Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Feilberg

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. Notability has been established, and that is stated even by those calling for deletion. Concerns about the quality of the article are best met by editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Feilberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fundamentally flawed article, sole content contributor is Robert Ørsted-Jensen[1][2] and is the author of the major sources used, noting that other reference cited in the article are for quotes only. Personaly I think this is a candidate for a WP:CSD#G11 which is for Unambiguous advertising or promotion, though I know that would be controversial hence this AFD. The Author Robert Ørsted-Jensen is only one of a handful people who write about the controvercial subject Australian frontier wars given that this article is written by one person based solely on his work the article couldnt be concievably written in accordance within the requirements of a neutral point of view. Carl Freilberg probably is notable as the incidental quotes indicate that he was a recognised individual associated with what is now referred to as Australian frontier wars, but an article written solely by someone with a clear WP:COI should be deleted and recreated from fresh by editors without any COI and rely on multiple sources. Gnangarra 07:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnangarra 07:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sole contributor advised[3] Gnangarra 07:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. While Feilberg appears to be notable, this article would need to be re-written from scratch as it's basically an essay at the moment. The alternative is to chop it back to a short stub. It's worth noting that Mr Ørsted-Jensen identifies Feilberg as being the most important influence on him opening section of his book Frontier History Revisited, and this appears to have significantly influenced the article's tone and content. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Another main source for this is Henry Reynolds chapter 6 in his 'This Whispering In Our Hearts'. Do you wish to burn that book too Nick? Also, this article, it will be noted is not at all based on the book 'Frontier History Revisited' - it is in fact based on a much larger study and part of the primary evidence is a pamphlet cited and redirected to on this very page. Why not red that pamphlet and then Reynolds bookHelsned 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This article here is based on multiple sources and it is not just one persons work. However, there would be nothing wrong if it was! Every single article written for the Australian Dictionary of Biography is written in the exact same way, by one person and usually based on this person having conducted a study - all exactly as in the case here. The only difference is that the ADB frequently presents the reader with less sources and no notes. Here you have multible sources and many notes. You are both clearly way out of line! Helsned 05:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason we are here is because it was primarly written from one source, to quote from the article Ørsted-Jensen, R.; The Right to Live: The Politics of Race and the Troubled Conscience of an Australian Journalist, main reference(emphasis added). The editor who wrote the article is also the author of that source and that the author is noted for being at one extreme in the debate over Australian frontier wars, under such circumstances the whole article is questionable. Initially this article was based on the unpublished work The Right to Live by Ørsted-Jensen the source was published after the article was written that violates WP:NOT specifically WP:FORUM Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information Gnangarra 11:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article is based on a doctorate which is already in part published and eventually is going to be fully released for everyone to read and criticise. The entire idea that any single scholarly work is equivalent to just ‘one source’ is completely nonsensical. It rather put on deeply regrettable public display a level of profoundly disturbing ignorance as to what scholarly work is. No single biographical work rest on only one source, and multiple sources are clearly stated in this case here. That a 'main reference' is noted is only natural when, as in the case here, only one larger biography/monograph exists. Is this unusual or abnormal? No it is in fact the most common scenario! Only very few people in this world have multiple biographies written dealing with their life and achievements. A brief biography based on one single monograph is, indeed, best case scenario, most similar biographical notes are based solely on a few obituary notes and similar. One main reference simply means one larger biography/monograph has been collected, this always from multiple sources, it is not possible any other way. There are no marked difference between the composition and style of this article and billions of similar articles printed in encyclopaedias available to the general public. In fact, most of them are far worse of, many are build on only one obituary a few documents added a bit of genealogy. I would roughly estimate that up to 80 percent or more of the articles written for the great Australian Dictionary of Biography are based on one or perhaps two obituaries and letters added a bit of genealogy and a few citations from contemporary public records. In comparison, this article here is indeed way above standard and by far better notated and bibliographed. Let me provide just one example: Helsned 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

note as stated above This article is based on a doctorate which is already in part published and eventually is going to be fully released for everyone to read and criticise wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, WP:RS Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, even the editor admits that the article is base on his own unpublished work, how can our readers verify the content if its unpublished, not to mention WP:NPOV, WP:COI & WP:SELFCITE . Gnangarra 14:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well gnanarra - if this was the only source - but it is not - a whole range of other sources of which all of the most notable are listed for anyone to see and read. Besides were you to delete all articles based on unpublished doctorates, you would be very busy indeed, we would have to produce some gigantic bonfires Helsned 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• RB Joyce article in the ADB of the politician Samuel Walker Griffith (no doubt some here have heard about the Samuel Griffith society – well here he is). It has (as all ADB articles) no notes at all, and it rest solely on one single monograph and a few articles – all of which were also authored by - guess who? – Joyce himself! Does that mean that it is just ‘one source’. No, it does not, because Joyce, as all other good historians has written his book based on numerous sources and articles written by numerous people. This is certainly also the case with the article here.Helsned 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Gnangarra’s entirely unfounded remark about being ‘extreme’ (I am not and have never been extreme on anything in life) relates to an ongoing debate in an entirely different article. A debate in which the author did the right thing, which is, citing the very latest scholarly work done by one of the most notable Queensland historians in this particular field, Dr Raymond Evans, and adding as further evidence another highly praised recent book by Orsted-Jensen, released only last month. Gnangarra’s remark rather provide us with some documentation what all this really is about - indeed it increasing look like – a politically motivated witch hunt against views which is universally accepted by all Australian historians of note who are experts in this particular field. What Gnangarra classify as a 'handful of people' represents in fact the views of over 90% of academics who have some in depth scholarly knowledge in this field. Helsned 10:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This is supposed to be a test of whether an article subject meets notability guidelines. This subject clearly does. Everything else is a content dispute, which is in this case clearly overblown. Of course scholars with specialist knowledge are going to make use of their work when they are adapting information to Wikpedia. This is not "self-promotion," this is common sense. Whatever content shortcomings there are with this piece is a matter for the normal editing process, not AfD. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not solely about notability guidelines, it also about the other poicies and community standards Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, this article is all of those. Gnangarra 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite. --99of9 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a content dispute, its question of an article being primarily sourced on what was an unpublished work, written by the autor of that work...clearly its a WP:CSD#G11 but obviously as demonstrated its nomination is controvercial. Gnangarra 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the details as coming from Nick and gnangarra - there is a lot to wade through - it might feel like a notability issue to some, however the issues are clear regardless of the claims in the keep department - it needs to be either deleted or re-written so as to answer the issues raised by nick and gnangarra.SatuSuro 13:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Controvercial says gnangarra! Well it is impossible not to take some note of the fact that immediately following me reversing the changes to the Aboriginal death toll in the article ‘Australian frontier War’ made by an ardent Australian military and war memorial interested writer, who had with a stroke reduced an estimate he did not like - from 24.000 to - 1.500 (did anyone use the word ‘extreme’)? An act he performed without changing or replacing the notated source to this very figure: which is a properly cited estimate of 24.000 killed by the native police in Queensland alone. Not a figure invented or made up by me, or my colleague Orsted-Jensen, but a figure which appears in a lengthy new study by Dr Raymond Evans. One of the most respected and widely published historians in Queensland, we should take some note, and published by a reputed publishing university house. A study which contains the first ever properly calculated statistical survey on a section of actual Native Police files held in Queensland State Archives. Now – guess what – certainly we see the entire war-memorial obsessed community mobilized and taking a deep interest in other articles authored by me, and eventually putting one on the delete list – a well sources and notated article for which I am one of the main contributors. Ohh – what a coincidence this is?!Helsned 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that using WP:AFD pages (where it should be simply addressing the criteria for delete or keep) - leaving large amounts of text which are peripheral to the basic vote - including usage of weasel terminology - is making this AFD a soapbox - WP:SOAPBOX SatuSuro 13:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If a POV is not obvious, and the article is well-sourced and well-written, it's a keep. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (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.