Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher McKitterick

: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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

=[[:Christopher McKitterick]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Christopher McKitterick}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Christopher McKitterick}})

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

:One of my students alerted me to this potential deletion - I imagine they'll make the necessary edits re: the article's Academics, but the quick reasoning for the article not to be deleted:

:I founded (at least) four science fiction research and educational organizations, including AboutSF, the International Science Fiction Consortium, the University of Kansas Ad Astra Center for Science Fiction, and now the nonprofit Ad Astra Institute for Science Fiction and the Speculative Imagination.

:For 30 years I led the Gunn Center for the Study of Science Fiction with James Gunn and Kij Johnson, where I organized and led dozens of international conferences, organized and introduced many talks, designed and taught several courses and workshops that attracted attendees from around the world, helped found two international science fiction centers (in India and China), designed and taught many for-credit courses for a science fiction program, and educated countless people who've gone on to successful writing and teaching careers in the field.

:After working professionally as a technical, scientific, and games writer, I developed a technical and scientific writing program and five courses for the University of Kansas, taught them so for several years, and served as KU Technical Communications Liaison, helping several departments and centers build their own writing courses and programs.

:I've been invited to give several keynote addresses for universities and professional organizations, as well as given dozens of other academic and professional talks and readings.

:I've been invited to write many academic articles, papers, and chapters, as well as to edit academic magazines and books. I've also published many more academic pieces on spec. I've also created and edited many Wikipedia articles, and encouraged my students to do the same.

:I've developed several digital humanities websites and created massive amounts of educational content for them, one of which (that I worked on for three decades) garnered much recognition in the science fiction field.

:This is in addition to my creative career, for which I've also created and taught several for-credit courses, workshops, and master classes.

:I hope this helps! Cmckit (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

::Page created and edited by subject of article, which is in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. 2001:49D0:8511:3:683E:901E:3E2:CCCC (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

::Comment - Hey @Cmckit. I'm a normal user without any powers or anything here and I've ruffled some feathers as well. Basically, they don't want people or acquaintances of the said person being involved in the creation of their own articles for various reasons. I'm sure you or anyone else didn't mean to break any rules or do anything wrong, but it happens a lot and it's not usually perceived positively. There were also some major rule and just general mindset changes towards notability on the website since the article was first posted here that likely affected the article's existence when it may not have previously. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

:::Thanks, @KatoKungLee - that's what I would have suspected. But I thought that was resolved several years ago, shortly after it was created, after discussion with a Wikipedia administrator (somewhere in the article's early history). Thank you for the info! Cmckit (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

:Cmckit, the article was pretty much a resume; it's less of a resume now. Your arguments here for keeping the article are also like a resume. Please see WP:GNG, and specifically applicable here are WP:AUTHOR and perhaps WP:PROF. Either way, what the article needs (and that's only one of the ways in which we differ fro LinkedIn) is SECONDARY sourcing. The article right now does not have a single independent reliable secondary source--and we just cannot have that. It is entirely possible that the subject (you) is notable, but the article needs to prove that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

::@Drmies Check my comment below. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reply - the academic section you previously deleted would be useful in response to the deletion reasoning re: academic. I see what you're saying about how the content would be better in narrative form than in just line-item facts, though!

::I don't understand what you mean about no secondary sourcing - it has many references and external links (even more before you deleted them, too). I've added a few more per recommendation. Thank you. Cmckit (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I was going to say that he fails WP:NCREATIVE (not every writer is notable) and first needs an entry in SFE. But - he has entry in [https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/mckitterick_christopher SFE] (according to IA, since last year...). So, accordingly, I think he does pass NCREATIVE/NBIO now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • :@Piotrus: So, you have provided one source that meets the "independent, reliable, secondary, significant" criteria, but you need multiple sources. Are you saying that you had found more? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ::Having an article in a specialized encyclopedia about him may satisfy WP:ANYBIO #2. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • :::@Piotrus: Quoting from the note attached to ANYBIO#2, {{tq|Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.}} (Emphasis mine) So, based on this, if it passed ANYBIO criteria 2, this would've surely closed as a "speedy keep" two weeks ago, since this is a fairly high bar to reach, and seems to be more stringent than GNG. Is my reasoning here logical, or am I missing something? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ::::The spirit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
  • :::::@Piotrus: {{Tq|The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available}}. SFE, by definition, is not a general purpose encyclopaedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 00:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ::::::That's an interesting point, given that that project listed many specialized encyclopedias in its database. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • :::::::@Piotrus: Some of those specialist ones have notes saying that inclusion in them doesn't guarantee notability, and none seem to be even close to the size of SFE, rather containing a nucleus of vital topics. I would challenge the utility of SFE as a notability guarantee, as whilst SFE does have some restrictions on who can and can't be included, they: a). Are fundamentally biased towards English-language writers, and exclude non-English language writers (which makes relying on it an issue from a systemic bias standpoint); b). Give an article to virtually anyone who has written an English-language science fiction novel, or the equivalent in smaller works. I cannot find a single AfD which was kept solely because of the presence of the subject in SFE, rather it was due to the presence of other indicators of notability in addition to the SFE article. Those are not present here. Indeed, you yourself even said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenants in fiction {{tq|SFE entry is reliable, but more would be needed.}} Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ::::::::@Mako001 We are veering a bit off topic, but I fully agree with you regarding the English bias of SFE. At the same time, Wikipedia has no choice but to reflect such biases, we are not here to WP:RIGHT them (although projects like WP:WIR are very much welcome). I hear what you are saying that we have just one source. I generally also agree GNG requires two sources, but when one source is a specialist encyclopedia, I feel we are right smack in the very center of borderline notability. Hence my "weak" qualification for my vote, as given the choice, I'd rather we have an article then not, per WP:NOTPAPER. And yes, to repeat, you can make a fair point that strict reading of GNG implies he is not notable with just one source. In the end, that's why we discuss and semi-vote on such borderline cases, and I think per my rationale above I'll stay with my "weak keep". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. He passes gng and NBIO. [https://today.ku.edu/2018/12/19/moving-stars-mckitterick-puts-science-his-fiction this] supports my claim.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • :No, it doesn't. That is from the university he works at. To support GNG or NBIO, the source must be independent. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

::Weak keep sources discussed above seem ok for the CREATIVE notability. Not a strong case, but it's just enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

:::@Oaktree b: Please clarify which sources you are referring to, as the one provided by HelpingWorld does nothing for notability, and there has been only a single secondary, reliable, independent source given here that gives this person significant coverage, which is SFE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment On NCREATIVE:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure {{tq|no, or this would be an obvious and easy keep}} or is widely cited by peers or successors {{tq|also no}}; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique {{tq|no evidence of this}}; or
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) {{tq|also no evidence of this}}; or
  4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument {{tq|definitely not}}, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition {{tq|not "substantial"}}, (c) won significant critical attention {{tq|not "significant"}}, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums {{tq|also, definitely not}}.

On NBIO (or rather ANYBIO):

  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; {{tq|cannot find any awards this person has won or been nominated for, besides a single non-notable (and insignificant) award "Analytical Laboratory (AnLab) Readers' Award for Best Novelette"}}or
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. {{tq|no, has not, or this would be an obvious and easy keep}} or
  3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).{{tq|no, has an SFE entry, but that is not a national biographical dictionary}}

And in terms of GNG, so far, only one independent, reliable, secondary source has been found, SFE (Science Fiction Encyclopedia). GNG requires multiple such sources.

So, the subject does not meet the general or subject-specific notability guidelimes. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

::@Jclemens: No-one has said that BLPREQUESTDELETE did apply here, so I'm not sure why you brought that up? We also don't keep articles just because they "might become notable in the future", see WP:CRYSTAL. So far, this article has waited for well over a decade to become notable, but still hasn't made it yet. Can you give more than one source that fulfils the requirement (independent, reliable, secondary, published) to count towards GNG? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your inquiry. May I ask why you've felt the need to comment on every !vote that didn't agree with deletion? Do you have any personal or financial interest in this outcome? I've looked back through your last 2,000 contributions, and I don't see that you've participated in any other deletion discussions, so I'd like to understand better what's happening here before I answer your queries. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

::::@Jclemens: Because I want to get an actual discussion here, and draw out reasoning that will assist the closer in making a clear and informed decision, particularly given the borderline notability of the subject. That was the aim of the discussion with Piotrus. I have participated in quite a few deletion discussions, though most of the last few thousand edits wouldn't include any of that, though I have participated in some this year. I do not have an undisclosed COI here, nor do I engage in UPE, the former would be foolish, the latter would be utterly detestable. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{clear}}

: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.