Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rich Zubaty

deletion
Rich Zubaty is a long time Leftist activist and men's advocate who's published and widely respected in the MRA community. It would be a travesty for Wikipedia to delete him from their database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.234.90 (talk • contribs)
 * We don't want to delete the article; we just need to find independent sources to confirm the information in the article. Can you help? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I and many others in the MRA community can help. What do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QIM (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations- places that have published information about him, independent of him. Newspapers, magazines, books, that sort of thing- our reliable sources guidelines may give you a good idea of what qualifies as a reliable source.  Basically, anything with a reasonable circulation and an editor who fact-checks.  Since he's a self-published author, we have to show his notability by showing that even though the book doesn't have the traditional marks of a notable book, it's - won awards, or been reviewed in significant journals, or some other mark of notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rich Zubaty
My name is Ed Barton.

All this stuff is too damn complicatd. Oprn this. don't send this.

This is the page you have provided for comments and so I am using it and asking you high falutin teckies to get me out of this system as I do not want an account here and choose not to be involved in these discussions in the future and I am not going to any sand box, what evr that is.

I write in support of Rich Zubaty.

My credentials are a Masters and Ph.D. in Family and Child Ecology.

My dissertation was on men's support Groups and titled: Barton, E. R. (2003). A qualitative exploration of participation in men’s peer mutual support groups: Beyond men hugging trees. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University.

My anthology, were each chapter is peer reviewed is: Barton, E. R., (2000) (Ed.), Mythopoetic perspectives of men’s healing work: An anthology for therapists and others. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

I served as the mythopoetic men's movement expert on a Ph.D committee even before my own dissertation was completd based on the above and the number of academnic presentations I have made at various confrences.

And the lead chapter written by men is: Barton, E. R. (2000). Parallels between mythopoetic men’s work/men’s peer mutual support groups and selected feminist theories. In E. R. Barton (Ed.), Mythopoetic perspectives of men’s healing work: An anthology for therapists and others. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, pp. 3 – 20.

Also for your infromation, I am the Volunteer Archivint of the Changing Men Collections (CMC), Special Collections, Michigan State University Libraries, E. Lansing, MI, which is th largest archive of mens work in N.Am. and probably the world.

The CMC covers all aspects of the contemporary men's movement from pro-feminist on the left to mythopoetic in the middle to Fathers' Rights, Promise Keepers and other Christian men, and Men's rights on the right end of the political spectrum. I have tried to cut and paste the diagram from my dissertation which is a visual reprsentation of that and it will not paste.

Rich Zubaty is a recognized theroitician of the men's rights branch. He has successfully presented at confrences in the US and Canada that I know of and which I have also attended.

His books are archived in the CMC as a recognized theoritician of men's rights issues.

My concern is whether this encyclopedia is more interested in what is politically correct than providing space for other ideas. I may not agree with every aspect of his theroies or memes which some one seems to prefer. On the other hand He is a recognized individual in this field/branch.

My question is who is pushing this deletion issue? What is the shadow behind this attempted deletion? What are the possible motives of the person(s) pushing this deletion.

Intersting side note: I cited this encyclopedia in an acaddmic journal article and was resoundly criticized by the reviewers.

If in fact your readers are discerning, it would seem that they would look at the entry and be able to make their own decisions as to what value it has for them. Is not this freedom of thought and exprssion?

I write in opposition to deletion and in support of this encyclopedia being broad minded enough to allow this entry to stand.

Edward Barton, BS, JD. MPA, MS, Ph.D.

PS: It would also be nice if there was a spell check easy to find and use, so bear with me on what ever mistypings that may have survived my visual chacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.74.191 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The long list of your qualifications are interesting reading, but don't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. No, you certainly shouldn't cite an encyclopedia in academic writing, which most undergraduates would learn during their freshman year.  In fact, the fact that you say that makes me doubt that you have those qualifications- like a previous commenter who claimed to have a Harvard law degree but didn't know what the first amendment says.  It doesn't matter; you could be a night janitor, and your comments will have equal weight, as long as they are verifiable and follow Wikipedia' s rules.    The relevant question in the deletion discussion is, (a) what part of Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion does Zubaty meet? and (b) What reliable, independent sources verify that? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quote: "Is not this freedom of thought and exprssion?"
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for freedom of thought and expression, no - it is a place where we document what reliable sources (WP:RS) have said about notable subjects (WP:N, WP:BIO). If we can find multiple independent references to a subject in reliable sources it can go in, otherwise it can't - simples -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a question for Edward Barton: Does your peer-reviewed anthology contain work by Zubaty, or articles that cover his work in a significant way? Do you know of any published peer-reviewed papers that discuss him or his work in a significant way? Given your position as an archivist at the CMC collection, and your access to university libraries, you could actually be a help in providing reliable references. The sources don't have to be online, providing they have full bibliographic information, right down to the page range. "Letters of Support", I'm afraid, are utterly meaningless. Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

More Rich Zubaty
Just a "head's up" that one of the previous commenters on this subject was Sandboxing another article about Mr. Zubaty today (see Sandbox History log 04Oct10 @10:53), this time using the "What Men Know..." book as the focus (complete with cover photo and extensive review "blurbs" sprinkled throughout). IMHO, if it surfaces as a new Wiki article, it should be flagged for speedy deletion, as the article is a blatant book promotion piece, not even thinly veiled. DennisDallas (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sandbox version is here. Note that the non-free book cover image (File:Whatmencover.jpg) claims permission granted by Rich Zubaty to release under a GNU license but has no OTRS ticket. Voceditenore (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The text of the sandbox version is also a blatant copypaste from http://news.mensactivism.org/articles/01/12/31/0616240.shtml. Voceditenore (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * is free to work on that content in the Sandbox. That is an appropriate place to work on proposed content. However, if the uploaded book cover doesn't meet licensing requirements, or there are clear instances of WP:COPYRIGHT violations, it would be best to inform Lew Loot directly if you have not already done so... &mdash; Scientizzle 15:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now informed him on his talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article has now been created and is being discussed for deletion at Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't – Voceditenore (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)