Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Price


 * 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, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh  08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert M. Price

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm setting up this AfD for, who doesn't want to be bothered with the grunt work :) Ottava Rima will write down his rationale soon, I hope. Please don't comment till then. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nominated a few articles before but managed to leave something incomplete. So yeah. Regardless, when I was looking through the pedia, I noticed a few Lovecraft pages linking to this "scholar". Robert M. Price fails WP:PROF criteria for inclusion. He is a non-notable scholar who has no published in a mainstream major source, his only editorial job is for a non-notable "journal" that serves as a propaganda piece for an atheist organization and not-academic based, he works for a non-accredited school, which means that he doesn't hold a real academic position, and there is little reliable sourced secondary information on him, and most of the references are from blogs or primary sources. This page mostly serves as a mouthpiece for him and his supporters, and includes wonderful tidbits such as Doherty saying, "Price has a way ... of putting forward no-nonsense arguments that are not only natural and compelling, they make it difficult to champion any alternative with a straight face - or a rational mind." It comes from here, the equivalent of a blog entry, and it is hosted by a non-reliable website. This page fails all of the inclusion requirements are serves only to push a strong bias with very little justification. To allow it to stay would only cause problems within the encyclopedia. If it does stay, it would need to be completely broken down and redone. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe me that the "review" is part of the blog, just click here for the blog. It is clearly non-academic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Price is well-known in the field of Lovecraft studies, but I agree that this article is unsuitable as it stands. I'd recommend that users interested in the topic eliminate the unsourced and peacocky material before this AfD closes. (And, Ottava, it might be a good idea to inform the editors who have made major contributions to the article of the AfD.) Deor (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As an academic personally, "lovecraft" studies is not a reputable field, and, as the page even admits, its more about fan fiction than academics. You can tell that if this was a major field, a group like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, etc, would have picked up a book, come out with a set, etc, and used his work. They did not. Lovecraft was a great writer, but this guy claims that Yeats's "Second Coming" was influenced by Lovecraft, which even the basic High Modernist scholar can tell you is definitely not the case. The major contributions to the page was done by IP, as you can see here. Most of the named editors who are still around only did random clean up to the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep exremely notable author on the subject of Lovecraft, editor and contributor to multiple works. Deletion rational is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT Artw (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "extremely notable" would have "extremely reliable sources". Please provide them. Otherwise, it appears that your support is simply because you are a fan and not because of our inclusion standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And I beleive that's a SNOW - can we close this up now? Any residual concerns Ottava Rima has about the article are porobably better dealt with by placing some fact tags on the page and engaging with other editors on the talk page. Artw (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * SNOW Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP to address any concerns over POV or format.... and you know... it really doesn't matter whether or not he meets the nom's concerns for WP:PROF, as he is making a tremendous at stab at WP:AUTHOR... and because of his cult following a strong case for WP:ENTERTAINER as well . Notability can found in the strangest places. Since both the article AND wiki can benefit from its improvement, deletion is not a consideration.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cult following" does not equal notability. Reputable secondary sources do. There aren't any. A search for Robert Price comes up with reputable sources for the two other Robert M Prices but not for this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... interesting to say, but actually "cult following" does exactly equate with notability, per WP:PEOPLE: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". He has. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread. Unless there are "secondary reliable sources", it doesn't matter how -you- characterize him. There are no secondary reliable sources. Please, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don;t know if I would call him a scholar exactly, but he has been a book reviewer for Blackwell's academic Religious Studies Review. some papers published in orthodox journals, eg.  but he is a notable popular writer on religion. The books have gotten quite sufficient references. There's no reason to reject articles worked on primarily by an anon. Even some of  the Lovecraft-related works have bee published by mainstream publishers (Tales of the Lovecraft mythos by Ballantine)  and the anti- christian ones by Prometheus, a   respectable atheist publisher. "The reason-driven life : what am I here on earth for?" is in almost 400 WorldCat libraries. DGG (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having many publications does not meet the qualifications under WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, let alone reliable secondary sources. Please provide evidence for him being a "notable popular writer" in any regards, because the reliable secondary sources do not verify this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * having multiple works in hundreds of libraries certainly does prove popularity, and I accept WorldCat as a reliable secondary source for that. DGG (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true, you better rewrite WP:AUTHOR then. Hundreds of libraries? Anyone can get published in schlock. If he was notable, there would be reliable secondary sources of information. DGG, unless you can put forth some, then you have no argument here. I am surprised that you show such disrespect for WP:V. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Schmidt. Yes, he would probably fail WP:PROF (though that's a horrible criteria to try to enforce IMHO), but he passes other criteria instead. This whole nomination smacks of academic snobbery to me, though that's not why I'm suggesting keep. --Ged UK (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Other criteria requires reliable secondary sources. You have provided none. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep DGG's arguments are compelling. I'm not sure that I follow the nom's reason. So what if subject probably doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC? He probably also fails WP:ATHLETE utterly and completely. That doesn't mean he cannot be notable otherwise. Whatever the academic status of Lovecraft studies, this person may be notable as a fan of Lovecraft. If the article is bad, it should be cleaned up and/or rewritten, not put to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A brief search on amazon shows that this guy is the author of a number of mainstream published books (Incredible Shrinking Son Man, Deconstructing Jesus, Blasphemies & Revelations, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts, Jesus Is Dead, Reason-Driven Life: What Am I Here on Earth For?, Tsathoggua Cycle (Cthulhu Mythos), The Antarktos Cycle). He appeared in The God Who Wasn't There as (according to Wikipedia) a 'notable personality'. This article is on the Arabic, German, Norwegian and Swedish Wikipedias. Over 100 articles link to this one Special:WhatLinksHere/Robert_M._Price&limit=100. Content issues (and whether or not he's mainstream) are not reasons for deletion. Article needs to be kept and improved. Edgepedia (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being an author of "many" works does not meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. They must be covered in reliable secondary sources and show that he made an impact on his field. He has not. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is this article in the The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man in the The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, reviewing the book. I found this in less than five minutes. There's likely to be more. Edgepedia (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you have one source towards writing a page on The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, but not even enough to warrant saying that the book is notable, let alone the author being notable. I think you need to read up on reliable sources in terms of notability for a BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And three more here.These people seem to share your opinion on him. Perhaps if this is a reliable source, you could use as the basis for a critism section. A group calling theseselves the Minnesota Atheists have a list of his books for sale . There's a review of his books here by someone with a PhD. Here's another review. here he's mentioned in news item as an important scholar. Here he is listed as a scholar on a handout from a presentation at Stanford. Edgepedia (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that you need to reread what a "reliable source" is. What you have provided are not reliable sources. Bible.org? mnatheists.org? tektonics.org? Come on. None of these are reliable sources. Your "reviews" are by people who aren't credible for reliable source inclusion. The Buffalo news post, the only thing you have provided that is a reliable source, lists him as attending an event and doesn't establish notability in terms of inclusion. The fact that you are trying so hard and can't find anything only proves that he isn't notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps a blizzard here. One may find a person a lunatic, but that can not be used as a reason to delete an article on him . Collect (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have an actual rationale by chance? It would be helpful because this is not a vote but deals with consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have have never censored notable atheists and fringe theories, unless of course they are not notable or consist of novel ideas. I am not sure this stub falls into the useless cruft category. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is proven through reliable secondary sources. Please find some. As I stated to DGG, I searched for many hours and could not find enough information to prove that he is notable via secondary sources. The current page is used as a coatrack, so it is more than just "useless cruft". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I may be wrong here, but I think he meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed) – as indicated by DGG and Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. – the discipline being a subfield of literary analysis.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In order for your Keep to be justified, you must provide sources to show that he had a significant impact. Having a bunch of publications does not qualify. There must be third party reliable sources saying how they are essential to the field. "Lovecraft studies" is not an academic field. 20th century/High Modern literature is. If you can find something from there, then you can justify under WP:PROF. If not, your keep is unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject who has written about apartheid seems to be another Robert M. Price, who is also notable (and easily passes WP:PROF).--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I pointed out above that there were two other Robert M. Price's and both seem to be notable but not this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer to Ottava Rima. I know of at least two tenured full professors, holding endowed chairs in prestigious universities, who are known for specializing in the analysis of the works of one single well-known literary author. These folks would easily pass WP:PROF. Prof. Price’s case seems a bit weaker than these folks’, but still is a keep, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He works for an unaccredited university. Obviously, there is a difference between the professors. Endowed chair for a major university is also a criteria under WP:PROF. I know many people who specialize in individuals also. However, they are either specialists in a major individual or also specialist in a field (High Modern, for this case). This professor doesn't seem to even have a -degree- in literature and he is being cited as a Lovecraft scholar. He is not. He is a theology scholar who isn't reputable in the field of theology. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, note - this "professor" claimed that Yeats's "Second Coming" was influenced by Lovecraft. Such a claim is laughable and one of the reasons why he wont ever work at an accredited college. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the guy is right has no bearing at all on this discussion. For someone citing policy so much as you do, I would expect you tho know that. For all I care, he could maintain that the Earth is flat and rests on top of some elephants standing on the back of a turtle. --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF requires them to be a respected academic. This professor will never be one for obvious reasons including that they have low academic standards and write on topics that they are unqualified to discuss. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are obsessing so much with WP:PROF, while it is clear that this person's notability does not derive from that guideline, but from others? --Crusio (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is so clear, where are the reliable third party sources? None have been provided yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, do you have a cite for this Yeats thing?Artw (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See this book. The first appearance of the "myth" came after the first publication of Yeats's poem. It is impossible to even claim that historically Lovecraft influenced Yeats, let alone can it be declared such from the content of the poem. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The book also contains work by Lord Dunsany - in your mind does this mean Price is claiming that Lovecraft inspired Dunsany? Artw (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read his introduction years ago when I was going through Lovecraft as the successor to the Victorian Gothic tradition. I still have the book. He seemed to suggest that they were all influenced by Lovecraft and part of the universe. His introduction states that Dunsany served as the source for the name. (""was probably a creative unconscious fusion of two names from Lord Dunsany, the prophet Alhireth-Hotep and the deity Mynarthitep" p. vii) Now, on Yeats: ""These three apocalpytic poems read almost as if their authors had collaborated in a round robin. In fact, that is just what they did, though none of them was aware of doing so" p. 14. This is completely speculative and historically bs. Not only is "Second Coming" not apocalyptic (the gyre is a circular construct without an end and cannot be "apocalyptic" in any form), there was no relationship between this authors. He throws it in there to make Lovecraft's idea seem more broad and mainstream. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe he is arguing that Dunsany and Yeats influenced Lovecraft, which would seem more likely since it doesn't involve a time machine. I mean, this isn't the place to get into this, but it's kind of funny that one of your major gripes against the guy seems to be based on you misinterpreting something pretty basic, and you've now brought it up multiple times despite its lack of relevance to inclusion. Also that you've read the guys introduction and it being sufficiently important for you to emphatically disagree with it years later despite it's lack of notability. Artw (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What he is doing is adding in a whole set of authors when he does not have a degree in High Modern studies. Yeats did not influence Lovecraft. The two works were almost simultaneous and both wrote their own stories and finished them before either were published. Thus, they were done before they were ever revealed. What Price did was try to promote himself into areas of academia based on his work on Lovecraft, a very minor writer. Obviously, there was a backlash which is why he stopped pursuing entry into High Modern criticism after 1996. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And for your information - I am moving to delete this page because there are no reliable secondary sources to prove notability. DGG has even admitted that the page is not a BLP because there is no biographical information. This is an acceptance that this is nothing more than a coatrack. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to say that there were no problems with the bLP policy because the article, as an article should, discusses primarily his work. Articles about people emphasize the things that make them notable. Biography is usually just background--though in the case of people notable for producing creative art, which does not apply here, it is an exceptionally important background, for their work is typically interpreted in light of it. DGG (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you reread WP:COATRACK if what you say is true, because you are completely mistaken on this. A BLP page that is not devoted to the biography falls under a coatrack. Only the individual book pages are to be devoted to the books. If there is no reliable third party sources for the biography, then there cannot be a biography page. Individual book pages? Sure, but they do not belong here. Such coatracking could easily be used to justify a CSD in this case, seeing as how it is a BLP and such things are completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to continue the derail, but Lovecraft actually praises Yeats explicitly in Supernatural Horror in Literature as ("undoubtedly the greatest figure of the Irish revival if not the greatest of all living poets, has accomplished notable things both in original work and in the codification of old legends. ") - so inferring that he was some kind of influence on Lovecraft is really not that much of a leap. Artw (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovecraft can praise Yeats all he wants, but twisting around Yeats's poem in such a way is academic dishonesty. He works at an unaccredited university for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -Shrugs- The introduction to the poems appears to be using some airy-fairy language about unknowing participation in a round robin to set up thematic links, and makes no claims of a direct relationship at all. Artw (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the article having sufficient sources for WP:N, if that's ypur concern then why not just say it is and leave out all the redundant verbage? FWIW The articles current sourcing IS pretty shoddy, though IMHO not to the point where deletion is appropriate - and the repeated assertion that no further sources could possibly be found is rather a silly one. Artw (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You just added "An H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia" to a section that, when I checked, does not give support for all of the evidence that the reference is linking. I would like you to go and delete the information that this source does not support in the line. If not, I can do it for you. I checked and I could find nothing from the encyclopedia to reinforce that "Price edits the Journal of Higher Criticism". There is also no source to back up this claim "Price has been a major figure in H. P. Lovecraft scholarship and fandom for many years". Most of the unsourced information needs to be removed, and it would reduce the page considerably and leave almost no biographical information which would force the page to be deleted as a coatrack. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably there's someone better suited to playing WP:V ping-pong with you on the religious stuff, but since the Higher Critisism website has a picture of the cover with "Edited by Robert M. Price" right there on it I think I can field that one. Artw (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep...for the multitude of reasons as stated above. No need to reply.--Buster7 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As an additional note - until any of those keeps above actually provide secondary reliable sources, keeps claiming that it is notable because of them are basically invalid. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clean-up, don't delete. - Draeco (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2009 (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.