Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mirecki

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 delete. For a Keep argument to overcome a valid argument for BLP1E there needs to be evidence of sustained coverage outside the immediate event. On that basis the keep argument for GNG have not overcome valid BLP1E arguments to delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mirecki

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally brought this from AFC in 2005, before WP:BLP existed and when i was pretty new to Wikipedia - it was my original account, which I dropped for the sake of a much shorter sig in January 06.

By today's standards this is an obvious delete. Fails WP:PROF and hits WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete case of BLP1E Chetsford (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is the one event? His controversial comments? The alleged attack? The alleged firing? The first ammendment issues? His books? Meets notability guidelines per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"What is the one event? His controversial comments? The alleged attack? The alleged firing?" Yes. Chetsford (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage, but only of one event. Nothing before or since. Which is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly current sourcing is poor. But these could be used:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/18/20051218-125508-4814r/

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/embattled_ku_professor_has_long_history_religion/?ku_news

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/criminal-twist-in-evolution-debate/

Maproom (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These all appear to be about the same one event. Chetsford (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all mention that incident, yes. But the LJWorld piece also has a lot of other stuff, including a long section on Mirecki's discovery of the "Gospel of Savior". Maproom (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears it provides biographical background, as is typical in news reporting, within "the context of a single event". So the question we need to ask is, had the event not occurred, would the 26,000 circulation Lawrence Journal World of Lawrence, Kansas run this as standalone coverage of scholarship on Byzantium-era reflections on Aramaic literature sandwiched between its coverage of the latest zoning resolutions of the Lawrence City Council and the paper's weekly "Pet Buzz" column? I find that ... very difficult to believe. But we may just have to agree to disagree on this one. Chetsford (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Maproom, the vicious attack in Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times is hardly appropriate sourcing for a BLP. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, strike that one. "Washington Times" sounds like a respectable name. Now that I look more closely, it's worse than my country's Daily Mail. Maproom (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no judgement either way, but it is worth noting that an IP editor purporting to be the subject of this BLP has surfaced at the Teahouse to discuss this article. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Teahouse question prompted this nomination, Stormy clouds (not the other way around). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This guy comes no where near passing the notability guidelines for academics, and all the news coverage of him is one event stuff. Even if the Lawrence Journal World would have run an article on him without the controversy, local papers need to be discounted as sources on local figures. We would not assume that the zoning issues they had an article about were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While much needs sourcing, the gist is that he is notable under general rules. The Gnostic translation should be sourceable, for sure. [1] mentions him in an essay. And a bunch of other books mention him, so he meets notability. Collect (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, classic BLP1E case. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- a WP:BLP mess on a low-profile individual. WP:BIO1E applies. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability outside of one event. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.