Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Lataster (3nd 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 delete. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Raphael Lataster
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lataster fails to meet any of the notability requirements for academics. Consider:


 * 1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. No. Lataster has no significant research profile.
 * 2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. None.
 * 3) The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE). No.
 * 4) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. No.
 * 5) The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). No. Lataster is strictly a sessional academic.
 * 6) The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. No.
 * 7) The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. No. He has published an article in The Conversation which was subsequently reprinted by WaPo online, but publication in the Conversation does not a public intellectual make. Furthermore, his two (self-published) books were by no means best-sellers.
 * 8) The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. No.
 * 9) The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art. No.

This entry is very obviously a transparent (and poor) attempt to buttress non-existent public and research profiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatroughbeast (talk • contribs) 10:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Whatroughbeast (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject does not have to pass WP:NACADEMIC if they pass GNG.  From what I can see on google now he has at the very best a "very mixed academic reputation", BUT he is covered by reputable independent reliable sources, for example the ABC in Australia and the Washington post in the United states.  I suggest the subject passes WP:NEXIST sufficiently to pass GNG.  Not liking the subject's subject of interest is not grounds for deletion despite how WP:FRINGE, or poor scholarship, it might be believed to perhaps be.  See the second AfD too.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact check he is not "covered" in WaPo, he published an op-ed. see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - He is covered in numerous books for his opinions. Like them or not, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. I believe some of the points from the nominator are subjective and debatable and the last deletion discussion resulted in participants voting keep based on him being reviewed by reliable publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fact checking this claim. I searched gBooks and got only 2 hits on this unique name (excluding books Lataster wrote].  Both books I found were self-published. gBoos searches are not perfect, but User:CNMall41's claim is unsubstantiated and appears to be inaccurate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, the opinions above are correct that WP:NACADEMIC is not relevant if this person meets the GNG. But I'm not at all sure that they meet the GNG.  The only source that is in depth, about Lataster specifically, and unquestionably independent is this one.  The others are either in very obscure sources, or are written by Lataster themself (including the Washington Post one mentioned above).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep as before. As Malcolmxl5 has observed herein, Whatroughbeast seems to have popped into existence solely to attack this article, and then to disappear just as completely. I think I might be forgiven for thinking this was the same person who has anonymously stripped bits of info from more robust historical versions of the page. But in any event, William Murchison bothers to dedicate a few pages of his Politicians and Other Moral Amateurs to Lataster, so you can add that to whatever other sources speak of him. And of note as well, Lataster's second book was co-produced with Richard Carrier, which is itself a notable thing, apart from both the Christian criticism of his first book and the Washington Post piece. Pandeist (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof, nothing for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete He totally and completely fails the notability guidelines for academics. No one has shown there has been any substantial scholarly attention to his work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and clearly Fails WP:PROF and also fails WP:GNG .The subject is an Australian academic even if he represents  WP:FRINGE scholarship simply lacks independent coverage .Per Lankiveil above could find only one independent article about the subject.Other sources are obsure and the fact that the subject or  everyone who writes one article in the Washington Post does not make the subject notable  or one mention  in a book does not make him pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. The campaign against him is not neutral in perspective. The matter of 'obscure sources' depends on the field, and the geographical area where the Subject works. The matter of how successful a book is contains a lot that is subjective. Scientists have one set of critia, that counts number of times mentioned, which attempts to define quantity as quality. Plenty of notable people published books of small circulation for limited audiences, but of some importance. The criteria of inclusion as 'notable' are intended to test minimal presence, not whether a person is worthy of a Chair at Oxford. Compare: "No one has shown there has been any substantial scholarly attention to his work," where substantial (a weasel word, surely) is slipped in. --Vicedomino (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure this person's notability should be judged simply as a professor or academic, but more as an author or writer with an outside viewpoint (non-existence of historical Jesus). Perhaps a very reduced version of the article should be kept for informational purposes. Or perhaps the article should be lightly merged into some other article, and redirected. SunChaser (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And exactly how would that work? I mean, if it were merged, where would it merge to? If it were reduced, what would be taken out? Pandeist (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how WP:NPROF is supposed to be met, and self-published two books clearly isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR. I don't see a WP:FRINGEBLP case either. As for WP:GNG, I'd like to see a specific link here that supports GNG being met; the main coverage in the article by reliable sources is coverage of his WaPo piece. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Certainly he fails PROF and AUTHOR. Lede section is pure PROMO, and as is much of the article.  But the main thing he fails in WP:SIGCOV.  It's pretty easy to place a controversial op-ed in the Washington Post (they online publish many op-eds every day, they don't pay, they don't fact-check, they get hits which produces ad revenue. User:power~enwiki correctly points out that many of the "sources" are online responses to that op-ed.  There is not enough SIGCOV here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * weak Delete - While it would be correct that WP:GNG over-rides WP:NACADEMIC (which he clearly doesn't meet), I don't believe, like other editors, that he passes WP:GNG either. Even if the sources rose to the level of GNG, I think it would fall under the classification of WP:BIO1E, since it is almost all derived out of his December 2014 essay.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:59, 30 November 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.