Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Baskerville


 * 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. WP:GNG supersedes WP:PROF; passing only one of them is sufficient. WP:NPOV is an editing issue that can be addressed. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Baskerville

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article appears to be promotional in nature, and does not have any third-party sources or proof of the subject's notability. In addition, it goes beyond simply describing the subject's views, instead actually pushing them (for example, by describing a judge's views as "chilling"). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Baskerville is a leading political scientist. If the issue is with the point of view, than editing the article seems much more appropriate than just deleting it.  I really think delete attempts on the grounds that the article has problems with how it is written are unwise.  If you can nominate it for deletion, you can edit it, and that would give everyone more understanding.John Pack Lambert 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence for the claim that Baskerville is "a leading political scientist"? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also argue that Baskerville being president of the coalition of Fathers and Children makes him notable. Also his being a leading expert on how public policy effects families would make him a notable academic. While initially the article may not have had any true third party sources, it does now. Remember, the question is not, does the group have the same ideology as Baskerville, but does he have any control over it. I think Eagle Forum counts as a third party source. Human Evants is a bit harder, since he has been a writer for them, but the fact that they published an article about him and his views is worth noting.John Pack Lambert 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now included a link to an attack piece against Baskerville published in a Fredricksburg, Virginia newspaper in response to an article written by him published in the same newspaper earlier. The reasons to keep the article are clearly increasing.John Pack Lambert 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But remember, third-party or not, Eagle Forum is not a neutral source; it has a very strong slant to it. So if you are going to cite it, make sure you do so in a way that doesn't come across as endorsing its POV. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no neutral sources. To even talk of such things is rubbish.  All sources have bias, all people have bias.  This is even more so the case in an issue like divorce law and child support schedules.  Anyway, my whole point in citing the Eagle Forum website was to show that people respect and pay attention to Baskerville's views.  Whether you think these views refelct the truth or are a manipulation of it, baskerville is a recognized scholar who has had his views widely discussed.John Pack Lambert 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I too think his presidency of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children makes him notable. He also appears to be a published author -, and has appeared on mainstream US TV - (though the latter needs secondary sourcing). The article needs work to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, and to make it a bit more NPOV --  Boing!   said Zebedee  05:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because he is the president of an organization does not make him notable, unless the organization itself is also notable. The American Coalition of Fathers and Children article cites no sources except for the group's official website, and provides no proof that the group itself is notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping  03:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, if people want to discuss point of view issues, it seems it would be much better to do so on the discussion page of the article. Point of View is an issue of the article's current form, not really an issue of whether the subject is notable and thus whether the article should exist.John Pack Lambert 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  03:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  03:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  03:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. GS h index only 5. After all this time notability has not been clearly established. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep As Xxanthippe notes, this article does not pass WP:PROF, but it does pass WP:GNG. Subject's notability seems to stem from his political, rather than scholarly, activity. He had both an op-ed and a rebuttal to his op-ed in the Washington Post, is the subject of both coverage and reader response in local newspapers, etc. Ray  Talk 03:33, 16 March 2010 (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.