jerry seems to base his "keep" entirely on the scientific claim, argung that Ellis meets criteria 2 and 3 under WP:AUTHORS, for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", and having "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ...." While #2 might eventually apply, there is no evidence that Ellis' article amounts to "a significant or well-known work". (Simlarly for criterion #4.) Jerry has also skipped over criterion #1, that the person "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"; there is no showing of that. Ellis certainly does not meet the WP:BASIC criterion of having "received significant coverage". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - From a BEFORE, I believe the Author does pass in 2017 (as opposed to 2006 the previous AfD) GNG and AUTHOR(3) (though it is note a clearly obvious pass). Specifically he passes AUTHOR(3) due to quite a bit of fringy/tabloid coverage of these various Biblical claims. However, the current article is mainly used to repeat Ellis's claims and doesn't treat him critically - essentially a WP:COATRACK. If the article is modified to reflect mainly the reception of these claims (in non-tabloids), I am amenable to change my !vote per WP:HEY.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary, if he was notable in 2017 he is notable now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To make it clear - I believe he is notable NOW (in 2017, as opposed to the previous AfD in 2006) per GNG and Author(3) - not by a wide margin, but only just. However the article in its present form is a WP:COATRACK for his biblical theories with little content on him (which is limited, I believe, to "Ralph Ellis is an English author. He is primarily noted for his works in alternative biblical history." in the lead) - which leads me to !vote a WD based on the state of the article - which I would change if someone did a massive cleanup (removing most of the current content, and adding content on the author himself).Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is not a valid reason for deletion, if the article has issues that means a re-write, not a deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A deletion does not prevent a re-write, particularly if it is done in draft space. But the bottom line here is the lack of notability. Not simply a failure to show notability, where there might in fact be notability, but quite simply: no notability to show. A re-write cannot fix that, no more than a re-write could demonstrate perpetual motion. Ellis' bottom line (as far as any "novel theory" or such has been presented in the article) is that CO2 is not involved in global warming. That is a scientific claim, and (as I commented above, at 22:20 16 Oct.), and the mentions in Forbes, The Sun, etc., do not make it scientifically notable.


 * The reasons for deletion are not so much that the article has issues, but that the issues are likely unfixable, which is a reason for deletion. If someone thinks otherwise they are welcome to demonstrate that, but until that happens this article should not be in main space. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete newspapers often publish reviews, especially of local authors, that amount to unjustified credulity. That is what the articles covering Ellis' work amount to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2017 (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.