Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination)

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. Snow closure (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Smelcer

[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)

Besides rationales explored in the first AfD, what we have here is a dilema between two things. On one side, we havea bio that fiails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:ARTIST etc, because his published works have failed to gain sufficient notoriety and have not been established to be significant according to reliable sources. On the other hand, (remainder of nomination statement removed per WP:BLP. Do not restore similar wording. A rewording that scrupulously follows BLP would be OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)). Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't agree that we need to take the subject's confusion or embarrassment into account when deciding on articles, nor do we need to establish criminality, nor do we need the perpetrators of Literary hoaxes to be notable beyond the hoax (see Nasdijj, Margaret Seltzer, Danny Santiago, etc). Your allegation that Smelcer is mentally ill is completely without foundation. The stuff covered in the earlier article regarding his fraudulent claims in academia[1], which I have not replaced as yet, was also covered in serious publications at the time and subsequently. Debbie Reese, the most respected voice in studies of American Indian children's literatures, describes the discussions around Smelcer in the community as "voluminous"[2]. Reese also states on that page that his work has been assigned by teachers and librarians, which is not insignificant. He meets WP:AUTHOR in that his work has been covered in multiple notable publications and nominated for a PEN award among others.Vizjim (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't quite see the crime angle here (saying/writing things that aren't true isn't necessarily a crime). Last AfD was in 2011 and sourcing then may have been different. In a quick BEFORE now, I found in-depth profiles in: Guardian, LA Times, Jezebel, Star Tribune, and The stranger. At the very least Stealing Indians (the book causing this latest round of coverage) is notable - but it seems Smelcer's exploits are covered more widely than just the book, and that he meets WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs work, but the sources exist to support a good article [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely passes WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO.--PATH SLOPU 13:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have BOLDly removed the listing: crimes for deletion. This is a BLP and no evidence has been found or presented that this man has committed or been charged with a crime. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am none to happy with some of the sourcing, but international recognition seems to be good enough. I do however have concern over the fact that (arguably) what he is most noted for (the claim, and rejection, of American Indian heritage) is largely ignored.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree and will try to put more into the article on this issue. But wording it is devilishly tricky. Vizjim (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a published author, per Google Books. If we deleted articles because the subject of a bio embellished their personal history, Wikipedia would somewhat streamlined from what it is today. Among others who claim to have been Native Americans, whose claims are questionable, include Johnny Depp Ancestry and Iron Eyes Cody. So, what? — Maile (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG: his life, and his work, has been discussed to a sufficient depth in reliable sources. --Jayron 32 16:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sufficient depth"? I viewed an article that's very heavy on formatting puffery and very short on substance. Especially substance when it comes to biographical details as opposed to contrived controversies. This is supposed to be a biography and not a soapbox, isn't it? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to vote how you like. We'll see how consensus goes when the discussion closes. --Jayron 32 11:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person clearly meets the GNG, and the cited sources contain plenty of biographical details about his adoption, childhood, tribal affiliations, education and lengthy career. We do not delete articles about notable people because they are controversial and widely criticized. Instead, we monitor such articles for neutrality and compliance with BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Smerlcer's Native American heritage is a different issue than some recognize. If ethnicity is cultural as it is, than having an adopted parent in a culture would make one part of it. This clearly works for some, since Smelcer is a registered member of a Native American group. This is not a baseless claim with no grounding in cultral fact as is Elizabeth Warren's claim of being a Cherokee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Smelcer's heritage is tricky. Legally he is Ahtna, and one village has confirmed he is enrolled. Culturally... well, on the one hand, his own adoptive father seems to have given at least one phone interview stating that his son was not brought up in the culture. On the other hand, his father and he are estranged so his father may be motivated to put this in doubt. And certainly he has said many times that he is one of the last living speakers of Ahtna, but that should probably be put under the same microscope as any of his other claims. What's undoubted is that he is rejected by the vast majority of his peers (though few Ahtna voices have been quoted in the various articles on this topic). The wording of the article attempts to do justice to this complexity.Vizjim (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Smelcer is controversial he is still notable. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2019 (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.