Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Packham

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 of the debate was no consensus, as long as it's not delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Packham

Claim to notability for his work with ex-Moromons - see Talk:Richard Packham. I think he deserves an AfD debate but count me as neutral. -- RHaworth 02:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Uneasy keep: What's there isn't exactly POV, but what's not there is certainly noticeable. How prominent has he been? Has he been the target of litigation? Has he been active in legislation? What are the effects and what is the context of the facts given in the article? I can't say "cleanup," because that will do no good, but I have to say that it's a very unhappy keep vote. Geogre 03:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• In doubt, thus weak keep by default. The main problem I have is that everything I find is essentially autobiographical. It would really help if some secondary source had something—anything—to say about him. As it is, it's hard to establish WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS when the only source of information is the subject himself. --Tabor 04:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If in doubt, chuck it out. Reyk 04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge He does seem to be well-known in this particular area...maybe merge it with Mormonism? (just as anti-Scientology sites are mentioned in the Scientology article. Jasmol 04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't presume notability when the article doesn't prove it and very little turns up on a search. If this foundation were a significant presence then they should have been able to get at least local Oregon press coverage. Anti-Scientology has a significant presence that the Scientologists have to contend with. Unless this ex-Mormon movement proves itself as an actual movement it seems disrespectful to move it onto the article about a known religion. Durova 06:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ex-Mormon], per below. Durova 08:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• I guess I can't vote since I am the one submitting the article. But about the previous user's message -- are we discussing whether or not a significant ex-Mormon movement exists or are we discussing whether or not Richard Packham is noteworthy enough to merit a wikipedia entry? I thought it was the latter, not the former -- especially since a wikipedia entry already exists for Ex-Mormon. If we can agree that the Ex-Mormon movement is legitimate, then Richard Packham would have to be one of the more prominent members of that movement. I'm not sure what search terms the previous user was looking for or seearching on but finding information about the ex-Mormon movement is as easy as Googling "ex mormon" (the 1st link is to www.exmormon.org, the "Recovery From Mormonism" list which currently has a link to the Exmormon Foundation prominently posted on their front page. The 7th link is a link to a Richard Packham webpage). Of course, googling "ex mormon foundation", being more specific, will produce even better results. It is not surprising to me that not a lot shows up associated with Oregon and the Ex-Mormon foundation because the majority of the Foundation's activities, including annual conferences, typically happen in Salt Lake City. Jarom Smith 07:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, you can still vote; it's just important to disclose that you are the article's author so people can take it into account. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well in that case I'm probably still too much of a newbie to be able to talk intelligently about this. It seems that the consensus is to Merge into Ex-Mormonism and perhaps with an edit to make it more NPOV, which is fine by me. I did the best I could but I appreciate the help from the community. Just for grins, though, would the community like to take a look at Jeff Lindsay's page and perhaps do the same thing? Jeff and Richard are more or less peers on opposite sides of the ideological fence. Within their respective communities, I would say they have roughly the same stature/standing (and therefore, would merit more or less the same level of mention in Wikipedia). That's my opinion, of course... and when it comes to this stuff I am definitely not neutral. Jarom Smith 02:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge a summary into Ex-Mormon per Jarom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Ex-Mormon. Marginal, but I lean to saying not notable enough. Less than 1,000 hits on Google. I get more than 5,000 hits on my name, and I only share it with three other people that I know of. - Dalbury (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Ex-Mormon but with no prejudice against re-expansion if it's later merited. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Marginal, but harmless. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Ex-Mormon. Note, subject has achieved enough notability that his work has been criticised on the web, e.g., http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/pehrsonpap.html; article should be NPOV'd a bit w/ links to criticism FRS 19:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Found the time to follow my own advise and edited out PoVish material and personal info, added link to criticism--FRS 19:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with Ex-Mormon. I personally know Richard and agree with Jerom, Richard is one of the original gray beards of the ex-mormon movement. He is not only a true skeptic, but relies on the scientic inquiry method that focuses on fact and reason to peel back the layers of an argument to try and arrive at the truth. Richard has spent the last decade using the Internet to share researched data and information that has been largely unavailable or repressed by The Mormon Church in order to highlight thousands of inaccurate details and errors regarding the Mormon Church, its origins and doctrine. Many have thanked Richard for helping them to have access to this data. By the way, Ex-mormonism is a bonafide movement. Also, the Mormon church was considered a cult, not an established church, until just 50 years ago. Until recently, its claim to be the fastest growing church in the world had been patently accepted. Today, we know that claim is plain just false and wishful PR. This is Rshiveley (talk • contribs)'s second edit.
• Comment for Antaeus Feldspar. I do believe you are mistaken about Rshively's second vote, as this shows as his first edit since August. - Dalbury (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: I'm not sure but I think you misread my note. I did not say it was his second vote but rather his second edit. Arguments from editors with low edit counts are still considered, but they have to be weighed carefully because often editors without enough experience misunderstand the AfD process and argue the wrong criteria for why an article should be kept/deleted. For instance, it may be true that Richard Packham "is not only a true skeptic, but relies on the scientic inquiry method that focuses on fact and reason to peel back the layers of an argument to try and arrive at the truth" -- but what does that have to do with whether an article separate from Ex-Mormon is merited? Mistaking "X is good" for "X should have an article" is a classic mistake made by those who don't yet understand just what the goals of Wikipedia's deletion policies are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. My apologies, I misread it. - Dalbury (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Ex-Mormon. If Jeff_Lindsay can have his own page then so should Richard. Both have websites filled with information about the LDS faith. Richard not only provides information for those seeking it, but also assistance to former members and non-members who need help. -- WilsonZone 10:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

  User's only contribution so far is to this AfD page. - Haukur Þorgeirsson

  • Comment: If I google on "'Jeff Lindsay'" I get 67,600 hits. Even if I narrow it to "'Jeff Lindsay' Mormon" I still get 22,200 hits. On "'Richard Packham'" I get 577 hits. To say that both of their views should be represented, that if one view is represented then so should the other be, is NPOV. To say that one holder of a view should receive his own article, because a holder of an opposing view received his own article is to confuse NPOV with false balance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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.