Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Hamilton-Parker

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. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hamilton-Parker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Talk. Not notable. RobP (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator per my comment on the talk page: The Australian and the Guardian are both quite confidently RS. I strongly doubt the HuffPo piece is a press release, considering it's tearing him apart. The Independent and Esquire are both falling for him, which, you know, is what it is, but are high-profile enough that if they're falling for him it's worth noting. He's also had a few different TV shows/specials on respectable/'respectable' channels, so someone is apparently paying attention to him. Vaticidalprophet 22:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Talk - a few of the current sources would be fine ... IF ... there were other sources that proved notability first. Sgerbic (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...the ones right there? We've got 'high-profile newspapers that think he's actually got a leg to stand on', 'high-profile and mostly less tabloidy newspapers that are damn well sure he doesn't', 'confirmation guy had a show that was a big/controversial deal' (I suspect this may be lost in the cultural barrier between America and the UK, in that it's probably easy for an American not to realize that someone claiming/pretending to have talked to the ghost of Princess Diana is basically going to draw half the Commonwealth's attention), and 'confirmation guy had a different show with the BBC, albeit not exactly the most prominent bit of it'. Pretty clear GNG pass. I suspect the cultural barrier is proving an issue here with regards to the sourcing, as many of the RSes aren't household names in the US. Vaticidalprophet 22:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rp2006 has just, in violation of WP:V, removed several sources from the article for being paywalled or not in English, so checking the article at this time would give the impression of fewer sources than it has. Vaticidalprophet 03:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your interpretation of WP:V, as stated on Talk. There is no reason for the author to not use accessible sources in thsi case if possible. RobP (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as stated on talk, your interpretation of WP:V goes against every consistent interpretation of it throughout more or less all of the project's history, not to mention would throw the article out of NPOV by removing a source that describes how he changes his soi-disant predictions on the fly. Vaticidalprophet 03:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated on Talk... I just have to trust you on that being in the firewalled reference, I guess. RobP (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the references that the creator already mentioned, his Princess Diana seance made it to CNN, and a quick search through my university library found news articles from the Edmonton Journal and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, plus the guy was the subject of a 3-part BBC miniseries on psychics. It's harder to separate the wheat from the chaff, sure, but he does pass GNG. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 03:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Independent (article entirely about the subject), Esquire (short blurb, but all about him), Leicester Mercury (entirely about him), HuffPost (entirely about him), The Australian (non-trivial coverage), The Guardian (non-trivial coverage). His predictions appearing in the The Spectator and The Atlantic further contribute to his notability. Overall, there is more than enough coverage for GNG. — Goszei (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I may not like him, or psychics in general, but this guy clearly meets the threshold of notability: significant coverage in independent sources, as shown above. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 07:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nom seems to believe that what they are doing is helping Wikipedia. but I find it remarkable that an experienced WPedian would think that paywalled sources are not reliable sources, and even more remarkable that they should think removing such sources during an AfD is acceptable. We must write, carefully, about claimed psychics and the like in order for the public to have accurate NPOV information on them. I urge some other admit to join in a speedy close. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the sources, and Kncny11's analysis above, there are plenty of different RS's which are used in the article and contain non-trivial coverage. The nominator may be acting in good faith, but when WP:V states that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, this means some other person can verify the info. It does not have to be everyone, all the time, as is implied here. A source behind a paywall (which the nominator has erroneously called a "firewall") can still be verified easily by anyone with the ability to bypass the paywall, which depending on the website can easily be bypassed. As for sources in other languages, I don't see why they can't be allowed if that is the most authoritative reliable source for the information, and no English variant exists. Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I want to note here that Rp2006 does not appear to understand the words "when available" when he quotes WP:NOENG. I find this bizarre for a member of the 15 Year Club. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An addendum. On reviewing the talk page, I suspect Rp2006 does not understand WP:V whatsoever. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 00:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have trouted nominator. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has coverage on four continents, and I suspect if I did a deep search, there would be coverage in all of them. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 29 March 2021 (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.