Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Dallas

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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dallas[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe theorist without significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:BIO. Article is full of self-published sources promoting "ex-gay therapy," but there's nothing to replace them with because no reliable sources care about this guy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Christian Post seems an RS on first blush. Can you comment on how you've attempted to find sources WP:BEFORE, and what you've accomplished? Would you be willing to see this merged to Ex-gay movement if we do determine that he lacks sufficient notability? Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does indeed seem like "the opposition" takes him seriously enough: Truth Wins Out comments on him. I don't see any Google News sources on him on a quick search, though. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - TWO wouldn't be considered RS, though; likewise the Christian Post article promoting "ex-gay" theories is a poor source. We need sources that aren't jumping on this guy to advocate for one side or another, ie. who are covering him because he is notable rather than to further their own agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, TWO's an acceptable source for what they think about Dallas per WP:SELFPUB. For many marginally notable people like Dallas, the fact that he's been noted by his opponents is a mark in favor of his notability. The religious orientation of RS'es is not a relevant factor, but I agree that we don't have multiple RS covering him as of yet. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree that being mentioned by the opposition counts as notability, but it's a fair argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at his Google Scholar link above, he's cited in a number of places, but none of them jump out at me as peer reviewed on first pass. On the other hand, Google Books shows him quoted in books on Christianity and homosexuality published by Zondervan, InterVarsity Press, and College Press, which are all major publishers of Christian thought. Unsurprisingly, he's also mentioned in many other products from Harvest House who seem to be his primary publisher--although given that they're not a vanity press, I'm not sure how much that matters. I'm leaning towards keeping this as a separate article rather than merging it. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The College Press source is by Joe Dallas, not about him; it's not independent and cannot be used to attest notability. Likewise, the Harvest House mentions appear to be ads for "other books we publish," not coverage. The Zondervan and InterVarsity mentions are trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and say Keep, with an alternative to merge to Ex-gay movement if we decide he's not sufficiently notable. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flies past WP:BASIC. Quick Google search shows: Local actions: cultural activism, power, and public life in America [1] [2], CBN [3], the debate between Dallas and Soulforce's Cindy Love was covered by numerous sources including Baptist Press [4], and also this [5]

"Homosexuality in the church" is the author biography for Dallas's own piece in that book, not independent coverage; "Local Actions" is trivial (you also linked it twice - hope you're not just trying to make it look like you have more sources); CBN and SBC Press are fringe/promotional. Got any real sources that provide significant coverage? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local Actions... is not trivial as the 2nd link indicates. CBN is biographical, and WP:RS. How can Baptist Press be promotional? To the contrary it accurately and fairly presents Love's views, Love being Dallas' ideological opposite. Article has substantial coverage.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For better or worse, Joe Dallas has played a significant role in shaping the evangelical Christian discourse surrounding homosexuality, and is frequently cited by other conservative writers on the topic. Examples include: Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality (Winchester, Virginia: Oakhill Press, 2006, ISBN 1-886939-47-0), page 196; Mike Haley, 101 Frequently Asked Questions about Homosexuality (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishing, 2004, ISBN 0-7369-1470-6), pages 31, 72, 91, 151, 186, 205, 219; Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991, ISBN 0-87668-545-9), page 97; Chad W. Thompson, Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would: A Fresh Christian Approach (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2004, ISBN 1-58743-121-1), pages 10, 34, 69, 143, 149. Given his prominence in shaping the debate, it would be a shame to not have an article about him for reference purposes. Arkivarius talk 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all questionably reliable, given their promotional nature, and most are trivial anyway; the cite count itself isn't substantial enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. You seem to be suggesting that mentions in "ex-gay" tracts are sufficient, but that's exactly the kind of walled-garden approach that others have commented on with regard to these articles on fringe movements. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guidelines for notability based solely on local sources are relevant here as an analogy: if the subject gets significant coverage only in local papers (~ media promoting the "ex-gay" theory, like the books you cited, CBN, Zondervan), then it is not notable enough for an encyclopedia that covers the whole world. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also ran a search [6] on JSTOR and was able to locate two scholarly articles that appear to address Joe Dallas’ ideas – Lynne Gerber, “The Opposite of Gay: Nature, Creation, and Queerish Ex-Gay Experiments” [7], Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 11 (May 2008): 8-30; and Christy M. Ponticelli, “Crafting Stories of Sexual Identity Reconstruction” [8], Social Psychology Quarterly 62 (1999): 157-172. Judging from the abstracts, both of these sources appear to take a neutral position on the ex-gay movement, although since I don’t have a JSTOR subscription, I don’t know what exactly they’re saying about him; they might furnish material for a section on “Criticism of Joe Dallas.” Either way, the fact that he’s mentioned in academic literature should weigh in favor of considering his ideas and the discourse of which he forms a part notable. I feel a better solution than deleting the article would be to edit it for NPOV and improve the sourcing to place his writings in context. Arkivarius talk 04:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do have JSTOR access, and the mentions of Dallas, just like the mentions in other reliable sources, are too trivial to attest notability. (Brief quoting; the second one has two hits for his name and one is to say that someone else it talks about is Joe Dallas's wife!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 24 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.