Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination)

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 A detailed assessment of the unusually long thread produces a clear and reasoned consensus. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schaul

AfDs for this article:
Jordan Schaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references cited are mainly primary sources written by the subject or biographies on sites where he writes, which are of no use for establishing notability. A long way of meeting the requirements of WP:BIO SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the previous AFD before nominating this again but have since checked the deleted version and it is substantially different so G4 doesn't apply. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recovered this 2004 story about the subject at Cleveland Jewish News before realizing it was already cited via HighBeam. At any rate the other link is here, full story for consideration by those without HighBeam access. Brianhe (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if this appears to be a recreated article.Other than some minor TV appearances, does not assert notability. If all else fails, I'd say purge considering it's been created by a COI editor or at least that will set an example to what happen to paid editors. Donnie Park (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SmartSE said above that this version is "substantially different" from the 2010 version, which means it is not a recreation. The other statement about setting an example is not policy based. Brianhe (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Editors, I really apologize for creating such concern here and for other pages I have recently created. I have had a blast contributing to Wikipedia and yes, I have been compensated for a few articles recently. I made note of it on the respective pages. I do now regret that I accepted compensation. I didn't realize it would upset the editorial community as it has and I apologize for it. I inquired about compensation in the chat room when some one asked me to create a page, and an editor kindly directed me to how to follow procedure. In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created, but I have really tried to be as neutral and objective as possible. In some instances, I lost perspective and was corrected. I'm still learning and I use both the chat room and talk pages of other editors to help me navigate around. I was really alarmed by this notice and tonight reached out to an editor who I have been consulting with and this what they responded with when I asked if I could be blocked or banned from editing my own page to avoid any concern:

"jordan Schaul page

Hi, Jpop. I'm not sure, but I believe any editor can voluntarily pledge to topic-ban themselves from editing a particular article. I haven't run across this before, but you might try posting a query outlining your and the other editor's concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You might also make a case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) — and do feel free to mention that you've worked with me over the last year or two on trying to make the article read neutrally and encyclopedically, including with a Criticism section. (Since I've edited the article, I haven't weighed in on the deletion discussion. But I hope these two suggestions help._ --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)"

With this said, I would gladly topic-ban myself from editing this article or post query as suggested if you all think that would make sense. I would just ask for someone to instruct me on how to do it. I appreciate all your concerns and I don't want to cause any conflict regarding this page or others. I've really enjoyed Wikipedia immensely and hope to get a better understanding of policy. I really like to write in this encyclopedic style, but I realize that I need to pay close attention to guidelines and policies. Thank you for letting me share. I welcome any more feedback either here or on my page. RegardsJpop73 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Dear Editors, Thank you for sharing this proposed deletion debate in other discussions. I hope the editors will adhere to policy based protocols and not take punitive measures because of the fact that I disclosed that I was compensated for creating a few biographies in the recent past. I certainly thought that I was following policy as I mentioned above by disclosing such information.

My biographical entry on the National Geographic website (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/author/jschaul/) is a fairly current and accurate account of my career as a zoologist and nature writer. However, it does not include my more recent board service to ZooNation (http://zoonation.org/about-us/leadership/) or Nsefu Wildlife Conservation Foundation (http://nsefuwildlife.com/board-of-directors.html) or my board service to the Northwest Autism Foundation. My writings include articles about my colleagues as well as my own conservation projects, including this wood bison project (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/12/wood_bison_return_to_alaska_range/).

In addition, I have a verified Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/jordan.schaul/?fref=ts) with 7000 plus followers, which emphasizes my work as a writer. I don't know if a verified social media account in itself establishes notability, but it is not something listed on my Wikipedia profile and so I thought I would share it. Thank you again for letting me contribute to this discussion. I appreciate itJpop73 (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as still nothing to suggest any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear SwisterTwister, Thank you for your note. With respect, I'm not sure I understand what "solid independent notability" means. As a journalist, including 4 years writing for NAT GEO, I feel that I established independent notability as my articles were featured as front page articles online, but many were cross posted in numerous other publications. According to Wikipedia policy, as I understand, journalists don't neccesssarily get secondary coverage, but they can be deemed notable for their contributions to primary resources.

On another note, I noticed that the first attempt to delete this article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added and the article was changed and updated. So may I ask what is different this time? Thanks againJpop73 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first attempt to delete this article in 2010 was successful. However, you recreated it. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear (talk), My apologies. I just clicked on the link above and it does say that the result was delete. I misunderstood and I apologize. I completely misread the top part. Sorry for the oversightJpop73 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editors,
In reviewing references, I just noticed mention of my IUCN role as a bear expert as mentioned in this quote in Discovery News in the following article, which I forgot I was featured in and not the author of. Again, I'm a journalist, but I do contribute my expertise to media sources, as this example suggests. In addition, my radio interviews include me as a subject as well as the interviewer like a segment I did for Minnesota Public Radio. So I wonder if my dual role may add to confusion. I also write a lot of opinion pieces, which I think are different than straight news: http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/bears-cubs-drought-120814.htm Hence, I wonder if my article should be focused more on journalism than on zoology?
"In arid regions of the Southwest, my concern would be that water associated with human dwellings along with some succulent food resources could draw bears into more populated areas," said Jordan Schaul of the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center and outreach coordinator for the IUCN BSG."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpop73 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 April 2016
@Jpop73: The crucial thing that we require to include a biography is that sources exist that are written about you rather than by you. There are many journalists but only relatively few of them are notable. It is not up to us as editors to judge what you have written or what you have done and decide whether or not it is notable, other reputable independent sources need to have done so. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, here is another secondary source that was also noted on the COI page:

"Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)"Jpop73 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this would be helpful or not http://www.raintees.com/rain-tees-interview-jordan-schaul-1475/ thanksJpop73 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC) Evidentlyy this is archived but on a black listed site Jpop73 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) I have a screen shot of it, but I don't know how to share it. Can someone advise?Jpop73 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smartse, I understand, but I was invited to contribute to relatively notable publications and I'm also a content expert and for example contributed both as an ex officio council member of the International Association for Bear Research & Management and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Bear Specialist Group. I don't think that I am a typical journalist and if you read the criticisms section on my page, you'll see that although controversial, my opinions were noted and addressed in the articles of others. In addition, some in the editorial community feel that this is retribution for my paid contributions and is not a coincidence, particularly given that I recieved 12 messages in one day stating that my own article and others I created have been proposed for deletion. They further question why my own article was reviewed and accepted a long time ago and suddenly due to to controversy over me following policy over paid contributions, my article is now being proposed for deletion. It seems a little suspicious to myself and others. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition this was noted by one editor, in support of my argument: "I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)"

I'm afraid that you're conflating different issues. This discussion is only about whether or not you are notable and your editing here is irrelevant. I've replied to Kevin at the COI noticeboard which is the place for that discussion. SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Semartse: I'm just repsonding to the sentiment of much more experienced editors than myself and the comments made by some of the editors above. I would also add that I see numerous biographical articles that have been accepted that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on primary sources (and are tagged as such) and they seem to meet the notability guidelines and have not been proposed for deletion. It seems that you really have a strong desire to delete my page. It seems rather targeted and also coincidentally coincides with concerns about my editing history and it is fairly and perhaps blatantly obvious. I've done my best to be honest, fair and objective and respond to feedback. If you want to use this as an example to punish me and make an example out of me, there is not much I can do about it, but I do appreciate your consideration. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As clearly lacks notability for an article. Keep Just had a better look at the article. The comment below makes some good points actually. The article is actually well sourced and seems pretty neutral to me. Delete Yeah I'm being a little indecisive here, but the comments below bring up some points which I simply can't ignore. Upon further examination of the article I don't believe it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Also, I was unaware that the article was an autobiography. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Omni Flames, I see that you created an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kat_Arney), which cites primary references, just like this article does, except for the fact that this article on me also includes secondary references for support. I was appointed to a courtesy faculty position, while your subject was a post-doc. Hence, I'm not sure how your subject is any more notable than the subject in this article. Some fairness would be greatly appreciated with regard to your critique.Jpop73 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Omni Flames, Thank you for your kind note and consideration.Jpop73 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Omni Flames: can you explain which sources made you change your mind so that WP:BIO is met? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that the issue here is exactly what guideline is being used to suggest notability. I don't see enough academic work to meet WP:NACADEMIC, I'm not seeing enough evidence of peer recognition to meet WP:NJOURNALIST, so we're down to WP:BASIC. Are there enough in-depth secondary sources which have talked about him in depth? Not articles which quote him as a source. Not articles he has written. Not interviews. I don't think so. Delete. JMWt (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not sure I understand why peer recognition in the journalism community is as critical as the publications in which an author contributes to. If you will do a search you will find examples of where my work has been reprinted and discussed by others. There seems to be a lot of examples of peer recognition of subjects with Wikipedia pages in publications, which are not noteworthy. I would even include some of my own in this case. With that said, I appreciate the assessment. It seems to be a fair account, although still subjective. More than anything, it seems that if Wikipedia editors want to delete someone, they will find a way to do it. That has been my learning experience. Thanks again for your time.Jpop73 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are not policy based arguments. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really worth responding to. If you don't like the relevant notability guidelines, try changing them. JMWt (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cited sources don't meet WP:GNG and I didn't find any other sources that would help to meet that standard. The piece in Cleveland Jewish News isn't enough on its own to meet GNG, and the other sources are either brief/insignificant mentions or pieces written by Schaul. I also don't see anything that meets a subject-specific notability guideline like WP:ACADEMIC or WP:JOURNALIST. WP:BLPSPS lists the circumstances under which self-published sources may be used in an article, but those sources don't help to establish notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The concept of wp:notability asks if the topic has sufficiently attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  It is not necessary for a topic to completely satisfy any one notability subguideline.  No one can look at the coverage from around the world, and in multiple languages, and claim that this topic is a hoax or made up.  WP:GNG is not intended to be a high bar for our encyclopedia, rather it is intended to be responsibly inclusive, and WP:GNG is satisfied here.  However, we also have a requirement of WP:NOTPROMOTION, and Seaworld currently has an ongoing advertising campaign, and I noticed that this topic is part of some Seaworld controversy.  Another way to go here is to invoke WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which argues that 12 years in the public spotlight has not yet provided sufficient coverage over and above WP:GNG for this particular topic, as more than a statistic.  This view is supported in the absence of WP:GNG coverage found at Google books.  But is that a sufficient reason to prevent our readers from learning about this topic with the work and sourcing already in place?  If anything, the question here is not if the topic will be covered, but when.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, can you point out where you see "coverage from around the world and in multiple languages"? My searches didn't turn that up. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he/she was talking about the fact Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is the largest marine mammal dedidicated preservation organization in the world and offers coverage in multiple languages, including French. (like the press mentioned under the "Criticisms" section below in the article). ThanksJpop73 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jpop73 As an editor with extreme COI (the author of the autobiography under discussion) I would expect you to recuse yourself from discussion about the page. Your view is well known, and repeating your arguments is frankly just making your COI more of an issue. Also, do not speak for others, please. Let us have the discussion amongst ourselves without inserting yourself into it. There is an actual decision to be made here relating to notability, which you appear to ignore, so your contributions are making our work here more difficult. Basically, at this point your presence here is disruptive. Please stop. LaMona (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, you will see "Zambia", "India", "Alaska", "California", and "Ohio".  Your response that uses the word "extreme", and treats the content contributor with condescension, and adds a personal attack for providing technical support that you requested, suggests that your goal here is to throw a WP:STINKBOMB.  Not my problem.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: There is a very large distinction between working in foreign countries and "sufficiently attracted the attention of the world". Are there any sources which confirm your assertion? SmartSE (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This "distinction" is yours.  The intensifiers "very" and "large" are verbiage.  I found various references to the topic by reviewing the article, and doing some of the checks identified in WP:BEFORE.  Your efforts to comply with WP:BEFORE are something that you don't report in your deletion nomination.  Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: please just supply us with some links which back up your claim that there are "various references to the topic" which are not currently on this page and which are WP:RS, because frankly I can't find them. Just saying that such references exist is not actually helping this discussion. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to be helpful and just feel a that there is such a strong bias to delete, precipitated by this being created by the subject. Again, I apologizeJpop73 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this bothers you, don't assume that it gets better.  People often decide that they don't want to have an article here, and with marginal notability such as your's, the BLP's request carries weight.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I worked closely with another editor over a period of time (cited above) to improve this article, which is one reason I am fairly invested in it. Excuse my naivete, but what do you mean when you say the "BLP's request carries weight."Jpop73 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jpop73, Since I couldn't readily find a reference to better answer your question, I've posted at WT:Biographies of living persons/Help#Requests by the Topic to Delete a BLP.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, you've totally misunderstood what is happening here. Nobody is out to get you personally, there is no bias to delete your pet subject. The simple fact is that if there were no standards for inclusion, anyone could write anything and have it cluttering up wikipedia. Hence we have notability criteria and we have discussions where uninvolved editors in good faith review the subject and try to come to a consensus about whether the subject is sufficiently noted to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. And, in simple terms, that means that the subject has been covered in media that they've not written, that is substantial (ie not just mentions) and is reliable (ie not just a website of an organisation they work for, a blog, a self-published book etc). Unless you - or anyone else - and persuade the rest of us that the subject is covered in this kind of depth, the delete !votes have it. The fact that you think it is important isn't good enough. The fact that you've put a lot of effort into it, whilst unfortunate, has nothing to do with it. The notability standards are quite clear starting from WP:GNG, so I suggest you stop trying to persuade us that wikipedia is wrong to have these standards (which is beyond the scope of the discussion here) and start making an argument based on coverage in secondary sources. If you can't do that, then you are tacitly admitting, as a main editor of the page, that the subject is not notable. JMWt (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm trying to pursuade anyone about how I think Wikipedia should function. I'm not and that is not my interest. I'm just observing and responding to mixed reactions and much apparent subjectivity regarding the meeting of notability requirements. As far as notability regarding my article is concerned, my only reference or basis for reference is from what other editors have stated. I've been advised not to share an opinion because it would be a conflict of interest. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others "marginally notable," others have said it is within the criteria of notability. I even received comments via email. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective here on Wikipedia whether there are guidelines in place or not.

In addition, I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the initial review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. That indicates to me that the review process is inconsistent or this delayed deletion process is inconsistent. It also tells me that every editor seems to have their own opinion and there are numerous disparities, not to mention unusual events that precipitate proposing several articles that had been published for some time, suddenly find themselves proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions because they find their articles in the same predicament as mine and find it suspicious that these AFD tags have all suddenly been placed this week. I do appreciate your effort to explain and for doing it with courtesy. thanksJpop73 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. It isn't subjective, the standards needed by the WP:GNG are very clear, so anyone !voting keep without reference to the policies and guidelines is ignored. Where there is legitimate disagreement in deletion discussions is to the level of coverage and whether the secondary sources meet the high bar of significant. That's not relevant here, because you've not offered any significant secondary sources at all. So those who are making those votes to you here or by email seem to be objectively wrong.
I can't speak to your second point. I can only speak from experience of deletion discussions, and in my opinion this article does not meet the WP:GNG for obvious reasons I've outlined above. Others who are disagreeing are not arguing from any notability guideline.
The whole COI issue is not one I know much about however it seems to me that it is problematic that (a) you've admitted to writing these articles for payment (which would suggest that you've got a material interest in trying to keep them on wikipedia) and (b) that you're insisting on calling them "my articles". They're not yours. This is a team-situation, any edits you offer belong to the agreed whole of this encyclopedia as established by long consensus. If you want complete control over material that is "out there" then you're looking to write your own blog, website, wiki etc, not contribute to something which is assessed and reviewed by the crowd and guided by precedent. At the very essence of this thing is that wikipedia is reflecting not estabishing the notability of the subjects of pages. It is down to you as an editor to show that the subject is notable. If you can't, then get ready for them to be deleted, whether or not you were paid to write them. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't see a list of secondary sources of significance to choose from. It is arbitrary and up to the discretion of the editor, which to me means it is subjective. But that is beside the point. One of the editors who recommended keeping the article (see above) clearly indicates a difference of opinion with regard to how the WP:GNG is interpreted. And that is just a difference of interpretation on my page, which illustrates how rampant the problem must be. I'm not trying to be difficult. It is just that you only have to read the commentary above from User:Unscintillating to see how editors interpret policy differently.

If you can't speak to the second point, it would seem that every single article that has been reviewed, accepted and published should be heavily scrutinized and critiqued and perhaps proposed for deletion as mine and those I have created have been. That would be fair if you want to talk about fairness and standards. Until that happens, I think that my article and the others I have created should be left as they were, otherwise I would consider this a fairly discriminatory action and a targeted campaign as one of the editors mentioned on the COI discussion page. There is plenty of conjecture on the internet about editorial bias among the community of Wikipedia contributors/editors/adminsitrators, etc. I don't know how much of it is true or not nor is it my businsess. I just know that if you are going to be hyper-critical of certain articles, it would only seem fair that you use the same treatment on others. Furthermore, why didn't any of the editors bring this to my attention when they reviewed and worked on my article and others I've created. Do they have a different set of criteria then the deletion team? They obviously didn't see issues with the profile at the time. Now all of the sudden there is this concerted effort to delete my page and others I've created. It may be the Wikipedia way, but it certainly is neither fair or objective. The amount of time and energy spent concerning whether or not my secondary sources are significant enough for a loosely set criterion, when hundreds, if not thousands of articles are missing secondary or even significant primary sources is rather remarkable. The subjects of the articles that I created, which you have proposed for deletion have given me enough feedback beyond my own research to indicate that this is a subjective critique and fairly targeted. I'm not trying to over-emphasize, it is just strikingly apparent.Jpop73 (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this discussion is going way beyond this AfD and into the whole business of notability. The first stop in understanding that is the WP:GNG and if you're not able to identify which sources are considered to be WP:RS then there are other fora where you should be reading and discussing that point, not here. The fact that someone has recommended keep is not any of my business. Personally I cannot see how they can possibly make that assessment given that the reliable secondary sources that we usually would look for (extended newspaper articles, books, academic sources) do not appear to exist and you don't appear to be arguing do exist. So, according to you, we are left using websites which you again appear to be admitting are not actually independent of the subject, and therefore are not really very useful in determining notability - as is obvious, any organisation thinks their own staff are important. That doesn't mean they actually are important with respect to a wide-ranging encyclopedia.
If you think that you are being discriminated against, then you should refer the matter to WP:ANI and not attempt to make the case here.
The conjecture about bias of wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. We're very clearly talking about the notability of these articles and are clearly trying to assess them against the established guidelines.
The reviewers of your draft is not relevant to this discussion, if you want to talk about that, you should go to WP:AFCHD. We are here only talking about the notability of this page as it is presented to us here. How it got here is not really of any importance to me.
Finally, I have not proposed any of "your" articles for deletion, I am just part of this community of editors who review articles against deletion criteria. And whether or not you think you have enough information from the subjects of the articles is not relevant to this discussion. Once again, I suggest you restrict your comments here to the point as to whether you have sufficient WP:RS to show notability as per the WP:GNG and address your other issues elsewhere. JMWt (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jpop73, you have just accused us as being biased and unfair, and yet you do not seem to be well-informed on the actual policies being discussed. If you were, you were be able to argue your case better. There are criteria for how one defines "reliable source". These criteria do not result in an entirely black and white world, but like most human endeavors they provide a basis for discussion. I suggest that you discuss from a stronger position if you show yourself to be "well read" in the policies. Start with wp:rs which defines reliable sources. Then you can look at Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples, and we can compare sources in this article to the definition and those examples. Then we have the Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, which is an essay but which is handy because it has a list of questions that need to be answered. Next, I think we need to example the sources here, and any other sources that people find, and analyze them based on this criteria. This AfD has been so far imprecise in its analysis, which is one of the reasons why we may be making very little headway. I'll initiate that next - it may take a while. LaMona (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpop73: Regarding your mentions of the article being reviewed previously, the current article has never been through a formal review process such as Articles for creation. Some other editors made edits to remove some of the more egregious content but that doesn't mean it passed any kind of review. As you know, this discussion was already held in 2010 when an account that you have said you edited from commented several times [1]. That formally determined that in the community's eyes the subject was not notable and it was deleted. It was then recreated twice again that year after which an admin prevented it from being recreated again. When you recreated in 2013, you did so at Jordan schaul and an admin moved it, presumably without realising the history of the article (our software wouldn't tell them that most users couldn't create it). I'm sorry that you feel we are unfair and biased but when I come across problematic articles I deal with them - yes there are many more out there but it would only be even worse if we didn't delete articles. SmartSE (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of sources This only covers the sources in the article. Obviously anyone is welcome to provide others.
  • 1. Newspaper article: Cleveland Jewish News. Independent. Substantial. Assumed reliable, reputation unknown.
  • 2. College Alumni news. RS? Not known who wrote or where info came from.
  • 3. College newsletter. In its entirety: "We also had three of our graduate students begin their veterinary program in the O Medicine: Einav Elistsur (Dr. Saville, advisor), Aaron Ison (Dr. Morishita, advisor), and Jordan Schaul (Dr. Morishita, advisor)." Name check. Fails WP:N: topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
  • 4. Bio at National Geographic (employer) Unknown author; not independent of subject
  • 5. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 6. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 7. No mention of Schaul on page
  • 8. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 9. Own CV; not an independent source
  • 10. Another CV; own work; not an independent source
  • 11. One sentence quote; not substantial, not third-party
  • 12 A newsletter with his name on masthead; not substantial
  • 13. dead link
  • 14. dead link
  • 15. Web site for an organization; Schaul not mentioned
  • 16.Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 17. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 18. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 19. Bio at thedodo.com; relationship unclear; author unclear
  • 20. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 21. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 22. List of own work at moderncat.com
  • 23. Bio at HuffPost and list of works
  • 24. dead link
  • 25.Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
  • 26. One mention: "After much coordination, in mid-June FedEx flew Taquka, Mendive, and Taquka’s handler, Dr. Jordan Schaul, to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York." Factual, but not substantially about him.
  • 27. dead link; search on name at site gets zero
  • 28. Response to a blog post by Schaul; argues the topic, very little about Schaul
  • 29. Response to an article or post by him. Quotes him; possibly substantial.
  • 30. Mention in article about Seaworld. In its entirety: " Conservationist Dr. Jordan Schaul argues that it would be ‘negligent’ to release captive whales. Their immune systems would not cope with the ‘degraded conditions’ of the ocean. SeaWorld is clean; the ocean is dirty."

LaMona (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for that LaMona. Regarding #1, which is probably the best source for use in meeting WP:BIO, Cleveland Jewish News is "a weekly Jewish newspaper headquartered in Beachwood, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland" that according to their website has a print circulation of only 8,000. I think there's generally a consensus that while local newspapers are fine as RS, they're not great for conferring notability because they cover so many obviously non-notable topics. SmartSE (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sufficient sources to support notability. LaMona (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article looks like it would confer inherent notability; in particular, the OC Zoo is pretty minor as zoos go, so even if his position there was the head of the zoo (I can't tell from the title and there is no sourcing for more than the title) it wouldn't be enough by itself. Therefore, we need to rely on WP:GNG, but as LaMona's careful analysis makes clear, we don't have enough reliable in-depth independent coverage of him (only one local newspaper) to pass that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it feels to me that we're flogging a dead horse here unless someone can show references exist that are not currently on the page. As LaMona shows above, only one of the current references could even vaguely be a RS, and that arguably doesn't speak to notability because of the localised nature of the publication. Even if it did, that's just one reference. I really could be persuaded to change my !vote if there was something substantial to add to this discussion, but all of my searches are entirely fruitless. The guy wrote a bunch of articles and blogs, he is listed on a few websites - mostly of places where he was employed, and a few other people rate him. None of those are enough, IMO. JMWt (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with the above, and in particular with the source evluation by LaMona. I see no evidence of it passing WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment jpop73 might want to read WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. poor quality sources. LibStar (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jordan_Schaul_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1076174667"