Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/J. Otis Ledbetter (2nd nomination)

Justification for deletion is easily found
I believe the that the article is a good candidate for deletion, but not because it was created and entered in "bad faith" as we tend to understand and represent it. Sure, banned user Jason Gastrich created the article as fancruft and as part of a promotion of his particular Christian beliefs, in violation of WP:POV, but I don't believe that he did so in "bad faith." What is it that makes the subject notable in accordance with WP:NOT? I believe that is the question before us.

"Ledbetter is a published author" is one of the claims, and it's certainly true; but being published doesn't really make one notable. Ledbetter publishes within a "walled garden" of publishing houses that tends to have fairly low standards. I know a few published authors in the conservative Christian community and, to a man, they were amazed at how easy it was to get published in that market compared to the secular market. Wikipedia's notability standards for people don't seem to include mere publication, but the content of the publications and the quality of that content. Even if that were not so, the standards for the notability of authors is pretty clear, as we can see if we review the list.

Quoting from WP:NOTABILITY:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries."

None of these things are true of Ledbetter. He's a minor player, at best, in the Christian evangelical and publishing communities.

The claim that he is "well-known" should also be challenged. Speaking for myself, I'd never heard of him until I ran into this article; and I keep a pretty good track on high-profile religionists in California. If we are going to say that a subject is "well-known," we have some good criteria:

Quoting from WP:NOTABILITY: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'''


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

If Ledbetter has received "significant coverage" from reliable sources, that hasn't been demonstrated by the author or any subsequent advocate and there's certainly isn't anything "independent" about the sort of coverage that we are able to find, according to any reasonable standard. It comes from within the Christian community. Even then, it's not much.

If we consider all of the qualifications found at WP:NOTABILITY, some of which we see quoted above and use them as a standard by which Ledbetter is evaluated, which is what they were created to provide, any rational, objective editor will see that he doesn't measure up. - Nascentatheist 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Uncle Davey's comments on the Project Page
Uncle Davey misses the point and compounds the problem by making a false statement. Neither Guy nor I have any interest in "systematically going around deleting anything started by Jason Gastrich." At the present time, there are no other Gastrich-initiated articles under consideration for deletion of which I am aware, and there are several that I have seen in the last few days that I would never dream of nominating, were it me (e.g., Thomas Ice, David Jeremiah, et al.)

I was very clear on the talk page when I stated that the issue is about the notability of the subject. Uncle Davey makes no effort to show that there is any notability to the subject and, I suspect, he probably knows no more about Ledbetter than he did about Kearny High School (see the 3rd paragraph of this edit). He was brought here as a meatpuppet of banned user Jason Gastrich and spends most of his time arguing with others over the alleged poor treatment that Jason received at Wikipedia while baselessly and irrationally accusing others of sockpuppetry (second paragraph of this edit). He seems to spend most of his time acting as a shill for Jason, engaging in personal attacks, and perpetuating off-Wiki battles on the Project site , all in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There was also a poorly-conceived attempt to circumvent the black-listing of Jason's domains.

All of these issues and more that can be cited and referenced show that there's an issue with credibility and motive when it comes to the participation of Uncle Davey in any discussion that involves banned user  Jason Gastrich. He has been advised to consult the various Wikipedia policies that apply (e.g., WP:AGF. WP:BATTLE, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA) and he appears to ignore them or skirt their boundaries as a matter of routine. Because his association with banned user Jason Gastrich has clearly prejudiced his perspective, and because he did not address WP:NOTABILITY at all with respect to the subject, which is the real issue here, after all, his suggestion to "keep" the article should be viewed with healthy skepticism and, indeed, if his pattern of behavior persists, it may be necessary to initiate an incident notation on the Administrator Noticeboard or a WP:RFC. - Nascentatheist 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)