Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Coplon

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Coplon

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

WP:BLP1E applies. See the discussion here for details. The subject is only "notable" (if it's even true) for one article he wrote in 1988 about Ukraine. Half of the current article is based on this single event (it was even more in the past). This page will inevitably be an attack page or a magnet for POV-pushers in this situation. The controversy can be better discussed in an article, perhaps Historiography of the Cold War which focuses on the dispute, not personalities. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BLP1E at best. The article has been treated as a COATRACK since its inception. While it is still unclear as to where any content surrounding the debated article belongs (or even whether it is genuinely DUE or not), there is no value in retaining a BLP for an author not notable unto himself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the source document's been deleted too - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Iryna Harpy. This article falls short of even WP:BLP1E, in my opinion. I've looked for secondary sources on Coplon's full time activities (sports and memoir ghost-writing) and found nothing. Iryna and Kingsidian also make a persuasive pragmatic case for deletion: removing the launching pad for pov-pushing in this and other articles. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Comment. Some time ago, I was looking for any RS about this person, but found only a few of them related to the controversy about his publication in Village Voice (now included on the page). So, yes, he is not very notable. However, after looking at his own publications and publications about him, I would be inclined to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, My very best wishes, in that his article "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55 Year Old Famine Feeds the Right" has been cited by notable historians working in the area of Eastern Europe during the Soviet period, revisionism regarding Stalin's role in events defined as atrocities, and the scope of Russian imperialist intent as evaluated and defined in scholarly works. Nevertheless, I don't believe Coplon to be a key player in academic discourse. As has been pointed out by other editors, the evaluation lies with the arguments of recognised historians, whatever their position is on the complexities of any given event, and belongs in an article relevant to that discourse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree because his views have been dismissed by reputable historians as nonsense. This does not really add notability. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notabel American journalist known only for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2016 (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.