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. WP:SNOW. There's a clear consensus that the subject is notable and an article is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Looking at it it does need some work, but that's normal editing. Kudos to the article creator/nom for being bold and willing to take the lumps from the slings and arrows of outraged AfDers with his article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Tracy (professor)[edit]

James Tracy (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is an advisory listing. I created this article and I think it ought to exist. However, let's get the question decided now before other people put more work into this, and so we can decide if "James Tracy" ought to be a disambiguation page or not. (In all likelihood people are searching the Wikipedia for info on this guy right now since he's in the news.)

There's two cases against this article existing. One being that he's not notable per WP:BIO. I think there's fairly extensive coverage of him that goes into a bit a depth about who he is (not personally, but professionally) in various notable newspapers etc.

Another case against is WP:BLP1E. But, his (in-proccess) firing is not the only event for which he's notable; for instance he's covered in HuffPost for his views on the Boston Marathon bombing; he's been around awhile and has been covered for awhile, granted at a pretty low level of interest (but not nothing). Of course, when the action against him ends -- either by his being fired or being retained -- there will be another flurry of news about him.

Keep, as nom. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the thing is, what drove me to write the article, if we don't have an article on this dude, we have a little bit of a problem with the currently existing article James Tracy. For right now, I added {{For|the Sandy Hook truther|James Tracy (professor)}} to the top. After all, that James Tracy is quite obscure and James Tracy (rugby union) even more so, so 90%+ of people coming to James Tracy are looking for the professor, certainly at the current time. What are we going to tell them? "For the Sandy Hook truther, see.... er, we don't have that article"? (The article previously had a note "He is not related to the James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University who rose to fame disputing the official story of the Sandy Hook Massacre" as the second sentence of the lede, which is very unsatisfactory IMO.) Let's face the fact that this guy is semi-famous. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos for nominating your own article to AfD. That's a new one. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be rare but not unheard of. I've done it a couple other times. AfD is not supposed to be adversarial but consultative (although there is also plenty of value in the give-and-take of advocacy and counter-advocacy). I take it you don't have a vote on the merits of the issue? Herostratus (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as meeting WP:GNG. I thought about creating this myself yesterday, he's been floating around since Sandy Hook and it the subject of another round of attention. If the obscure James Tracy should exist, let's make that page a disamb. page and move him to something like James Tracy (political activist), that will shield him better. If the Sandy Hook James Tracy article is deemed unwarranted, it should be redirected to a subsection of an article discussing his harebrained lunacy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- brave choice to nominate@Herostratus:; it may be close to a BLP1E, but the information is notable, separate from the event coverage, well sourced, and does not merit more than a quick link in the main Sandy Hook article, but should be kept here. I'm fine with the move to Political Theorist; and think that the main James Tracy link should probably be a disambiguation page. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Headlines spanning roughly three years meets the "sustained coverage" test of WP:PERP and is enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just read two articles about him this morning before I got online. The extended period of coverage and the number of sources put him well past the minimum notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note -- since a Keep seems likely ("score" is 5-0 at this point, not even the nominator wants it deleted) and since he's in the news so a lot of people are probably looking here for info on him right now (not that we have much), I went ahead and recast James Tracy as a disambig. If the article is deleted, this can be undone. Herostratus (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure, keep, what the hell note. THIS Tracy is James F. Tracy, article should be moved to this name. GangofOne (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The controversy over this man's beliefs has just reached the national level. I myself sought information about him here on Wikipedia, hoping that in the footnotes of the article I might find more sources: and that is exactly what happened. Thus this article serves a useful purpose, and is justified. Chillowack (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2015 (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.