Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobias Churton


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Tobias Churton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod removed by article creator. Does not meet GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Sources cited may establish existence, but they do not establish notability. Ghits bring up sources that do not meet WP:RS - user-driven book review sites, personal webpage, Amazon, YouTube, etc. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, MSJapan's prod "no real sources for years" removed by article creator (me) after adding more sources and discussion with MSJapan. And here is the expected AfD. What a waste of time. I really don't like this kind of strong-arming to add sources. If someone sees a weak-sourced stub, and then checks in Google Books or Scholar and sees more sources - which MSJapan says to me he did - why not just add the sources oneself, at least that is why I do when I see such stubs. I'm not actually greatly interested in this author, my opinion of his pulpy 4-part Channel 4 TV drama-documentary series Gnostics (TV series) and book is much the same as Roger Lewis in the Daily Express review of the Aleister Crowley biography. But in this area - esoterics - we expect pulpy esoteric "scholarship" it's what the punters want. In any case he meets WP:AUTHOR, even if for being a pulpy populist scholar. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - because to me, one-line citations in other publications are not significant coverage, and those citations you have added are still incomplete ("Journal of RTesearch into Freemasonry and..." what?). You're not looking at the content of the sources, but existence - you're actually just pulling them direct from Google's citations (hence the [CITATION] tags at the front of your newest additions, and the piece of the quote that mentions Churton's name).  That is not an indication of significance at all; there could be thirty other names in that paragraph on the same topic, especially if it is the research review portion of the paper, and it is therefore not supportive of notability criteria. MSJapan (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MSJapan, yes well I'm qualified to do that since I know something about the subject. In any case this scholar evidently meets WP:AUTHOR. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (rap)  @ 09:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (tell me stuff)  @ 09:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is wide popular interest in fringe esoterica (Umberto Eco has deconstructed the field definitively). There are some significant cites in Google scholar for this LP and WP:AUTHOR is met. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep -- per In ictu oculi and Xxanthippe (bonus points for Eco citation) -- the article and its notability can be verified even if the claims are bogus. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 26 July 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.