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. The consensus of editors making arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability, notability, reliable sourcing, and biographies of living persons is clear: the quantity and quality of reliable secondary source coverage is insufficient to justify an article currently. — Scientizzle 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Zubaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I noticed this article because Mr. Zubaty himself has been busily creating links to it from other articles. When I read it, though, his chief claims to notability seem to be three self-published books and a podcast, and when I performed a google news search, I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources writing about his importance. In my opinion, there is not enough verifiable information currently available to write an article about this subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep But in MY opinion the books are well-researched and full of references. Other authors, many from academic backgrounds, are quoted at length. The point of Wikipedia is to BUILD an article step by step. As someone who had read some of Mr. Zubaty's books I vehemently DISAGREE that this article should be deleted. Indeed, it should be allowed to be expanded just like other articles. Wikipedia should NOT be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.226.223 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC) \[reply]
  • — 86.184.226.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This user, based on my recent interactions, is almost certainly Rich Zubaty- see my talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong: As a quick verification of IP addresses will show, not even a good author can be in two parts of the world at once. So much for FisherQueen’s judgement and so much for her opinions. I am NOT Rich Zubaty, but someone who has read his books. And someone who is trying contribute to Wikipedia but keeps having his additions removed by vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.144 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I'd love to expand this article, and started out by trying to do so. Wikipedia's rules only allow me to use information that doesn't come directly from Zubaty, though- I need to use information from neutral sources like newspapers and magazines, or books that have been written about him, not by him. I couldn't find even one source that I could use to expand the article. If you know of any, that's the best way to help the article, because we aren't allowed to keep information that isn't verified in sources like that, and in this article, removing the unsourced information leaves no article at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no references, not notable; N.B. IP clearly refuses to read the guidelines (forced reinsertion of inappropriate links, etc.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete. The link I put back is to a video summary of one of the author's listed books. The description that I took the trouble to write keeps being removed. Everything is entirely within the Wikipedia guidelines. To continually be removing these is childish vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.144 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only get to vote once, please. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was not a "vote". It was an expansion of my earlier comment. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.226.253 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find any reliable source to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminthorne (talk • contribs)

• DO NOT DELETE. I read Mr Zubaty's first book years ago and found it to be one of a very limited number of books I have read that had a significant impact on my own thinking. He is a free thinker and not tethered by the conventions of political correctness. I found this refreshing as I also found his ideas stimulating. Suggesting to delete his page here seems to make absolutely no sense to me. Unless different ideas that don't match with political correctness are a reason for deletion I can't think why someone would want to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmccull (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Jimmccull (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• DO NOT DELETE. Mr. Zubaty is a well known activist and author in the men's rights movement. To delete his page would be no different than deleting that of a similar feminist icon from the women's movement. Making any distinction between self published books and those published by more traditional methods is discriminatory, especially give the bias in publishing houses regarding men's rights literature.

Paul Elam Editor-in-Chief Men's News Daily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.191 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • — 98.201.88.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Has Men's News Daily ever written an article about him? Can you cite it specifically? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we have, though even if we hadn't it would not mean a lack of legitimacy in the MRM. There are other people who we have not covered. The point about Zubaty's work is that it has now spanned two decades and many in the MRM are familiar with and supportive of his works. Here is one article from 2005 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/07/06/112070087985226306/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.191 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And, as additional back up for my vote earlier, please note the following references: http://news.mensactivism.org/search/node/Zubaty and http://www.dadsontheair.net/shows/tag/political-correctness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.191 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Baehr Publisher, Menletter.org My newsletter, Menletter.org, contains a review of one of Rich Zubaty's books at http://menletter.org/articles/What Men Know That Women Don't.htm. His is a voice many may find irritating, and the content of his thoughts may not be universally accepted. I see these as no reason to delete his bio. Menletter is in its ninth year of publication. Menletter (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • — Menletter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Before FisherQueen comments on the link to the book review being broken, here it is again: http://menletter.org/articles/What%20Men%20Know%20That%20Women%20Don't.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.159.66 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks- I've added this review as a source in the article. That's one; the requirements call for 'multiple,' but we're on the right track now. You say that many don't like him- even reviews that don't like his book could still show that it's widely read and talked about, as long as they're in reliable, independent sources. The bar for notability does tend to be higher for self-published authors, but there are certainly other authors who self-publish that are notable- Dave Sim leaps to my mind. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sites with References to Author Rich Zubaty
  • http://forum.stirpes.net/english/24733-isnt-britain-we-fought-say-unknown-warriors-wwii.html
  • http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=23
  • http://www.fathersforlife.org/Table_contents_gj.htm
  • http://www.takeninhand.com/node/2173
  • http://www.angryharry.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.159.66 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 86.182.159.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Blogs aren't reliable sources, and neither are forums, which means the first, second, and fourth items on your list are out. I didn't see an article about Zubaty with any information at "fathersforlife," just a quote from one of his books. We could use that to verify that quote is in the book, if we needed to, but that's all I saw. I can't figure out what "angryharry" has to do with Zubaty, nor can I figure out whether it would be a reliable source- it looks like some guy's blog, not like a published newspaper or magazine or a significant source of information, and I didn't see anything about Zubaty- maybe I looked in the wrong place. Has he been interviewed in a real newspaper, or in a print magazine, or written about on a web site that isn't a blog? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Zubaty has requested that his page be deleted

I am not sure if this is significant, but a user claiming to be Zubaty has specifically requested that this page be deleted. His statement is as follows, "DELETE my page. I just had someone from Huffington Post link to my wiki page at which point I found out that all my links have been removed. Sabotage. I would rather people link directly to my web site. Rich Zubaty." Ebikeguy (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE. This is a transparent attempt at censorship. This is obvious by the attempt to belittle the man with the "self published" comment. It is ironic because Zubaty warns against suckling at the corporate teat in his books. He is a well known activist being persecuted by this scurrilous attack by an opponent. Here is a link to a search on a well known activist site with many references to him ** http://news.mensactivism.org/search/node/Zubaty

Quite frankly I find this attempt to censor Zubaty absurd. This is a feminist trying to censor a men's rights activist on the grounds that he has little presence in the corporate press - which is also a group that he opposes. Men's rights are largely ignored by the press, are we going to make Wikipedia also a means of suppressing things that are not deemed politically correct by feminists and the corporate world? Outrageous!! --Cathbard (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • — Cathbard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes, I wondered when one of you would start getting insulting with me personally. Looking at his web site, I figured that most of the people in this discussion would object to a female editor explaining the rules to them. If that's a problem, I certainly don't mind if you read the rules for yourself. I've linked them in this discussion already several times. I can't promise that no women were involved i writing them, but many men were involved; if I recall the last set of statistics correctly, there are more men than women editing Wikipedia, so you can read WP:BIO comfortable in the knowledge that they are at least mostly written by people with penises. Normally, people start getting insulting in these discussions when they've realized that the person they want to write about really doesn't meet the notability criteria; is that the position you're in? You can still write about him on your own web site, where you can make the rules yourself and don't have to let any women participate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pointing out that you are a self-professed feminist attacking a men's movement activist, not that you were just a woman. That gives you a vested interested in silencing people like Zubaty. It is you that is getting insulting (what a surprise!). He is a notable activist referred to regularly on the net even if the corporate press ignore him like they do with practically every aspect of the MRM. Your attempt at censorship is blatantly part of your feminist agenda and should be dismissed out of hand as such. --Cathbard (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I understand that you are blaming my identification of myself as a feminist, rather than your own inability to find reliable sources discussing a person you claim is notable. You are incorrect, but the only way to really test that is to provide two or three sources which unimpeachably meet the reliable sources guidelines, and then see if I try to "censor" you by removing them from the article or continuing to support deletion. I, too, am frequently discussed on the internet, but that does not mean I am a useful subject for an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry Fisher, but you seem to be making rules up as you go along. Rich Zubaty is an author. You have seen proof that he is an author. Now think reader for one minute. Someone hears about Rich Zubaty. So he wants to look him up. He tries out Wikipedia, but all he is able to see is the bare minimum that Ebikeguy allows him to see. This is censorship. Moreover, it is a very shabby treatment of an author. And as he differs substantially from someone with your worldview, you have a smoking gun in your hand -- at the right place at the right time pointing in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.217.197 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have given you several links within the MRM but apparently they don't count to your feminist-centric mind. He is notable within the movement as we have clearly demonstrated. Your objection to the movement itself (as your derogatory comments have clearly shown) does not make his notability any the less but does support my assertion that this is purely a feminist attack on the MRM and has nothing to do with the rules.--Cathbard (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rich Zubati is a well know within his field of writing. He is also am active painter and artist. I can not see why deleting this page would be justified. Wikipedia is a good place for people to come to find out about people who are not easy to investigate otherwise. I often come to Wikipedia to find out about obscure people and events. If you want to continue to provide this sevice then certainly I would not delete this page.

DO NOT DELETE Rich Zubatay is an independent thinker who deserves to be heard, not censored. So many voices like Rich's have been censored, mainly because they aren't mainstream. Well, many people are tired of mainstream. I cannot believe the lengths some people will go to muzzle the voices of people they don't agree with. His thoughts on the corporatization of America has been very enlightening, particularly in "Corporate Vampires". Are encourage everyone to check out his books on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/002-8815806-6782464?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Rich+Zubaty&Go.x=11&Go.y=12). But here is the bottom line: many other people have been published on Wikipedia for contributing much less than Rich Zubatay. Mandel17 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 66.241.4.20 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandel17 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • — Mandel17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • SO does that make my point any less valid? You seem to judge the content of arguments by the number of comments on Wikipedia. That is a blatant attempt to discredit. I would really like to know who is running Wikipedia. Mandel17 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandel17 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • See ((notavote)) (expanded above). And you should really read WP:NOTABILITY, MANY people have written books, papers, or published in different ways .. but that is not determining whether a page should be here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dirk, let's be honest - you are a Dutch chemist. How could you possibly know whether or not Rich Zubatay is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia? Because you have a computer? Or because you are familiar with Wikipedia's rules & regulations? You simply should not have the authority to make this decision. 66.241.4.20 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE or DO... Rich, it's just wikipedia. my two cents: i read rich's book 'what men know.." during the lowest point of my life, the great divorce fiasco of '03. i do not exaggerate when i say his book not only enlightened me and provided salve to my torment, his book significantly contributed to my sanity, reatining my personal freedom and eventual recovery from the court-societal humiliation and pillaging of a man. lastly, what is FisherQueen infering by her moniker? that she's the female version of mythical wounded king who's kindgom suffers as he does? in mythology or reality women can just swap out a feminine archetype for a male despite the fact that the myth's, or reality's, male hero is the essence to begin with? men have built our modern world, because they were men. women did not because they are not capable of, or they would have. later rich! suck it, wikipedia! unsigned —Preceding comment added by User:130.76.32.167 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT DELETE I have known Rich for over ten years and have appreciated his books, video's and podcasts. His #3 podcast is an absolute classic in MRM and a critical view of the past 40 years of American History. Rich is often quoted by other men's rights activists and is well respected in the movement. He's our Fisher King User:QIM —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. While it is clear that Mr. Zubaty must stop editing inappropriately, it seems equally clear that his is a noteworthy voice in the men's movement and that he is deserving of an article. The outpouring of endorsements on this page lead me to conclude that, while this article needs work, it should remain. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Has it occured to you that maybe this didn't just happen but rather they were asked to come here and comment? It seems fairly obvious to me that Mr. Zubaty has asked people that he feels are sympathetic to his agenda to come and comment here. I count at least six single purpose accounts with few or no other edits in this debate, it's pretty clear there has been some canvassing going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your points, I wish you hadn't been such a big meanie about expressing them. Or am I just being a manhole here?  ;) Ebikeguy (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it looks like someone edited his article per his previous suggestions on his talk page. It is now an non-encyclopedic pile of self-promotion. I don't want to get in an edit war, but I would like someone to edit it back to the last quasi-encyclopedic version and protect it pending the resolution of this silliness. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or it isn't canvassing but rather an indication of the man's popularity that people were so outraged by the proposed deletion that they created accounts purely to object to the plan. --Cathbard (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. How did the proposed deletion come to everyone's attention? I don't think it's been reported in the New York Times just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I have searched and searched, but I cannot find any evidence of real notability out there on the web. I am therefore changing my position on this issue.

• DO NOT DELETE. My argument for not deleting Mr. Zubaty's entry comes as a podcaster. Podcasting, by its very nature, is not intended for people who are already regarded as "notable" by cultural fiat, or media/academic manipulation. It is a powerful forum for real people with something significant to say, to say it, and they sink or swim based on their popularity. If they sink, they were not notable, if they swim, they are notable. I disagree with many things that Mr. Zubaty says, yet I regard his example as a strong influence on myself, other viewers of his work, and other podcasters. To say he is not notable in the podcasting world is naive, and incorrect. The size of the audience does not matter in podcasting. What matters is the IMPACT that a podcaster makes, and whether or not they endure despite having no corporate resources. To read so many words of support here, and then proceed to blow Zubaty off as irrelevant, is to challenge the significance of every member of his audience. How dare you! In my opinion, based on what I have seen, this is a veiled attempt to censor unpopular opinions. I try to take Wikipedia seriously, despite the fact that controversial topics and individuals are almost always edited to favor the more rabid side of the controversy. But moving to actually delete a controversial figure is unacceptable. It is tantamount to virtual assassination. In the context of what Rich Zubaty does, he is very significant, and even if I disagree with him I regard him are more notable than 95% of the individuals featured in mainstream media (including publishing houses; hence the significance of self-publishing), because the man demonstrates how to think for yourself. Those who wish to censor him only demonstrate the very problem that prevents so many people from thinking for themselves. Mr. Zubaty is a veteran podcaster, who has labored long and hard against terrible obstacles to establish his niche in the New Media without even the intent of developing an overwhelmingly large audience. That is significant, and that is notable. He has accomplished more than I have in this regard--and I teach podcasting to others! He deserves recognition for his many accomplishments, which never cease to impress me (again, even though I may disagree with his IDEAS). I remain unsigned because I see no point to "joining" a web information tool that is so easily manipulated by fanatics. This topic should never have been raised in the first place, especially under such a transparent pretense. I've lost respect for Wikipedia, to even have to waste my time stating the obvious here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.56.138 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • — 155.229.56.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• DO NOT DELETE This attempt at censorship apparently based on nothing but a personal dislike of Mr Zubatys veiws is abhorrent.

Mr Zubaty is widely read and on a personal note his writtings have influenced my thinking in a number of areas,his writing is clear his arguments well thought out and well referenced for source. If censorship like this is allowed to continue then wikipedia will have failed in its object to be an open source of information and beome the site of group think that so many accuse it of being. Mr Zubaty has written several books and articles,and the article about him as far as Ican tell is factually accurate,leave it alone!Peter318200 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • — Peter318200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

MORE LINKS

• http://news.mensactivism.org/node/1635
• http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/07/06/112070087985226306/
• http://menletter.org/articles/What%20Men%20Know%20That%20Women%20Don't.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.112.55 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 94.173.112.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

have any of you taken a gander at FisherQueen's wiki page thingy?! what a horror show. rich and co., screw this wiki crap. if people like FisherQueen (yes, i'm judging) are responsible for administering this site and it's content, why would you want to be associated with it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) get a load of this wiki-message: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes."[reply]

why i "came here" wiki is none of your damn business... majority vote? oh, i see, if the reason must meet some effing guideline to post on this stupid, nonsensical lesbian feminazi site. EFF YOU WIKIPEDIA! ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rick Zubati is well know in his field. Wikipedia is a valuable place for looking up people who are hard to find in other places. I often use Wikipedia to research people who would otherwise be impossible to locate. So I think entries like these are important and certainly should not de deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.91.193 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 92.1.91.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Note. It is clear that supporters of Zubaty have been discussing the proposed deletion among themselves, and encouraging fellow supporters to weigh in. This would not necessarily be a problem, but the vast majority of those supporters either do not understand the notability criteria, or do not understand the reliable source guidelines, or have not yet read those rules closely. I understand that many of you have a serious problem with being told the rules by a woman, so I beg you to read the rules for yourselves- no matter how many supporters say 'do not delete,' they will be ignored if they are not explaining how Zubaty meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, supporting their answers with legitimate sources. I've tried several times to draw people's attention to the rules, and met mainly with personal insults indicating that, because I am a lesbian and a feminist, I must be making the rules up as I go along, to harm Zubaty. I am both a lesbian and a feminist, but the rules have been in place for years, and I didn't even participate in writing them - they were in place long before I joined Wikipedia. The rules were written mostly by men, so you can trust that they are good and right. Please, please, please, read the rules for yourself, and understand them, before making your decision about whether this article can be kept. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Big Picture. But isn't this losing sight of the big picture? I want to read something about Rich Zubaty. I turn to the Wikipedia and I find next to nothing. Why? Because rules is rules, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.217.197 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big picture? If you want to read something about Rich Zubaty, and don't think Wikipedia's rules are important to that, you should go to his web site- there is information there. If you want to help Wikipedia have an article about him, though, you'll need to follow Wikipedia's rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this guy outside of reviews of his books on websites that have "men" in their domain names. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've done some searching, but I can't really find anything that isn't self-published or single-purpose promotional sites (but left at "weak" because I'm not certain on my assessment of said sites) -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even particularly notable within the bounds of his own movement. Most of the arguments seem to be made by people unable to accept the underlying precepts we work by here: notability, verifiability, NPOV, that sort of trivia. All of these, of course, are trumped by his possession of The Truth™ in its pure and shiny form. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE If Rich Zubaty isn't notable then how did you find this site? What makes this site worth attacking? My guess is that many of you are not simply trying to obey Wikipedia rules, but rather fulfill a personal agenda. His videos are excellent, his thoughts are very clear, and Rich Zubaty is definitely NOTABLE to me. Given the unofficial nature of this site it seems absurd to question whether Zubaty's publishing methods are "official". 66.171.241.105 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 66.171.241.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Response What specific part of the notability criteria does he meet? What reliable, independent sources confirm that? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE None of this NOTABILITY business is as cut and dried as Fisherqueen would have us believe. “A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.”

These are the wiki criterion for notability.

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

The Zubaty article has provided you three in-depth references by independent sources: two book reviews and one personal interview. Plus he's been on WGN radio twice, BBC TV, the Montel Williams TV show, and hundreds more electronic media shows. And then there are his hundred hours of podcasts and foreign media appearances, like Australian Broadcasting Company TV, CFRB Toronto and literally hundreds more, most of them pre-computer and pre-google, so you don't have any handy dandy references to those... do you? I read an in-depth article about him in about 1994 or 1995 in the Chicago Sun-Times and I cannot find that in a Sun-Times site search. I saw him on Chicago Tribune TV, CLTV, around the same time, and find nothing of that via google. Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Zubaty certainly meets this criterion.

Another criterion for notability is: "2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]"

You can see from the outpouring of support that Zubaty has made a recognized contribution to his field that has endured for 20 years. He has an international following despite the fact that he has been an anti-corporate crusader, particularly critical of corporate media. Have you NO idea what that means? That means academia and corporate media WON'T give him a platform. Just like Noam Chomsky. But Zubaty doesn't get by teaching linguistics at MIT to pay his bills. He advocates full time for men and against corporations and war.

Zubaty meets this criterion.

Then we have: Academics Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably INFLUENTIAL IN THE WORLD OF IDEAS without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Rich Zubaty is an original thinker who has brought new memes into play: Men are not the oppressors of women, women are not morally superior to men, men are better at relationships than women, women are more materialistic than men, and dozens more. He is NOTABLE as an ACADEMIC who did not bow to political correctness to hang onto his job. And he STILL has secondary sources to attest to his notability.

Zubaty clearly meets this criterion.

opinion makers: 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

That is clear from all the postings of support which represent a tiny slice of his readership. His books have been selling on amazon.com for ten years.

Zubaty meets this criterion too.

There is also a wiki criterion I ran across but cannot re-find that said just because someone is famous doesn’t mean they have done something. Zubaty is not famous. But he has done something. He is is notable for his original contributions to revealing the societal prejudices against a despised and demonized class of underlings – men.

And then let's look at this. Here is a person who did one thing, in 1967, spent the time since in and out of mental institutions, and has NO references whatsoever, but no one is putting flags on her article or hounding her about notability. OH...but she's a feminist. How precious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone

Is wikipedia just a politically correct dumpster for forty-year-old bread? 186.16.7.3 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• — 186.16.7.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I appreciate that you are at least trying to make an argument based on Wikipedia policies, that's somewhat refreshing in what has mostly been a shouting match so far. Let me just mention a few things: How many people are participating in this discussion is not going to be considered proof that Mr. Zubaty is notable. Just about anyone can find ten people on the internet who share their views. The argument that other articles exist that are no better or even much worse is generally not considered valid. This just means there is some more cleaning up that needs doing. That you picked a radical feminist out of the millions of biographies on here as your example is telling of your own agenda. If you think it should be deleted, register an account and nominate it, and we can discuss that on exactly the same terms as this article. This is what needs to be made clear here: this is not about the validity of Mr. Zubaty's positions or the men's movement in general, it is only about whether he meets the general notability guideline, and a decent case has been presented that he does. What would be good would be if those sources were actually being used to flesh out the article, that would go a long way toward sealing the deal.

As a more general comment to everyone participating, please keep your remarks on topic and do not resort to attacking the participants as persons, as opposed to refuting their arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox: Please tell us exactly what you mean by, "if those sources were actually being used to flesh out the article" ... and we will do that. Whatever it is. Can you refer us to a particular example page where this kind of "fleshing out" is being done? What it looks like? We're new at this. We don't get it. We need some guidance.

Here are more online pages with mentions of Rich Zubaty, from other wikipedia articles to the Wall Street Journal to third party podcast rebroadcasters and feminist blogs. How do we use these in his article?:

Sterling Institute of relationship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Institute_of_Relationships#cite_note-zubaty-4

Wall Street Journal mention of Zubaty's Imipeach Bush impeach-ins: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003975

The Harvard Crimson: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1995/7/25/take-back-the-penis-rally-held/

book review: http://lionwiki.taoriver.net/cgi-bin/wiki/WhatMenKnowThatWomenDont

book review http://fathersforlife.org/sex_politics_10.htm

third party podcast directory: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Social-Sciences/Current-Events/The-Rude-Guy-Podcast/16854

Here is a posting of an article by Rich Zubaty on a feminist web site/blog. What do we do with it? How do we use it to flesh out his page. http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/41433/

Basically the same thing you would do if you were back in school writing a paper. Read the sources, find some relevant idea or piece of information, express that same point in your own words in the article, and cite your source. Click here for guidance on citing sources within the article. Click here for the Wikipedia manual of style, but don't think we actually expect you to read the whole thing. Details such as the article structure, tone, etc, can always be cleaned up. What's important is getting the most relevant verifiable facts into the article. By the way, Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles, but cannot be based on those other articles. I know it sounds weird, but we do not meet our own definition of a reliable source, and we don't want to duplicate content. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox. Is this the KIND of thing you mean????? 194.154.216.94 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is not what is meant, those are ALL primary sources, please see Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, stating "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.". These sources are not independent from the subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. What is presented below based entirely on the writing of Mr. Zubaty as opposed to writings about him. You can use such primary sources to add content to an article, but the focus for purposes of this debate is establishing notability, which must be done with reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. This is basically a litany of his various memes, and is not really presented in a neutral tone. For example, instead of made the observation that we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like its run by women something like Zubaty asserts in his book "What Men Know That Women Don't" that "we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like it is run by women". I realize that many of you feel as though this is an established fact, but Wikipedia cannot present it as though it is one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am adding another no to this, as this is about the book What Men Know That Women Don't BY Rich Zubaty. This might fit on the former of the two pages, but not on the latter (I have therefore removed it from the page with a similar edit summary). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough non-trivial, indepth coverage of the subject. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In What Men Know That Women Don’t Rich Zubaty made the observation that we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like it's run by women, because the men who run it promulgate female values, female memes. ^[1] Our schools, churches, government, and businesses are all female friendly institutions, downright harmful to males. These sell-out men, garbed in female values, he called “manholes”. ^[2]And then he offered countervailing memes. In an era when men were demonized, women were glorified, and corporations were lionized he made the case that: Men are good. Women are not morally superior to men. ^[3]Corporations are bad. Men are not the oppressors of women. ^[4] Men are the protectors and providers for women. ^[5] If women have the right to equal access to jobs, then fathers have the right to equal treatment as parents. Women are not smarter than men. Women are more analytical than men. ^[6]Men are more skilled at relationships than women. ^[7]Men are more intuitive than women. ^[8]Women are more materialistic than men. Men are more spiritual than women. ^[9]Men have deeper feelings than women. Feminism was the biggest scab labor movement in history and the death knell of both the union movement and the grassroots sixties revolt. We live in a corporatocracy where corporations rule, and democracy has become emasculated. Feminists are corporate whores. ^[10]Feminism killed leftist politics in America by emphasizing social issues over economic issues.

194.154.216.94 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete* Rich Zubaty is a well-known author in the field of mens/fathers rights and gender roles and should have a page here. 98.207.158.108 (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What specific part of the notability criteria does he meet? What reliable, independent sources confirm that information? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence on notability
A Tug-of-War Over Custody
Fathers Deprived of Their Rights In America's `Covert Matriarchy'
Click here for complete article
Author: Rich Zubaty
Date: October 29, 1994
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Page: 18
Word Count: 785
Excerpt:
The Unlawful Visitation Interference Law was intended to diminish conflict between divorced parents who share custody of their children. It also frees parents from the expense of going back into divorce courts to straighten out visitation disputes. Some charge, however, that it is being misused to harass ex-spouses...

................

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/old/nw951225.htm

The following article was syndicated in over 50 major newspapers.

DOES GOVERNMENT DRIVE FATHERS AWAY?
By Stuart A. Miller and Rich Zubaty, Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, December 25-31, 1995, page 30

85% of prisoners, 78% of high school dropouts, 82% of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of drug and alcohol abusers -- all come from single-mother-headed households. Less than 1% of any of these categories come from single-father-headed households. This seems to indicate that the problems children encounter are not related to single-parent households, but are related specifically to single-mother-headed households. So, should we blame the mothers or the fathers? Perhaps, neither... --Cathbard (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cathbard, that is yet another article by Rich Zubaty. Again, many people have written a lot, but this is about who wrote about Rich Zubaty, independently of Rich Zubaty himself (well, it could be a significant interview with Rich Zubaty, but Rich Zubaty should not be the, or one of the, writers himself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standards

• Beetstra deletes information on "What Men Know That Women Don't" because, he says, this is not about Zubaty but a book he wrote. Yet I notice Beetstra did not hack away the details on "The Female Eunuch" in the article on Germaine Greer. Should I go into this article and clear it way for consistency? Or shall I wait for Beetstra to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, could you now please find an argument why this SHOULD be inserted here, in stead of saying 'but it is there so it should be here'. Thanks. (and to answer the other half .. have you actually READ what that section is telling, and compared the CONTENT of that section with what you added? Clearly not. By the way .. have you actually also read what the other reason I mentioned for removal was .. now again look at Germaine Greer#The Female Eunuch. Woohoo .. an independent reference!! Sigh). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If other crap exists then the other crap should be deleted with equal vigour. "The nuclear family being bad for wimmin" is not about Greer. It's about the other crap she wrote. So go ahead Beets. Please DELETE that section in Greer's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is solely for discussion of whether the article Rich Zubaty should be kept or deleted, that is, whether or not the subject meets the notability criteria, as verified by reliable, independent sources. If you have useful suggestions about how the article on Germaine Greer could be improved, you can discuss those ideas at Talk:Germaine Greer. Bear in mind that most of the people who actively work on this article will probably be unfamiliar with the disagreement about Rich Zubaty, so trying to make a point about this discussion by disrupting that one is unlikely to be helpful. If you have information about how Rich Zubaty meets the notability criteria, or what independent sources confirm that, sharing it would be more helpful for keeping the article- nothing you do at Germaine Greer is likely to have any effect on this discussion. In other words: if you oppose the deletion of Rich Zubaty, only information about Rich Zubaty will avoid that deletion. There is nothing you can say about Germaine Greer that would even be relevant to this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of word manipulation that's been tormenting my heart these days. My thought on this is, as it is YOU who are the WikiPolice, why is it not also you going in there with your e-truncheon? See what I mean by double standards? Lew Loot (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no double standards. We question here the inclusion of Rich Zubaty, where there is hardly any reason why we should include the article, you are free to discuss the inclusion of Germaine Greer or the section (on its talkpage), but that is NOT going to influence this discussion in any form. And still you don't answer questions, and please do not change my name in any form. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word manipulation? It's simply fact - the Rich Zubaty article will be either kept or deleted based solely on what reliable third-party coverage can be found to attest to his notability, as per WP:N and WP:RS, and nothing on any other article will make any difference to that - and that's all that FisherQueen is pointing out. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WikiPolice. There's just us, all the editors- that includes you- reading the rules, and trying to make the encyclopedia meet that standard. You can help this article meet the rules, too- you're my equal at Wikipedia, both of us following the same rules. I looked for reliable, independent sources writing about Zubaty, and I couldn't find any. I asked the Zubaty supporters who came here to help me, but they keep just giving me links to things written by Zubaty, which I'm sure are interesting reading but don't have anything to do with the question of notability. Zubaty doesn't have a publisher for his books- he pays to have them printed himself. I could pay the same company to print a book version of this deletion discussion- that wouldn't make me a notable author. What makes him more notable than me? Only the attention that others have paid to his book. Is he widely hated for his views, or widely supported? Has Esquire profiled him, or has Ms Magazine written an article denouncing him? You say that the Washington Times once published an article by him; have they ever published an article about him? Those sources would save this article, if only we could find them. If only his supporters could help, instead of just having fun feeling persecuted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. Here are the FACTS on wiki notability. Not FisherQueens mere interpretation that Zubaty is no more notable than her. Maybe she SHOULD have a page. That has nothing to do with whether Zubaty does or not.

This notability guideline for biographies[2] is NOT policy;

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is NOT conclusive proof that a subject should not be included;

Academics
Shortcuts:
WP:ACADEMIC
WP:PROF
WP:TEACH

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas WITHOUT their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Rich Zubaty is a philosopher. A meme-inventor and -spreader. His ideas stand for who he is and when people talk about whether women are morally superior to men, or men are NOT the oppressors of women, even if the DON'T mention his name, they are mentioning him. They are metioning his memes. Bill Maher, for one, has stolen memes directly out of Surviving the Feminization of America and used them on his TV shows without accredidation.

Zubaty is notable.

2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

We already liisted all the dozens of memes for which he is notable on the Zubaty page and they got erased. we are not wasting our time listing them again.
--Cathbard (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your problem: listing the memes and claiming they are notable is not going to cut it. You need to verify that statement with an independent reliable source. That's got to be at least the fifteenth time this has been explained in this debate. You guys need to quit trying to make this about FisherQueen or Rich Zubaty, it's about proving notability through reliable sources. I'm not even saying that what you have just stated isn't true, but it's got to be verified. Although it seems there is a vast maze of policies and guidelines here, we actually only have five basic rules. Verifiability is one of those, and I'm afraid it is not open to negotiation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that "when people talk about whether women are morally superior to men, or men are NOT the oppressors of women, even if the DON'T mention his name, they are mentioning him," but people have been having those conversations for hundreds of years or more. I'm pretty sure that he didn't invent those ideas; is he hundreds of years old? But if he did, you should have no problem citing a gender-studies textbook which credits him for them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I was involved in the publishing of Transitions, the newsletter of the National Coalition For Men (ncfm.org) for over 10 years, including 4 years as chief editor. Some of our past issues are archived at (http://www.californiamenscenters.org/transitionsbrown.html). NCFM is an educational organization that examines discrimination against men and boys. I can assure you that Rich Zubaty is notable in the field of men's issues. As evidence of this, we printed an excerpt of his book "What Men Know That Women Don't" in the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of Transitions. We printed a review of his book "The Corporate Cult" in the March/April 2002 issue, and a news article about his internet podcast in the Jan/Feb 2006 issue.
Wikipedia should consider that the field of men's rights does not get a lot of attention, for various political reasons. That Zubaty was able to earn the list of references that have been provided in this discussion should be seen as a noteworthy accomplishment. Many of the references are from web sites related to men's issues, but many are not, including the WSJ and The Harvard Crimson. As men's issues is still a growing field, many of our references will come from sources with an interest in the subject.
For verifiability, all you need to do is go to Amazon and see that his books are for sale. The content of Zubaty's writing is not in question; the article simply states that he wrote those books. They are available and the sales have not been insignificant.
The article does need to be improved, and this can be done once this case is settled. Jwleath (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response on behalf of Rich Rubaty

RE: "when people talk about whether women are morally superior to men, or men are NOT the oppressors of women, even if they DON'T mention his name, they are mentioning him," but people have been having those conversations for hundreds of years or more. (says FisherQueen)

OK, time for Fisher Queen to ACTUALLY CITE SOMETHING instead of pontificating. Where exactly, in the hundreds of years of history before Rich Zubaty, does anyone at all talk about how women are not morally superior to men? Or men are not the oppressors of women? Where? Zubaty introduced these memes 20 years ago when merely saying something favorable about men was considered an assault on women. When most academics were cowed by political correctness and fear of getting fired for speaking out on things like equal rights for men: in fathering, in healthcare, in life and death.

We are not fooled by your posturing. Some high level administrator has decided you don't want his page on Wikipedia and now you are lurching about digging up reasons to exclude him, even though your guidelines say that philosophers, like Zubaty, people who GENERATE IDEAS, have a much LOWER threshold of being expected to have been quoted in mass media.

There is a massive industry with tens of thousands of employees and publications on thousands of campuses world wide called Women's Studies. They are always hungry for new material over which to churn out new reviews, and claim they got “published”. Men's studies can, at most, be found on a handful of campuses. THAT has to be taken into consideration. Men are not less important than women. But no one makes a career out of men’s studies. There is not a mountain of literature. One does it for the passions behind the issues. Getting a handful of mentions is an achievement in that field. Who else do you know who got any publicity at all?

We gave you links to the Wall Street Journal. How bout this?

From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO Friday, September 5, 2003 4:06 P.M. EDT

Zubaty's So Batty

At an "impeach-in" yesterday in Ithaca, N.Y., "the strumming of author Rich Zubaty's guitar floated in front of See Spot Community Arts Space, accompanying lyrics such as 'There was a president lying to me' and 'We want our country back,' " reports the Cornell Daily Sun....

Zubaty tells the Sun that "we have the worst president in a couple of hundred years,"...

This Zubaty guy is a real piece of work: The Sun notes that he is the author of two books, "Your Brain Is Not Your Own" and "The Corporate Cult." The paper, however, misses another Zubaty tome, "What Men Know That Women Don't," described on his Web site as "the book that unshames men and frees your brainwaves for recovery from Feminism." .....

Plus...we gave you links to The Harvard Crimson, and Cornell Sun (2003 Impeach Bush), where he has been talked ABOUT, NOT where he has been published. You ignored them. He’s been interviewed on over 200 radio shows in Chicago, Toronto, New York, San Francisco, Tampa, Sydney, Perth, Seattle, and hundreds of smaller stations that receive syndicated programming. Plus TV: BBC, CLTV Chicago, ABC TV in San Francisco. Millions of people have heard him interviewed about his ideas. Millions! Some of those shows were taped, but few if any were transcribed into transcripts that can be found on the internet. So what?

This is a whitewash. We keep giving you evidence. You keep moving the goalposts. The only so-called editor who has actually helped out and tried to make things better is Dirk Beetstra. Nobly so because some of Zubaty’s rabid respondents took a bite out of him early on. But now HE apparently is getting browbeat by somebody in the inner circle. But no one else helps. They just give us links. Fuck links.

Maybe the time has come for you to prove us wrong. For the burden of proof to be on YOU that he is NOT notable. This is a witch hunt, only this time the witches are doing the hunting.

And what you don't understand, and what Zubaty's supporters who are writing into this deletion page DO understand, is that this is exactly what Zubaty writes his books about. How after a creative explosion of virile positive male energy launches virtually every civilization and institution, there come the petty foggers and bean counters and formulaic thinkers and rule keepers, and they keep that institution going far past the point of it being useless to everybody. If wikipedia is just a place to go to get watered down information that is available at other places on the web, then why go? You are destroying your own institution by refusing to adhere to your fundamental principle. To wit: Failure to meet these criteria is NOT conclusive proof that a subject should not be included.

Understandably you need other and more evidence, and that’s just what we’ve provided, over and over and over again. Millions of people have heard his memes. We’ve told you where. From him, and from those like Bill Maher who stole memes directly from him and will never admit that because then they would have to compensate him. And even, to Zubaty’s undying shame and embarrassment, his name and men’s activism was mentioned by Rush Limbaugh and reached a few million ears within five minutes. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Cannot be owned. They are stolen, and passed around, and then they influence millions of people. But you don’t care about that because you are not creative people. You have made up your mind to exclude him and you are just trying to find a plausible excuse.

I asked him about this. He wrote back: “That’s OK. I was pissed off at first but now I don’t care. Wikipedia is not an enlightened publication like I thought it was. Those are not the kind of people I want to keep company with. I appreciate all the folks who have tried to help, I really do, but it’s OK if they just delete my page. I would rather that people who google-search my name go directly to my web page. And the hell with wikipedia. It’s a red herring. A detour into nowhere. If they can’t make a judgment call to provide some rare and unusual forms of information that are not already provided somewhere else on the net, then what are they for? Who cares?” 194.154.216.90 (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Where exactly, in the hundreds of years of history before Rich Zubaty, does anyone at all talk about how women are not morally superior to men? Or men are not the oppressors of women? Where? Zubaty introduced these memes 20 years ago when merely saying something favorable about men was considered an assault on women."

What a crock! These very issues were being debated when I was a university student, more than 30 years ago and long before anyone had ever heard of Zubaty (and in a land far away from America). And they weren't new then - we just didn't use the word "meme" back in those days. (And no, I can't provide references, because our discussions, like those of countless generations before us, were not notable either) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Actually, I can provide a reference for it being a a bunch of crock.;-) See the reference by Boyd, Susan B. et al. below, where she lists his book amongst others derivative of the ideas expressed in the original works in the area dating back to the 1970s. Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The "meme" section in the article is pointless. The ideas are neither new nor original and do nothing to establish his notability. Most of them aren't even from him, they are comments by reviewers, self-published on internet forums and other sites with reader-generated content. They can be used to document that his work is discussed on such web sites but not to establish his notability. It's pretty obvious that the "keepers" don't understand Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources and why they are a requirement for establishing notability and verifying content. There's no use explaining this again. Their view is that this basic requirement should be dispensed with here because Mr. Zubaty is a special case. I'm afraid that's not going to happen, so perhaps we could see if the fact that his writings are discussed in reliable sources (albeit briefly) qualifies as notability. His work is mentioned in the following publications:

  Kaye, Miranda; Tolmie, Julia, "Discoursing Dads: The Rhetorical Devices of Fathers' Rights Groups", Melbourne University Law Review, April 1998

  Klein, Ellen R., Undressing feminism: A philosophical exposé, (Series: Paragon Issues in Philosophy), Paragon House, 2002. ISBN1557788111

  Boyd, Susan B. et al.. Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change, University of British Columbia Press, 2007. ISBN077481411X

  Ducat, Stephen, The wimp factor: gender gaps, holy wars, and the politics of anxious masculinity, Beacon Press, 2004. ISBN 0807043443

  Parke, Ross D. and Brott, Armin A. Throwaway dads: the myths and barriers that keep men from being the fathers, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1999.

  Culture Wars (magazine), "Selling Contempt", Ultramontane Associates/American Center for Law and Justice, Vol. 20, 2000.

  I also have subscription access to the Highbeam archives. Zubaty appeared briefly on the BBC2 programme Counterblast in January 2000:

  "After 15 minutes, however, he was starting to run out of steam. He'd already called on the services of a like-minded American with the unlikely name of Rich Zubaty, described simply as "an author", who provided the usual array of meaningless statistics that these occasions demand. "Did you know that 19 out of every 20 people who die on the job are men?" Rich announced, at which George could only shake his head and mutter "Middle-class dykes", in a distracted sort of way."

  (Preston, John, "Blast those dungarees", Sunday Telegraph, 30 January 2000)

  I'm neutral as to whether the above is enough to establish notability, but at least it's something concrete to consider, and it's probably the limit to what can be found in reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:208.102.84.106, I've removed your recent comment, in which you repeated the entire long comment you made earlier. Your comment is already on this page for anyone to read; it is not helpful to repeat it. Especially since it's already been responded to- if Zubaty did indeed invent these ideas, you will need to verify that by citing the reliable, independent sources which discuss his invention of those ideas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voceditenore, I wouldn't tend to think that the mentions I could see in those articles would lead to a claim for notability; they seemed like fairly trivial mentions, and none of them actually made any claim for his significance as a thinker- if we relied on those sources for information, the article would have to describe Zubaty as a strange, mentally unstable kook with an internet following, since that's how those articles describe him. Of course, several of those were just abstracts, so I don't know how he's portrayed in them, or how significant the writing in them may be, but none of them seems to have Zubaty as its main subject. Still, other users might disagree. It's becoming apparent that if an article on this person it kept, it's going to be the constant target of inappropriate additions from people who don't think Wikipedia's rules should be followed... but that isn't, in itself, a reason to delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, but I've seen AfDs where this kind of coverage was considered to be minimally sufficient to establish notability, so I thought I'd offer it. If nothing else, it demonstrates to the pro-Zubaty discussants here, most of whom don't understand it yet, what types of sources are required. From what I can see from the snippets, Culture Wars is the only article that discusses one of his books in any kind of depth and it's still pretty short. As you can see from the others, the mentions are very brief, and not complimentary. His first book was published in the late 1990's. Fifteen years is an awfully long time to go without any significant coverage of either him or his ideas or his books in reliable secondary sources. To me it speaks volumes. Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to: Reply. Actually, I can provide a reference for it being a a bunch of crock.;-) See the reference by Boyd, Susan B. et al. below, where she lists his book amongst others derivative of the ideas expressed in the original works in the area dating back to the 1970s. Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Boyd, Susan B. book referenced by Voceditnore, word-searched for “moral superiority”, Zubaty’s meme, there is NO reference. NONE. Have a look.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ASc568aunFoC&pg=PP1&dq=Reaction+and+resistance++Boyd&cd=1#v=onepage&q=moral%20superiority&f=false

Let’s put the smugness on hold Boing! said Zebedee. You’ve crossed over now into being just flat out liars. This is a whitewash.

Yes, call me a liar - that's sure to help your case when the reviewing admin examines all this and makes a decision -- Boing! said Zebedee

The ONLY place I have ever heard the moral superiority of women questioned besides Zubaty was when private England tortured those Abu Ghraib prisoners and Ellen Goodman said she had: always believed in the moral superiority of women up until that moment.

The sparsity of your personal experience and your apparent lack of exposure to the wider world outside of recent male American culture have no bearing on this discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real tyranny is feminism. Your bald attempts to control information are precisely the reason Zubaty sells books world wide and precisely why he should be included in wikipedia. If wikipedia has any balls that is. If wikipedia is about spreading information and not simply just a politicized tool of powerful institutions like feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.170.227 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that Boyd does not use the phrase 'moral superiority;' but then, her mention of Zubaty was quite trivial and only in passing; she doesn't seem to consider him a very significant writer. Your claim that Zubaty 'sells books world wide' could be a claim to notability; have any of his books appeared on the best-seller list of any country? What reliable sources would verify that? Wikipedia does not have 'balls,' because it is a web site, and not an animal or person. Wikipedia is not political; in fact, its rules are carefully written to ensure fully neutrality, which is why, even though I'm very different from Zubaty politically, I'm still perfectly willing to keep an article about him on Wikipedia, and even help to improve it, if only I could find any sources of information I could use to verify any information at all about him. It's fine that you like Zubaty, and that you are interested in his ideas, but that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. If the problem is that you haven't read WP:BIO and WP:RS yet, even though I've linked to them in this discussion several times, you really should read the rules for a clearer understanding of what this discussion is about. If the problem is that you want to change or eliminate WP:BIO and WP:RS as Wikipedia rules, this discussion isn't the place to do that- you can try on the talk pages of those rules, but you should be aware that they've developed over years, and most Wikipedia editors think they are a very fair way to keep the encyclopedia neutral - to keep it from becoming a 'politicized tool,' a goal which I think you agree with. If you are not interested in Wikipedia, or its rules, but simply want to have a discussion about Zubaty and the rightness of his ideas, I'm sure there are internet forums that would be appropriate places to have such a discussion. Continuing to make comments that don't include reliable, independent sources is, I'm afraid, a waste of your valuable time, since those comments will be simply ignored by the reviewing administrator, who will only weigh the votes that relate directly to Wikipedia's rules, ignoring those that don't address or don't understand the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Wikipedia has balls, many different kinds of them, all of which clearly meet its notability requirements. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, 72.235.170.227, you've never heard of anyone before Rich Zubaty who has questioned the moral superiority of women? Have you read Kant or Rousseau? I think you'll find them a real eye-opener. Their works are out of copyright, so you can even read them on the internet. Plenty of further reading on the issue here but alas not here (apart from Zubaty's self-published tomes, of course). Voceditenore (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on my own research (see above). He's mentioned in a few reliable sources here and there, but only in passing. It's been proposed that he is a prominent theoretician in his area, but there is no evidence to support this. It's been fifteen years since he self-published the only work which gets even passing mention. Yes, he has fans on internet forums (many of whom can be found on this page), but in all that time no scholar or serious journalist has even bothered to publish a detailed attack him or refute his arguments in detail, let alone consider him a a seminal contributor to the field. It speaks volumes and it cannot be put down to his views. There are plenty of figures out there who are left-wing activists or spectacularly non-pc, or even just plain loony. Nevertheless, coverage of them and their ideas in depth, if only in criticism, can easily be found in multiple reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to return to some objective factors, his works are in almost no libraries--which is hardly surprising, since they are all self-published. [1] DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have asked three uninvolved admins, Nancy (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and Bongwarrior (talk · contribs), to keep watch on this page so that comments such as this and this can be dealt with swiftly.

  I ask that the editors commenting here focus on the content of the article, not on the character of contributors. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Deletions

Dear Ms. Zebedee, it seems you have missed the point entirely. It’s clear that the claim made was that: Voceditenore lied by saying that Zubaty’s original meme appeared in a book where it did not appear at all. Not at all. Not once. That was the lie. And nobody amongst the so-called wiki editors even bothered to check the lie. Thank goodness one of us dumb novices did. Then Fisherqueen took the discussion further afield by claiming Boyd’s mention of Zubaty was minor anyway. Yes, like Rousseau and Kant and even Tolstoy before him, Zubaty discussed the deficiencies of female morality. But he took it out of 17th century drawing room intrigues and updated it dead center to strident feminist America 1993. And he gave it a name. He didn’t call it a large fish that breathes air and sometimes sports a pale hue. He called it a “White Whale”. A meme! He said “Women are not morally superior to men” in absolutely clear unacademic populist American English. That’s what a meme is. Not merely an idea. But a concise FORMULATION of an idea. A soundbite for your mind. That is one of his dozen or more original philosophic contributions. And THAT was the entire point we were trying to make. He IS an original thinker and people like you can’t even keep up with his thoughts. No wonder we can’t find any quotes!

And in response to DGG. Zubaty has had books in hundreds of libraries but most of them have been stolen. Removed from the system. Denver public library had four copies at the SAME time the demand was so high in the mid 1990s. In an age of feminist harpy saboteurs it is no wonder his books cannot be publicly found. You people are grasping at straws to support an opinion you have held for years. That all men are assholes and you have to stop them any way you can. If you are wikipedia editors then wikipedia is doomed. You are worried about smoke detectors while your airliner is going down in flames. Time for new rules for editors. No harpies. No closed minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 May 2010

Well then, it should be easy for you to find multiple independent sources that attest to his formulation of the idea, shouldn't it? That's the whole point, which several of us are trying hard to get across - if Zubaty is responsible for any notable philosophic contributions, then you need reliable independent sources to attest to them if you wish to include them in a Wikipedia article. And if they are genuine original thoughts that haven't been accepted and discussed by any reliable sources yet, then that counts as WP:OR and cannot be included. So please, go ahead and find some reliable sources if they exist, and then you'll get my support for inclusion. (Oh, and it's interesting that you assume I'm a "Ms" - do you not think that's perhaps a bit of a sexist assumption?) -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All men are assholes; I have to stop them any way I can" is not an opinion that has been expressed by anyone in this discussion, nor, I think, is it an opinion that is held by anyone in this discussion. If you want "new rules for new editors," because Zubaty's supporters aren't able to follow, or don't support, Wikipedia's rules, the Wiki software is free; you can create your own wiki and make any rules you want for it. Or if you want Wikipedia to change its rules, you can start that conversation- but Wikipedia's rules aren't made on one obscure deletion discussion, so you'll need to take your ideas for new rules to the appropriate place, to persuade the community that your new rules will make a better, more reliable encyclopedia. But right now, if this article is going to be kept, it'll be because we've found reliable, independent sources that confirm that Zubaty is a well-known and important inventor of original sentences like "Women are not morally superior to men." You know, yesterday, I said, "Please sit down; it's time to start class." I wasn't copying anyone else; I created that sentence myself, out of my own brain- and yet, I still wasn't the first to say it, nor was it such an important thought that it's likely to be chronicled for the ages. I could type it, and pay a printer to put it in a book, and buy a dozen copies of that book, and mail them to libraries- I could have that finished by the end of the week, and it would only cost a few hundred dollars. By the end of the week, I could be exactly as notable as Rich Zubaty. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mens' Studies Press (founded in 1992) publishes five peer-reviewed journals, one of which is the journal of the American Men's Studies Association. I searched all five journals from 1992 to the present for "Zubaty" and found not even a mention. I also searched "Zubaty" in their International Guide to Literature on Masculinity: A Bibliography with zero results. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based upon complete lack of notability evidence from secondary sources. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. I've found a few extra sources:

• A couple of recommendations of his book by John Waters (columnist) (and fathers' rights activist) in the Irish Times.[2]. One is very brief, the other is a more extensive description of the book and Zubaty's ideas.
• An article that interviews him (among others) in the Spokesman-Review [3] I have full copies of all 3 of these articles.
• A multi-database search of scholarly journals found only one brief mention of his work (as a "misogynistic diatribe")[4]
• I also have to hand a number of books about the fathers' rights movement in the US, including Farrell's Father and Child Reunion; Crossley's Defiant Dads: FR activists in America; and Gavanas' Fatherhood Politics in the United States. Zubaty is not mentioned or referenced at all, which is curious for someone who has claimed to have been an inventor the FR movement.

Overall, I have very mixed feelings; the vociferous group of Zubaty supporters clearly exaggerate the importance of Zubaty in the field of men's/fathers rights based on the reliable sources available. However, I believe that these new articles, along with the numerous other (generally very brief) mentions in books, newspapers etc over a long period of time push him over the edge into notability. However, I should point out to his supporters that if the article does remain, it will need to reflect what has been said about Zubaty and his ideas in reliable sources, which is by no means 100% positive. For example, I count three very solid sources (including FR activists) that describe his ideas as misogynistic.[5][6][7]. Zubaty's life and views can be neutrally presented (quite unlike the "meme" section proposed above, or this Zubaty-written version) but the evaluations of others will need to be included too. Having an article on WP can be a very mixed blessing. --Slp1 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - None of that stuff (the Waters, etc.) constitutes the requisite "substantial coverage"; this still fails to meet our standards of notability. We're not talking Phyllis Schlaffly (or even Fred Phelps) here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a matter of judgment, of course, about what constitutes substantial coverage. The Waters (in particular) and Spokesman articles are certainly more than brief mentions; personally I believe that these, in combination with other multiple independent sources available are enough to make the grade. --Slp1 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of enough coverage still, and the sheer amount of socking/meatpuppeteering here is obvious that there's little hope other than resorting to these methods. —fetch·comms 15:23, 14 May 2010 (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.