Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Weems

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:Re-opened per request. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

: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 Keep as per consensus and the absence (after two weeks) of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Samuel Weems]]=

:{{la|Samuel Weems}} ([{{fullurl:Samuel Weems|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Weems}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Please see the related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State‎ for his book. Considering that the book does not appear notable, there is not much of a claim to notability here. The disbarment mentioned was not covered in the media, and the sources are just the court records themselves. There is also no significant media coverage of his work, besides a couple of obituaries in Turkish news and other passing references. He just seems to be mentioned by either pro-Turkish or pro-Armenian niche blogs or interest groups, mostly for his book. Dominic·t 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weems is a denier of the Armenian Genocide. This man is widely read in Turkey and in Turkish, where readers are told that he was an American JUDGE and where a government ministry promotes his work as valid history. I recently found a footnote to his work in a paper on Christian terrorism written by a student at an American university. I think Wikipedia can play a role here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep if his book was widely read and commented on in Turkey. The turks.us anf tukish.times sites are a start, but It would be much better to have something more. As for the disbarment, it would help to have some secondary sources also. This is controversial negative territory, though no longer BLP, and the sourcing should be as solid as possible.DGG (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are you saying "keep if..."? If I had any evidence that the book was widely read and commented on, I might want to keep it too, but I don't. Do you? In fact, the book appears to have been self-published. The publisher, St. John Press, no longer has a website, and the Internet Archive shows that its former website was devoted solely to Weems and his one book, which is all it ever published. [http://web.archive.org/web/20031014115442/www.stjohnpress.com/] Dominic·t 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, [http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?q=%22Samuel+Weems%22+armenia news] + [http://books.google.com.au/books?q=%22Samuel+Weems%22+armenia books]. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain what those actually demonstrate? You have two news articles; one is a trivial passing mention, and a single article on his book from what doesn't appear to be a major Turkish newspaper (?). At Google Books, you have a couple of book reviews and a couple more passing references. This is, after all, a biography, and you haven't linked to any secondary sources that discuss Samuel Weems as a topic; I don't see how it's even possible to create a biography without original research. Dominic·t 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I think there is sufficient coverage in the two main references used as sources in the article to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (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.