Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon M. Sweeney

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Jon M. Sweeney}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Jon M. Sweeney}})

Article appears to be promotional and has been edited extensively by user:Jonmsweeney, user:Jonmsweeney1234 and user:Friedsparrow, all SPA accounts who have also added Sweeney's name to other articles.

Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_edits_by_User:Jonmsweeney], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met. Axad12 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep & fix article issues (or draftify). Yes, the article has had extensive edits by CoI accounts. However, as noted in the nom, much of the promo text has been addressed. Poorly sourced is not the same as unsourced, and it also is different from "unsourcable". A quick look through JSTOR shows that Sweeney is an often referenced academic in his field, and I think that the subject would be found to be notable with a little bit of effort. Fixing an article's issues is generally preferable to deletion (WP:ATD), and if that can't be done, it should be draftified. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• :@Butlerblog
• :Hi, yes point taken. Just to clarify on the issue of sources...
• :When I said "poorly sourced" above I meant that some of the material is entirely unsourced and some of the sources that do exist are either written by Sweeney himself or are to YouTube or are promotional links to where his books can be purchased on Amazon.
• :With regards to your comment re: "unsourcable", I think it's worth noting that the only person to have contributed to this article to any significant degree is the subject himself. If the subject has been unable to provide sourcing for basic info like his date of birth, place of birth, and details of his family history and educational history, then I think it's reasonable to assume that those details are indeed "unsourcable". Adding [citation needed] to that sort of thing would just be overly optimistic.
• :So, it seems to me that there are genuine issues on the sourcing here for about 50% of the material in the current article. That being the case, I would also support your secondary suggestion of draftify.
• :I take on board also the comments below re: reviews and WP:NAUTHOR. Axad12 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::Correcting myself, in my post above I said "The subject" but I ought to have said "the subject or someone editing on his behalf " Axad12 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and address issues. Sweeney meets WP:NAUTHOR as multiple books have been the subject of reviews in reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:Keep. While there are COI issues it isn't TNT level bad, so there's no use deleting this when he is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

::Given the comments below, where is the evidence that the subject is notable? Axad12 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I did find a few reviews of his books (and added one to the article). But most of his books are un-reviewed because citing Publisher's Weekly merely means that the book was published - PW's role in the world is to provide one-paragraph "reviews" (often no more than listings) to everything they receive so that bookstores and libraries can see what has been published. Those "reviews" do not provide notability. And even if he has a few notable books, an article about a person requires reliable sourcing about that person. I went through many pages of search results and did not find any independent biographical information. I can change my mind if someone finds that information. Lamona (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• :@Lamona: Sweeney's book have been reviewed by PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal, which are often used to establish notability. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria. Lamona (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::@Lamona: If they review "EVERYTHING", why haven't they reviewed all of Sweeney's books? ETA: Per NBASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' or 'Mary Jones was hired by My University') that does not discuss the subject in detail." I would argue that having a single article dedicated to a book is not trivial -- even if the review is only a paragraph or two. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::"Detail" A single paragraph does not provide either detail nor much analysis. But again, this is an article for a PERSON. At least one WP:AUTHOR criterion must be met. You appear to think that he meets #3 of that policy. I would need more indication that he is considered "...an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." That would be met when we would find other theologians referencing his works or writing about him. Lamona (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::You appear to be arguing that since not all of his books have been reviewed, that demonstrates that he must be notable. That seems like a very questionable claim.
• ::::Evidently, if a non-notable author publishes a great many books the chances of some of them not appearing on the Publisher's World radar is rather high.
• ::::That doesn't indicate that the author is notable, if anything it indicates that he is not notable.
• ::::Realistically there will be 100s of 1,000s of non-notable authors worldwide who have published an endless stream of non-notable books. Some of their books will have been reviewed online either by PW or by some tame outlet which the author has connections to. That does not infer notability. Axad12 (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::@Axad12: How do you determine which types of reviews are worthwhile to determine notability? According to WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources provided are considered reliable and independent, and given that they have full articles dedicated to each book, they also provide significant coverage. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::@Significa liberdade
• ::::::To be honest, I'm not sure. However, I'd assume reviews in locations which (a) do not attempt to review vast numbers of books for internal publishing industry purposes, (b) can be reliably assumed to be independent of the author, (c) carry some kind of weight (i.e. not local newspapers, blogs, fringe publications, etc.), i.e. the sorts of basic qualifications that one would expect to see in relation to other Wikipedia policies on sourcing, notability, etc.
• ::::::If any book review counts towards notability then pretty much every author ever published would qualify as notable for Wikipedia purposes - which I think we can agree cannot be correct.
• ::::::I feel to some extent that the fact that we are having this discussion on reviews demonstrates the lack of notability. E.g. for a genuinely notable author it wouldn't be necessary to consider this point because reviews in well known newspapers, magazines and periodicals would be available in abundance. Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::You seem to be adding a lot of Library Journal reviews to the page. Isn't that basically just another industry publication which mass produces reviews? Axad12 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::@Axad12: Personally, I consider LJ, PW, Kirkus, and Booklist to be 1) reliable and 2) independent. Given that they provide significant coverage of each book (not just a trivial mention), I argue that they confirm notability. Can you explain why you do not consider them to be reliable or independent? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::I didn't say that. It was Lamona who said, above, "All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING".
• :::::::::My opinion is that a review in a source which reviews everything, or almost everything, cannot possibly confer notability because, if it did, almost all authors who have ever had a book published would be notable by Wikipedia standards - which evidently cannot be true.
• :::::::::Or do you believe that every single author who has ever had a book or two reviewed in those sources is notable by Wikipedia standards? Axad12 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::@Axad12: I believe any "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a [...] collective body of work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is notable. My understanding is that means that any author who has had multiple books reviewed in reliable trade magazines is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Can you point to guidelines or past AfD discussions that claim otherwise? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::@Axad12: I found three additional book reviews through JSTOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::If you have so much time to spare, maybe try finding some sources for the content of the actual article, which is currently notably bereft of sources.
• :::::::::Do be aware, however, that the subject (or someone very close to him) has been extensively COI editing the article under 3 accounts since it was set up 8 years ago, and even he was apparently unable to find sourcing for half of the material in the present article.
• :::::::::Good luck!
• :::::::::(P.S.: This is why 'draftify' is a very serious proposition.) Axad12 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::@Axad12: Given the above, three people have !voted to keep and one delete, though they have not further replied. Personally, I believe that if we draftified, this article would pass through AfC and be back in the main space, given that it has at least three reliable, independent sources. For a suitable alternative, I could move the article to something like Jon M. Sweeney bibliography if biographical information cannot be found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Well, at present it is 3:2 (rather than 3:1) in favour of Keep because, you also need to including my Delete vote as nominator. However, 2 of the 5 voters would also accept Draftify - so I would say that it is fairly close at present and the AfD really needs extra eyes on it rather than more comments from you and I.
• :::::::::::I brought the AfD mainly on the strength of comments on the article talk page and a feeling that the extreme WP:PROMO nature of the article a few weeks ago indicated that there were potential issues over notability.
• :::::::::::We've covered some issues above and I think that has been very useful, but I really think what is needed now is more eyes.
• :::::::::::With regard to your idea above (J.M.Sw bibliography) I would say that that would be fine as it would prevent the article from becoming clogged up again with huge amounts of COI fluff, which will be the very likely result if the result of this AfD is Keep.
• :::::::::::Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts above. Axad12 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: as nominator. Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

your nomination statement counts as your delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as passes WP:AUTHOR due to multiple reviews including academic coverage on JSTOR. Anything unsourced can be removed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

{{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.