Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Gray

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 WP:CSD#G7 per primary author Yosesphdaviyd's request. – Athaenara ✉ 04:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Gray

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

Apparent autobiographical article about an author/blogger of questionable notability. Article is largely referenced to primary or non-independent sources. Majority of books are self-published. Other than his conviction for theft, no real claims of notability, Google search shows no significant coverage, just simple listings of the books and/or social media sites. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to let this sit until my post on WP:N was resolved, but as I have been beaten to it, I would state (as with the Walkes article) that fraternal accomplishments by themselves are not enough to meet WP's notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (basis Article claims coverage in reliable sources) (also this is a false complaint issued by colluding persons seeming to collude and who are not experts and seem to have a personal vendetta)

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANTS 1. Obviously it is not a person who ONLY has Masonic Accomplishment, unless you didn't read it.2. Look at the statistic for Gray - he gets much traffic as other CATHOLIC Apologist, such as --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Akin --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Madrid--- and etc.3. Only one book is self published - stop making false statements.4. Just a search of David Gray Freemason or David Gray Catholic proves how notable he is - television, radio, books. 5. The References provided in this article substantiate every FALSE claim of advertising, autobiographical, original research, and self published sources, and lastly

Therefore, being that this person doesn't not have ONLY masonic accomplishments - MSJapan issue is resolved. As for MikeWaz - if you delete Gray then you have to Delete all the Other Catholic Apologist, who I modeled his article after. And again, if he wasn't as notable as the other Catholic Apologist then he wouldn't get more or as much traffic as they do. I'm an expert in Prince Hall Freemasonry - I know who is notable and who is not - Gray and Walkes are notable.--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Just because article X is deleted, it does not follow that articles Y and Z on similar topics should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per David L. Gray's "About Me" page, "In 2007 he was moved by the Spirit of God to take the new spiritual name 'Yoseph Miryam Daviyd'". Accordingly, it would appear User:Yosesphdaviyd has a conflict of interest with this subject. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing that comment: it looks like there was a COI noticeboard report filed, and the determination was that the user is not related. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred - No I think you are wrong. It does logically follow that if one person is deleted then all other perosns of equal or less notability, using equal google search standards, must also be deleted - otherwise it is prejudice. Next you must can't read very well - my handle is yosesphdaviyd - NOT yosephdaviyd or yosephmiryamdaviyd - moreover that issue has already been resolved. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:OTHERSTUFF is part of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, there is no requirement in Wikipedia policy to delete other related articles. Each article would, of course, be subject to nomination for deletion and consideration on its own merits, but there is no "precedence" to be gained from this deletion for that discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep without prejudice. Yosesphdaviyd does not present any compelling reasons based on Wikipedia's notability policy to keep the article. However, I do not think the nomination presents a compelling argument to delete the article. I recommend some time be given for expansion of the article and adding independent reliable sources. If, after a month or two, the article isn't significantly improved—if his notability is still in question or the article is still not well stocked with secondary sources—then let's bring it back to AfD. (Note: "without prejudice" is used in the legal meaning of the term; my intention is that if the outcome is keep, the outcome not be a bar to a re-nomination of the article a month or two down the road.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I don't have any issue with that finding, as according to the Wikipedia's notability policy, this person seems to 1. Ongoing Coverage (therefore not temporary) 2. Preexisting Verifiable Evidence (way more references used in this article than many I have seen for persons of this degree of notability) 3. References such as Masonic Awards and Trial that are independent of the subject, and 4. Clearly not a self-promotion. If this article is judge (not that it has to be) along with other Catholic Apologist then there is no reason why it should not stay. Thanks for fair treatment of a newbie on this one --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ongoing coverage? Where? His own website doesn't count. 2. Yeah, he did stuff, but there's no assertion of notability - Gray is not the only Freemason, or only Catholic apologist. Why is he notable? 3. Masonic awards do not meet GNG, they are secondary. Otherwise every "office worker by day and Grand Lodge officer at night" would have an article, and they don't and will not. Lastly, articles are not judged comparatively; they are judged on objective community criteria. From your statements here, you apparently do not understand how the deletion process works either. MSJapan (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Yosesphdaviyd has accused me of making false statements in regards to the majority of Gray's books being self-published, let's look at the facts. According to the article, The Unveiling of the Third Preparation is listed as self-published. Dead on Arrival: The Seven Fatal Errors of Sola-Scriptura is published through CreateSpace - i.e., it's self-published. Cooperating with God: Life with the Cross and Cooperating with God: The Bridegroom's Prayer were both published by an outfit called Erehmai Uoyevoli, whose website (now defunct) was Erehmai.com. Guess what? That was registered to David Gray at yosephdaviyd@gmail.com - obviously the same person as the subject of the article, so those two titles were also self published. Inside Prince Hall (listed twice in the article, but it appears to be only one book) was published by Anchor Communications, which is a publishing company that specializes in Masonic works. They appear to be a paid by the author/print-on-demand company, but let's give him this one as possibly not self-published. So, out of five titles, four are self-published. This is objectively a majority, therefore my original statement is categorically true, and not a false statement, as Yosesphdaviyd claims. So, Yosesphdaviyd - care to apologize? MikeWazowski (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MSJapan You seem to be making up your own rules for notability or focusing solely on the sub-set, as if you are the God of Freemasonry on Wiki - determining who is in and who is out. Here are the real rules:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4]"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.The foundation of notability rest in significant coverage and I have established that. The sources I cited were reliable. The sources I cited were secondary. Over 10 of the sources I cited were independent. Altogether notability can be a subjective issue on Wiki.

Response to MikeWazowski - You should to better research, Inside Prince Hall was published in both the USA and Australia (Anchor in the USA and ANZMRC down-under), and though they bear the same title are two different books. Clearly the company that published his two latest books doesn't have a web presence, but by virtue of him registering a domain name for it or even owning a publishing company doesn't mean it's self published. Granted, I do see your point, but your logic fails to create a solid case, and I don't live in assumption land - 'prove it or shut up' is my motto. With your case it is all circumstantial on the last two books, fails altogether on Anchor being a pay to print firm (they are NOT), and fails again on Inside Prince Hall being published once. Therefore, being that the statements you stand on are warm marshmallows no reason to apologize yet :) God Bless --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiiight - you just keep telling yourself that, David... I'll let the evidence (which I provided documented proof for) speak for itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person's current position and his former jobs do not rise to the level of notability. Books are self-published, or not published by notable/reputable outfits. The editorial positions are for minor publications within the masonic organization, there are no reviews of the books, and the only reliable bit of information is the court case--but that is primary, legal information, which we don't allow in BLPs. None of the biographical information that the subject deems important to his career right now are properly referenced--in short, this is a resume-style BLP for a non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked for evidence of notability in the article and couldn't find it - not in the books published, not in his criminal record, not in his blogging and not in his media interviews. St Anselm (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, apparently autobiographical article from a limited-purpose account which has been abandoned by the editor.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (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.