Kenny Biddle ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer declared that "unestablished editors get little weight" to discount keep rationales RAN ( talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Can't see the article (not in Google cache from what I can tell). But the discussion was leaning keep if anything and I'm seeing enough sources on-line with a news and book search to believe that claims of notability are reasonable. It did look like there were a number of !voters who were likely canvassed in some way (folks who haven't contributed much in the last few years showing up) which is what I'm assuming the closer was referring to. Now if the article was overly promotional (which some !voters indicated) maybe WP:NUKE applied? But on the whole, looks like a NC outcome was more in line with the discussion and facts on the ground. Hobit ( talk) 07:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Reading the article, too much of it was built upon unreliable sources. And the sources aren't great. But there is enough that claims of meeting WP:N are reasonable (a mix of the interview and slightly more than passing mentions in well-known sources like People and Popular Mechanics). Given the discussion was split, I just don't see how delete is reached. Just to have a formal bold !vote: overturn to NC. Hobit ( talk) 15:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- nomination misrepresents the closer's statement by selective quotation. A more accurate reading would have been "non policy based keep votes, from unestablished editors, get little weight" and that's perfectly reasonable. Reyk _YO! 14:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. That said, there do appear to be sources and those sources appear to be decent--as claimed by the keep !voters. [1] and [2] are Popular Mechanics and a local article use him as an expert, as does People (though quite briefly) [3] [4] is an interview. He gets citiations such as [5]. It's not a strong case. But I think it's strong enough that the keep !votes saying there are reliable sources can't be discounted as being just wrong. Hobit ( talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Endorse given the rather disgusting, gross misrepresentation of the closing admins statement. -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 16:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Trout RAN for the mis-quote in their nomination. Their selective editing of the quote significantly changes the meaning.

That being said, looking over the references in the deleted article (which I've restored for review), I'm inclined to endorse the deletion, but based on the AfD discussion, either delete or NC seem defensible.

I did a spot-check of a few references that looked promising ( People Magazine, The Atlantic, and Popular Mechanics). None of those convinced me he meets WP:GNG. Those three sources do indeed mention his name, but they're not much more than mentions, buried deep in articles that are fundamentally about other things. One of the problems with evaluating this article is there's so many references, it's hard to sift through them all. If somebody wants to pick out two or three other sources for additional review, I'd be willing to look at them, but I'm not going to dig through all 34. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse it would inevitably be closed delete if relisted. The arguments for keeping at the afd include " I imagine everybody here would agree that any author with a self-published book would be automatically notable " DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

To be clear, that specific comment was not under a "Keep" argument. That comment was left unsigned in response to your "Delete" comment, and with a winky "just joking" face next to it. Dustinlull ( talk) 22:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I think it's clearer than that even, the comment italicizes and bolds the word "elf", it's a joke about a typo made. Despite endorsing the deletion here, I'd think if someone can show a genuine elf published there book, the book if nothing else would likely be notable. I think we're quite safe that no amount of elves are about to become publisher to aid those wanting a bio in wikipedia -- 81.108.53.238 ( talk) 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: Confirming that I was attempting to lighten the tone of the AfD by making light of your typo. I changed my username since, see edit log for my rename. Poorlyglot ( talk) 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

my misreading. I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks, @ DGG:. Poorlyglot ( talk) 15:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Question: Am I permitted to comment here or, as the article's original author, is that not permitted? RobP ( talk) 12:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • You may comment, sure, but you are asked to comment on the processes of the deletion discussion itself ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle), and to not re-argue any of the lines of argument in that deletion discussion. If there is something important that went unsaid in the deletion discussion, so it now. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • May I respond to this comment above by doing as was asked?... "One of the problems with evaluating this article is there's so many references, it's hard to sift through them all. If somebody wants to pick out two or three other sources for additional review, I'd be willing to look at them, but I'm not going to dig through all 34." 192.91.171.36 ( talk) 14:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Oops. Was not signed in. RobP ( talk) 14:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, please do. In theory, deletion review is supposed to be (as SmokeyJoe mentioned) a review of the process, not the article content. And, asking for sources to review is more about content than process. But we're here to build a better encyclopedia not stand on process, so sometimes we break our own rules :-) In any case, please first take a look at WP:GNG and (perhaps more importantly) WP:RS to understand what we consider good sources. If you pick 2 or 3 sources (other than the three I mentioned above), I'll be happy to look at them and give my opinion. I don't promise I'll agree with them, and I don't promise that even if I do agree, my opinion will sway anybody else, but I will take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
        • OK. Will do, give me until tonight. At work and can't do this now, but will do so later! RobP ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
          • These discussions run for a week, so you've got a few days. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- On the surface there were 11 keep votes and 8 delete votes. However, 6 of the votes are from possible SPA and of those 5 voted keep and 1 voted delete. Taking that into account, you now have 6 keep votes and 7 delete votes. Furthermore, the closer explained that the keep arguments did not make policy arguments. The reason why we don't just go off of vote totals is so that SPAs can't change the outcome of a discussion.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It's disheartening to be accused of being a SPA. My Keep vote was not because I have some sort of agenda to promote. This whole deletion discussion from the beginning could have benefited from some WP:GF. RopP did make a policy argument, referring to WP:BIO and pointing out that the guidelines for notability mention "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded[1]." I did agree with his position and also thought there were some good sources cited in the article. If you disagree, then, hey, that's fine. And I've definitely been wrong before. But I'm certainly no SPA. Dustinlull ( talk) 00:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Dustinlull:- Why did you assume that when I mentioned SPA votes that I was referring to you? There are other editors who voted that basically have edited nothing else or haven't edited for months or years and show up at this AfD out of nowhere. It's very suspicious. But when I wrote my comment above, I hadn't even consider you to be a SPA, you seem to have been around for a while and edit multiple topics.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Rusf10: Please name and ping the voting accounts you consider "possible SPA". Until you do this, it's totally reasonable and not at all "suspicious" for anybody who voted to assume that you were pointing at them. Poorlyglot ( talk) 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Rusf10:, I agree with @ Poorlyglot:. Everyone here is a volunteer spending their free time for the greater project. If you believe there are people on here with agendas that run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, then I do think you should call them out by name and ping them, so they can defend themselves. Especially if you are suggesting their votes shouldn't count. Dustinlull ( talk) 22:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Poorlyglot and Dustinlull: There a tool that helps you figure out this stuff here. [6] But I can call out each one of them. You have two WP:SLEEPER accounts, that is accounts that have been inactive for a long time and then suddenly show up at this discussion. Those are User:Walkirianubes & User:ScienceExplains. Then you have User:KoKoCorvid who has barely contributed to anything, but has been around a few years, so not sure what to make of that. I accidentally counted Poorlyglot as an SPA since I was not aware of the name change, but a closer look at User:104.163.153.162 (who voted delete) reveals that is probably not an SPA, so it balances it out my mistake. So you basically have three SPAs that voted keep.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• That I have been inactive for a long time doesn't mean I don't keep an eye on my watch list. As you can see I'm a part of WP:SKEP and if you look into Nomination of Kenny Biddle for deletion you can see the announcement of the discussion of deletion. A low edit count or recent low activity doesn't state I'm an SPA. I can tell you that discussions like this are why I have a recent low activity. Accusing people of this and that have driven me out of editing and have made me scared of actually commenting on things that might be classified as even slightly controversial. I was even weary of commenting on the deletion discussion, but I did because it seamed as the people voting for deletion were focusing on one or two citations and counting everything else as meaningless. As saw it as my putting my grain of salt and doing something for wiki as I haven't done much recently. Now low and behold this is being done again, my comment is being treated as meaningless just because of my low activity. Lovely. Walkiria Nubes ( talk) 12:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I have been watching a lot of debates on WP over the past 12 months, and have chipped in on a few. I see editors who don’t make argument and simply attack any editor who disagrees with them. Frankly I am over it. I called out RobP for bad manners below and I certainly cannot let this one go through to the keeper. Bad manners is bad manners, accusing editors of being or holding a SPA without good evidence is downright disgraceful and most likely added to RobP's obvious and well founded frustrations.

Rusf10, You start your argument by counting votes, accusing 6 voters of being possible SPA’s and conclude by saying vote totals do not count. Everyone here understands that vote totals do not count. Furthermore you have insulted every keep voter here by either calling them a SPA, and by default accusing the other editors of using a SPA. More than being an insult is is a very serious allegation that requires good evidence to back it up. "they haven’t edited in a while" or "they have very few edits" just does not cut it. Sneaking around looking at an editor’s background and using it in order to win an argument is underhanded and, in my opinion, disgraceful behaviour. Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newcomers. Your argument certainly doses not support your vote. 8==8 Boneso ( talk) 21:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Boneso:I'm just calling things the way I see them, if you or anyone else disagrees they are free to state their opinion. And you are misrepresenting what I said when you say "Furthermore you have insulted every keep voter here by either calling them a SPA and by default accusing the other editors of using a SPA". I never said that all keep votes were made by SPAs, just enough to make a difference. I originally said (wrongly) there were six. It's actually four, the other I left out is user:Joolzzt who responds below. You're free to come to your own conclusions but when someone doesn't edit for 8 months are all of a sudden appears at a deletion discussion, it just doesn't look good. I am not assuming bad faith nor am saying that anyone one of them have a conflict of interest, just merely pointing out that the vote should be placed into context. And nobody is sneaking around because the great thing about wikipedia is everything you or anyone else edits is out in the open.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Question: Why not point out the weakness then make the article better instead of quick deletion? I was asked to look at the article, and it was weak. Bringing more eyes to the discussion was important here. But the Bold, Revert, Discuss process was well in swing and I hoped it would generate some improvement. Indeed new references appeared (also weak) but improvement was needed. It appears that some reviewers gave up on this process early, and even now I see comments that "it would be closed delete if relisted." WP does not always use WP:GNG for final decisions (just look at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability for example.) Obvious problems of spam and other issues absent, it appears that time could save the work of these editors instead of deleting it. We should leave open the possibility of improvement and avoid questions about good faith, especially when several editors are attempting to do the right thing. Kyle ^(talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn

First, I want to point out that saying the Keep voters did not make policy arguments is blatently wrong. A simple scanning of the votes shows that statement to be untrue. In fact, most all of them did.

Second, it seems to me that at least some of the Delete votes were made based on incorrect information which those editors posted - perhaps influencing others - to vote likewise. A perfect example is the Delete by Chris Troutman in which he said "The Scientifical Americans book only gives the subject credit for photos they used; he's not mentioned in the book." Immediately below that vote I pointed out that the article in fact included the statement (with citation): "Biddle's impact on some members of the paranormal research community was described by Sharon Hill in her 2017 book, Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers, for which Biddle provided the photography. In the book, Hill says: "Jason and Bobby [Jason Korbus and Bobby Nelson] consider Randi to have been a critical influence on their change in thinking as well as Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, and Kenny Biddle (another ghost-hunter-turned skeptical-advocate)..." After several back and forths there I FINALLY got an admission that his claim of no mention was wrong, but then Troutman moved the goal-posts, justifying the vote anyway. Other Delete voters when challenged to back-up their statements did not reply.

Third, the references I believed from the beginning proved notability have been dismissed out of hand and that strikes me as odd. Hill and Radford (Wiki notable people who are experts in their fields) have written in books and articles, and said on podcasts that they consider Biddle an expert, a person to go-to when a photo or something related to paranormal investigation is required. Also People Magazine, The Atlantic and Popular Mechanics asked Biddle's opinion. That is why they are important. They were not passing mentions. Biddle did not write to them; they asked HIM. And a TV news show in Florida asked him for his input. He lives in Philladelphia, so why would a TV station reach out to him across the country unless they thought of him as a expert in this topic? Radford's most recent book (released this month) mentions Biddle 5 times. On page 121 Radford is talking about ghost hunting gadgets, and recomments blogs and articles by Biddle to explain these tools. On page 131, Radford calls Biddle "a researcher" and goes on for several paragraphs talking about Biddle's research in a CNN April 2016 piece on a photo taken of a ghost at Estes Park. Radford uses Biddle's research and even quotes Biddle. On page 160 Radford again talks about the research Biddle did on the Frank's Box and other ghost boxes. On page 246, Radford says "Intrepid readers can find many more of my analyses as well as those of other investigators such as Captain Disillusion, Kenny Biddle, and others, online, in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and elsewhere." Amazingly this book was dismissed as a notable reference by an editor voting to Delete because he didn't like the book's publisher!

Fourth, In the AfD discussion I pointed out the fact that Biddle fitted notability because he was UNUSUAL - and I detailed why. Being unusual is one of the notability criteria specified by WP for a Bio. I won't detail it again as you can go back and read it, but that point was not addressed AT ALL in the discussion - or in the closing admin's comments.

And finally, other editors have been sadly accused in this discussion (indirectly as it may be) of being SPAs. That is known as poisoning the well - and it is an underhanded technique used to dismiss valid arguments. This claim was nonspecific, so everyone who voted Keep has now been accused of being an SPA. I find this offensive in the highest degree. Just before the AfD, because I was resisting the efforts of what I felt were misguided and sloppy edits by an individual, I was slapped with an unfounded COI. Totally fabricated claims about what I had previously done and said regarding this article were made. And when I replied to the COI asking for proof or a retraction, my comments were never answered. The same editor went on making edits I disagreed with without discussion, and was hoping, I believe, that the COI would let them do whatever they wanted without resistance. I see the unsupported SPA charges made here as similar. So... I want to notify all the pertinent editors that this has happened. Not sure this is the entire list, but here goes: @ JGehlbach: @ Kyle: @ Elmidae: @ Joolzzt: @ Boneso: @ KoKoCorvid:. RobP ( talk) 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I see that you have assumed, unfairly, that I am an SPA. It is clear from my account that I haven't edited WP in some time, but I've become a carer and I don't have much time to edit nowadays, but, I can assure you that I still read Wikipedia and I point out errors to other editors for them to fix. I'm hoping to get back to editing at some point, and I'm currently gathering data for a page on the historian and writer Dr Leah Leneman. I'm a big fan and I'm concerned that Google shows that she is now 73, even though she died from breast cancer on Boxing Day 1999. In the past I have helped expose sock puppet accounts. I can assure you I'm neither one of those nor an SPA. This has always been my only account Joolzzt ( talk) 01:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, the closure accurately reflected the discussion and our principles. Disappointing to see the selective quotation in the original listing which completely changes the meaning. Stifle ( talk) 10:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The enthusiastic skeptic community understandably wants to re-litigate the close. They make a series of incomplete arguments from claiming the subject is unusual to claiming that the subject is well-known in the field, many of which sound suspiciously close to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INHERITED. (The "unusual" point is an unfortunate consequence of someone quoting Encarta's entry about the word "notable" circa 2011 at the top of WP:BIO.) I and other delete !voters made points about GNG, SIGCOV, and ANYBIO. The close reflected the lack of policy in the keep argument, especially coming from less-experienced editors. Rp2006 has claimed that I was dishonest and persuasive in my scurrilous lies about what a particular book said about the subject. I think Rp2006 makes my case for me. In the future, I'll be sure to give authors permission to use my photos and, after insisting they mention me in a single sentence of said book, I'll be notable, too. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment

Chris, I do not know why you are exaggerating what I said. Where did I say you were dishonest and lied? Apologies if I did, but I do not believe so. If so, please copy the offending text here. My perception was that you made an error because you rushed through reading the article and missed something important. You said that the ref did not mention Biddle beyond photo attribution, and this was used as a reason to dismiss the reference. But when I pointed out that this was wrong, you were reticent to admit it. When you did, after a few back-and-forths with me on the point, you fell back on changing the nature of the argument. I think the record bears that out. RobP ( talk) 16:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment There are a some issues that I would like to address in relation to conduct of the AfD discussion. It will be a lengthy piece and will take some time to put together. To be clear and up front, I took part in the discussion and voted Keep. I was disappointed, but the decision is the decision and I will not re-visit it. I am posting now to raise points about the process and the conduct of the discussion. I will summarise what I have to say here now, and provide examples later.

• Some of the points raised by participants were not addressed by other participants with opposing views, or the closer; and,
• Clarification on some points was requested and not provided; and,
• The argument at times degenerated into a slanging match, which I see happening here also; and,
• logical fallacies such as arguments from authority, poisoning the well and moving the goal posts were used; and,
• I was particularly disappointed by the way inexperienced or new editors were treated. I am hoping that those comments were poorly worded and not intended to demean them or discourage them from participating in these discussions in future. 8==8 Boneso ( talk)

• Relist The closing admin only has what is put before them to make a decision. In this case they did not have much to work with at all. However some points raised were not fully explored and another not mentioned. While the closing admin’s comments could be interpreted as being demeaning or disparaging towards new editors we must assume good faith and see it as their way of identifying editors who did not fully address the policy and rules of Wikipedia. We all want to improve Wikipedia and should not bite the newcomers. It is worth reading WP:GF from time to time, just to remind us to be tolerant of others. We should also remember that the seniority of an editor should not affect the validity of their argument.

I am disappointed by the behaviour of some editors involved in the discussion. What I have written below is a summary of my observations and is not intended to offend anyone, or to re-hash any arguments. The reason for my vote in this case is at the bottom.

RobP raised good points that deserved discussion. Those points were lost because he appeared to treat a difference of opinion as a personal attack and resorted to snide remarks and veiled insults when responding. I did not note any personal attacks directed at RobP. I understand that writing an article with over 30 citations does take a lot of time and effort and it can be extremely difficult to face deletion in those circumstances, however it is not an excuse for bad manners. WP:GF.

Reversions made by Elektricity were unhelpful and some editors may have missed the text that was removed - whether or not that may have changed their position or vote is not known. COI allegations muddy the waters should not be made without good evidence. I am not sure that any evidence was provided in this case.

My vote to re-list is base on the following points that require discussion.

1. Two points raised stand out as not being addressed.

(a) What is group promotion? Without knowing, it is difficult to discuss and understand its relevance. There are new editors involved and it is helpful to give them a clear understanding of what is said.

(b) Popular Mechanics Atlantic 10 News Tampa Live Science People/Celebrity Conventionally were mentioned to support notability, but only Biddle’s mention in Popular Mechanics was discussed, the rest were ignored. I am left wondering whether or not those other publications support notability or not.

2. A point that was not explored was WP:BASIC, in particular - ‘’’If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.’’’ Over 30 citations would indicate multiple sources, whether or not enough of them are independent should be discussed, as well as what constitutes “multiple” Elmidae made mention of it without referring to it.

8==8 Boneso ( talk) 03:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but not when they include things like his Facebook page. Move to Draft and go and talk to Susan. Guy ( Help!) 19:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ JzG: From WP:PRIMARYCARE: "An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website (Which in the 21st century is sometimes just FaceBook. -Rp2006), or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." I do believe Biddle's FB page was used minimally, in that exact context, just to provide basic supplimentary information I could not find elsewhere. RobP ( talk) 22:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Might be an idea to drop the condescension and check [7] vs. [8]. Guy ( Help!) 23:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Interesting... but experience does not always mean being correct. And inexperience does not always mean being wrong. (Hey- that is the crux of this entire re-look at the AfD!) So what in my comment above about FaceBook was incorrect in the context of being told that using Biddle's Facebook page was wrong? And I didn't see it as condescending either. Not writing ONLY to Guy obviously. Because everything is public, even if Guy knows FB is acceptable in certain situations, maybe not everyone who could possibly ever read his comment knows that. So this was a clarification as to the actual rule for the benefit of anyone interested - just to correct the (IMHO) mistaken inference that could come out of reading Guy's FB slam. RobP ( talk) 00:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Guy, are you saying "I am more experienced than you so therefore I'm right"? I think that RobP is trying to get his head around this situation. He is asking questions not only to have editors explain their position, but also to learn from the process so he can create better pages and avoid their deletion in the future. We can all learn from experienced editors, but arguments from authority are not helpful, and cause other editors to become frustrated. And RobP clearly frustrated with some of the responses he has received so far. 8==8 Boneso ( talk) 01:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I am saying that I am dramatically more experienced than you, so don't make condescending comments about process to me. Also I am an active skeptic and have published articles on the JREF Swift blog, just so you know. And I am also an admin so could see the deleted history even if it had not been temporarily restored. I reviewed the article with its sources. Not only was the close a correct reading of the debate (i.e.: sod off, this is not he place to re-litigate an AfD you lost), but it is also correct, per the actual sources cited. Fixating on one that I happened to mention, misses the point. Restore to draft and add substantially better sourcing, and you're good. Carry on with this bullshit, and you're likely to end up in trouble, because most of us admins have seen this hundreds of ties before. Even if we like the idea of an article on a thing, you're not going to win us over like this. Guy ( Help!) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Actually, I have mostly been frustrated by the tendency of editors to be dismissive and not to respond to direct questions about their statements, which often entailed me pointing out when erroneous statements (not about differences of opinion) related to the article's substance or references were made. I often don't get answered at all, and then that incorrect information tends to get repeated by others voting Delete or Endorse. BTW, I am referring to three places connected with this article where this dismissive attitude has happened: the original AfD, this Deletion review, and the harassing COI charge stemming from this article. RobP ( talk) 06:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, correct reading of the debate. If people want it moved to draft space pending (significantly) better sourcing then that's another matter. Guy ( Help!) 19:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a good close. Once you get past all the low quality sources used to pad out the article, only three remain. The much discussed Popular Mechanics article contains one sentence mentioning Biddle's name in passing. The Atlantic article is the same, just Biddle's name in passing. The Tampa Bay 10 News article at least has some quotes from Biddle. But this all adds up to trivial coverage of the subject and is not enough for a stand alone article. It may warrant a paragraph about Biddle in some existing article, but I can't say offhand what the target article might be. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ LuckyLouie: Please explain why, as commented on above but not answered, the 5 mentions in Radford's recent book due to Biddles' position as an expert in this field, do not qualify as a "high quality sources" RobP ( talk) 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

That's nice that Radford mentioned him in a book. But in my estimation, it's not enough to build a biography article on. Best advice is to get it into your userspace, clean out all the questionable sources (Ghostvillage.com, Spooktator.co.uk, adventuresinpoortaste.com, barrytaff.net, hayleyisaghost.co.uk, anomaliesresearchsociety.wordpress.com, Facebook posts, Youtube videos, non-notable podcasts, etc.) and try again using only the best quality sources you can assemble. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ LuckyLouie:First, I'll try to watch my manners here, but saying "that's nice" is quite demeaning to Radford and Biddle, and that statement does not address my question... which was why are editors saying that a book by a WP:Noteable expert in this field saying Biddle is an expert is excluded from being considered a WP:RS in this AfD. One editor didn't like the publisher I recall. And of course I did not build the article on that one source anyway; it was actually a late addition as it was just published. I thought all the other sources - in combination - made him notable. I fail to see, though, why the sources used continues to be mis-stated as has repeatedly happened, for example, regarding FaceBook. As I mentioned above in detail, WP says it is OK to use a subject's personal website for basic facts. AND there were no other FB references used; just his own page. So why do editors like yourself continue to say Facebook posts (plural) making it sound like I willy-nilly threw in other people's references to Biddle on FB as sources for anything? This is the type of comment that had me thinking at least some Delete voters had not actually thoroughly reviewed the article prior to deciding to trash it. Now to the larger issue: Is it your position that editors are only expected to write short, bare-bones articles using only WP:RS and then let them grow over years by the slow addition of less powerful sources (which WP allows once a subject is notable) to flesh the article out? My understanding is that every reference in a WP article need not by of the same magnitude. Am I wrong?? As I did with my previous 3 articles (one was a GA) I took the time to create a full article by using all sources, top-notch and not, to create what I thought was a fully realized article about the subject. Should I not do that anymore going forward? You just want stubs - notable articles - but stubs published? Seems like that is what you are saying. RobP ( talk) 22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I thought we were talking about *this* article. You know, the the one that was deleted. My personal philosophy about articles in general is not actually relevant to the discussion. (I have written articles that are very large, and others that are very stubby — it all depends on the sources) Let's cut to the chase: I'm impressed you got 3 GA's 1 GA under your belt. You know *this* article has problems, which is why it got deleted. The best course of action is to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process and get it into userdraft and fix it. Hell, I'll even help you if I have time next week. Cheers, - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

And that raises a big question: If fixing it would be a simple matter, why was AfD initiated at all? Isn't the goal to do that if possible rather than to Delete and throw away so much effort... not to mention all the time this made everyone involved spend (not the least of which is me) on the AfD process? RobP ( talk) 06:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply