Kenny Biddle ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Rewrote article (now in user space: here) to address issues in AfD, including substantial coverage of subject in NYTimes. RobP ( talk) 02:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• RobP, your draft is WP:Reference bombed. Please tell us the two or three best sources for demonstrating the subject's notability.

Looking at the 1st three references:

1. Does not mention the subject "Biddle"

2. Facebook. Not a reliable source, cannot be used to show notability.

3. An interview, advertising the subject's workshop. Not an independent source. Cannot be used to demonstrate notability.

Usually, if the top three are no good, the rest are only worse. Skimming them, I think this is no exception. The onus is on you to name the best sources. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• The New York Times Magazine (note:- not the newspaper) article is maybe over the threshold? It's not about Kenny Biddle, but it includes arguably non-trivial coverage of him if you take a charitable view?— S Marshall T/ C 18:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Reference 6? [1]. It mentions Biddle 10 times. The article is not about Biddle, it doesn't really comment on Biddle, unless you are being charitable. It quotes Biddle talking to the author. This is not an independent source. URL "psychics-skeptics-facebook" is a red flag. Leading text: "setting up fake Facebook pages... tips for her team’s latest sting operation — this one focused on infiltrating the audience of a psychic ... Facebook sock puppets — those fake online profiles". "Collectively, the group, which has swelled to 144 members, has researched, written or revised almost 900 Wikipedia pages". Lots of flags. Although now a skeptic, Biddle was previously a paranormal enthusiast, this topic remains very much Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Refer to that guideline. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe Fringe? Flags? What flags? Seriously? I do not see how you could have read the NYT article and gotten the impression you did. This is the summary of the NYT article as it currently appears in my sandbox: "Biddle has frequently criticized claims of psychic powers,[26] and in March 2017, he participated in "Operation Pizza Roll", a sting operation against purported psychic medium Matt Frasier. Sting organizer Susan Gerbic and fellow skeptics created false identities on Facebook for Biddle, as well as for his wife and four others he recruited for the operation. Biddle and his team attended a Matt Frasier show in Philadelphia, assuming the identities detailed in the false accounts, in an attempt to determine if Frasier was doing hot readings.[31][6]" The entire point of the article is a group of science-mined individuals, Biddle included, performed a sting on Fringe people. This sting has been making massive news and praised in the skeptical movement on social media. And how is a NYT reporter not an independent source? I am flabbergasted. RobP ( talk) 02:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Flabbergasted? Calm down a little. NB. we are sort of running an anti-AfD discussion here, and I am talking about AfD-proofing your draft. I am very critically evaluating your draft references, and not prepared to say "yes" or "no". When the topic is WP:FRINGE related, I call that a red flag. When I see "facebook" written, I see another red flag. It was previously deleted at AfD, which is a bad sign, but the AfD was highly contested, so it is difficult. Your draft is WP:Reference bombed, that is a red flag.

The NYT *Magazine* article is interesting. It is reference number 6, so i didn't originally even look at it. It is a challenging source to evaluate. I call the reporter, Jack Hitt, and his article, not independent of Kenny Biddle because Hitt and Biddle obviously worked together to create this article. That's not a final decision, but a consideration.

It is not reasonable for you to ask me to review all 33 sources at this level. I found the first 3 to definitely fail. The sixth is interesting. The onus is on you to tell us the best three.

We also should have pinged the deleting admin, User:Spartaz, upfront. Did you already ask Spartaz? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

*Calming down. I went through the process, which led me to a page which said that the closing admin was no longer active. I asked in the teahouse what to do now. They told me to specify that the closing admin is unavailable, and I did that. Then I was chastized that I misread something and got the wrong closer. My bad I guess, but I do not know why that happened and cannot follow the trail backwards. This process is anything but user-friendly is my conclusion.

*I get you point about the sources being a big hill to climb - and in fact consented to cut the article down (see below). I was then told not to do that and just give a list.. and include new ones. So I was in the process of mulling that over when you posted.

*Calling this a fringe topic, as several have done apparently triggered by "red flags" in the NYT article, strikes me as extremely puzzling. The sting reported on in the Times was anti-Fringe. And Biddle's career post-ghost hunting is all anti-fringe. The fact that he had been fringe, and did a 180 to become a skeptical activist lauded by that community is what this article is fundamentally about. It is pro-science and unquestionably anti-fringe.

*I also want to point out that some of the AfD delete votes were due to perceptions of the article being too promotional. To address those concerns, as I was too close to the material, I asked User:LuckyLouie to help out, and as you can see in the edit history he did a massive rewrite and restructuring which I really appreciated. Although it was hard to see so much of the material I wrote deleted or redone, it did improve the article.

*Now the big problem: the big changes since last published is that Biddle was referenced multiple times in a book by Ben Radford and I am about to add that info. But the best boost regarding notability (or so I thought) was the NYT coverage of a sting he participated in. You and others here seem to have shot that down under very mistaken assumptions. Jack Hit is a staff NYT writer and has no connection to Biddle. The assertion that they "obviously" worked together to create the article, or that Biddle had anything at all to do with its generation, is completely without merit. RobP ( talk) 03:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• User:Spartaz does not look very inactive. Anti-FRINGE is an interesting twist on FRINGE. It still needs FRINGE type care. You sort of talk like a newcomer, but you are actually an pretty experienced Wikipedian. Do you know that if in your considered opinion the draft now overcomes the reasons for deletion voiced in the AfD, you may put it in mainspace and wait for someone to send it to AfD? In anticipation of that, I strongly recommend that you follow WP:THREE, and get those three best references at the top. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I did not say Spartaz was inactive. I said the process led me (perhaps through my error) to a page saying that the closing admin (not Spartaz but I do not recall the name) was inactive. And yes, I will try to determine a selection of the best sources. But this article resurrection is sort of hinging on the NYT article being one of those, and if you folks cannot see it that way, there may be no point in going forward. Also, though not new, I have not been in this situation before (resurrecting a deleted article) and am finding it extremely difficult to understand the intricacies. To what you asked above, the answer is NO. I did not know I could do that. I tried to re-publish it from the beginning, and could not (due to the AfD I presumed) and was forced into this path. What has changed that I could publish it again now? RobP ( talk) 04:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

What you are seeking to argue that is changed is that you have WP:THREE new good sources that were not considered at the AfD in January 2018.

Your options, I would have said, are: Boldly recreate the article having confidence that you have overcome the deletion reason; or ask the deleting admin; or submit the new draft at WP:AfC (but read WP:DUD); or come here to DRV. Here, you are usually supposed to be making the article that the AfD was mis-closed. Alternatively, come to DRV after the deleting admin or the AfC process denies your request to recreate. The NYT magazine article is not enough, choose the three best. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I just now notice the Kenny Biddle deletion log. This was at DRV before, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_January_21. User:Coffee was the last to delete, and now he is inactive. Also, he create-protected Kenny Biddle, which means you need to come here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes. That is as I said when folks here asked why I had not followed the process correctly. (Which BTW: It was easy for me to accept that I screwed-up due to the convoluted instructions on WP and this being the first time through this for me). It is most unfortunate that I keep getting told things that are not correct. First that I didn't follow the process and I missed going to the closing admin first. Then that the NYT article is fringe. Then that Biddle helped write the NYT article. RobP ( talk) 19:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, I used a large number of references to write an article fully documenting the subject. (Not my fault that the order placed the less notable ones in the top three.) As a large number of sources to document different things is seen as a bad thing, I will slash the article to the bone and leave just the material from the best sources. If the article is approved and published, I can always restore this "extraneous" information following approval. And note that the NYT Magazine uses the same editorial control as they do for the newspaper as I understand it, they just print longer form articles. So I do not know why that distinction was even pointed out above. In any case, give me a few days to trim it so notability is easier to determine. Oh... the first ref was broken because the URL was a homepage which had changed, but the archive I made and included was OK, so I changed this citation to be just to that archived URL. RobP ( talk) 01:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

No, RobP, don't do that. Or at least, that is not an efficient way to move forwards from here. Instead, tell us the best notability-demonstrating three sources. In terms of the article, it is best to get those three sources into the lede, so that they are the at the top of the reference list.

The many many other sources may be overkill, and may need reduction for that reason, but they don't detract from notability, and they may actually be good sources for very specific content. But that is not the current question, the current question is whether multiple independent others have written about Biddle, and thus whether he can have an article at all. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

See WP:THREE, which is a decent guideline. Also, if you could post the best three sources that are new between the AfD and this version, that would be very helpful. SportingFlyer T· C 02:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

We need more then one source to establish notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Support Inclusion-See, I think we have that. @ SmokeyJoe:,@ SportingFlyer: I think we meet WP:THREE: (1)- The NYT Article, (2)- This Local News Segment, and (3)- The Popular Mechanics Article.

We have three bona fide WP:RS (and probably one or two more) that have more than a passing mention of Mr. Biddle. Is that not enough? I think the editors here are getting bogged down in the fact that this article is reference bombed (and boy, is it), and failing to see the forest through the trees. Does the article need significant further editing to remove ref bombs? Yes. Does it probably merit inclusion in the wiki? Also yes.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I would urge the many editors here to, in general, help guide users like RobP to make quality articles, rather than negating the work they've done...-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I think we are trying to help. In any case, I disagree with your assessment of the sources - I don't think any of them convey notability. I can't watch the news segment, but he's only mentioned quickly in an interview blurb at the end. The Popular Mechanics article is that as well, just a quick interview with him at the end. Same with the New York Times article. They all mention him briefly as an expert or use him as a character in the general narrative without really going into detail on him. SportingFlyer T· C 22:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Then I'm sorry to say, I don't think you're reading WP:THREE very closely... Case in point: They have more than a passing mention of the subject. I don't think GNG or NBIO or anywhere else states that the sources need to have coverage of the subject as a main element of the source. That would be a very high bar indeed, and many many articles on the wiki wouldn't pass it.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 22:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Then to be absolutely clear, I consider all three of those passing mentions. SportingFlyer T· C 23:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• WP:THREE sources have been offered.

1. "I met Zoe and Ed on a cold winter morning in Cheltenham, Pa., at the home of Donna and Kenny Biddle." Not an independent source. There is some evidence of notability here, but it is diminished by the author being this close to the subject. I want more.

Jack Hit is an investigative journalist assigned to this story, and he met and interviewed all of the participants of the sting for this story. That makes him "not an independent source"? Amazing logic there. RobP ( talk) 02:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC) That's right. It makes him a second party, not third party, source. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

While I'm not convinced that we should have an article in Wikipedia on this person, accusing a profile published in the New York Times of being not independent solely because the reporter is embedded would not normally past the muster here. Under those types of arguments, many of the sources we use documenting occurrences in the Iraq War, for example, would have to be removed as many of them were written by journalists embedded into military units in very close fashion, for example. jps ( talk) 12:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

jps, you are misunderstand the distinction between using a source to demonstrate notability, and using a source to support content. Here, we are only talking about 2-3 sources demonstrating notability, because the question is whether Biddle is even notable. That requires independent sources. Once notable, any reliable source may be used to support content. Unless you seek to contend that the Iraq War is not a notable topic, you’ve made an irrelevant comparison. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not the one misunderstanding here. There are not two standards for independent sources (one for notability and one for citations). There is only the one and it is intimately tied to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Either a source is independent of the subject or it is not. If it is independent for the purposes of sourcing, it is independent for the purposes of notability. jps ( talk) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

2. No. A converstion with Kenny Biddle is not an independent source on Kenny Biddle.

An interview/conversation recorded and played most certainly is independent in the sense of WP:Independent sources because it was published by someone independent of Biddle. Whether this source is enough to confer notability, however, is another matter. jps ( talk) 12:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

This is entirely about notability, nothing else. If not independence, how do you suggest this source fails to demonstrate notability? Publishing a non-independent source does not make that source independent. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Notability has always been a means for Wikipedia editors to figure out whether or not a particular topic has been noticed enough to be included here. It is absolutely tied in with a consideration of whether it is possible to write a neutral, verifiable article based on reliable sources. It is not an arbitrary litmus test. When a third party publishes something about a person, they are automatically independent of that person unless you can show that there is a personal relationship (family or close friend), financial relationship (e.g., vanity publisher), or other reason to think that the source is acting as a promotion rather than a notice of the person. jps ( talk) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

To answer your query about why this source may fail to demonstrate notability: local media is parochial in the sense that it often isn't very high-quality. Sourcing to establish notability should indicate a level of notice that a local TV interview might not provide. This isn't a hard and fast standard, it is absolutely possible for local media to do a great job profiling a little-noticed point and start the ball rolling for a notable topic, but in such cases you usually see other sources mention the local media story. TLDR: local TV interviews are often not high quality sources even if they're perfectly independent. I do not know whether this particular source is a high-enough-quality interview or not. It's borderline for me. jps ( talk) 14:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

We agree that this source may be discarded as attesting notability due to being a parachail low quality source. On source independence: If you meet me, interview me, and then write a story based on what I told and showed you, that story would not be independent of me. That failure of independence is not negated by you getting it published somewhere or anywhere. Mere repetition, including mere publication, verbatim, does not change the nature of the source. You might argue the decision to publish is evidence of notability, but that is a different argument to that of independence. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

First of all, I am not sure we agree. It is a borderline source in my estimation. Secondly, you seem to sorely misunderstand what is meant by "independence". An interview is essentially by definition independent of the interviewee as long as the outlet that is publishing it or the interviewer is not somehow conflicted with respect to the interviewee. Finally, it absolutely is the case that republication can change the nature of a source. This is actually a very vital point for people to understand. For example, I can point to a review that was first published as a blogpost on a personal website that was later republished with minor edits by The New Republic. At that point, the third party publication has now done the work for us of vetting the work and it is not longer considered a problem per WP:BLOGS. jps ( talk) 13:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I think we do agree on the source being borderline as a parochial source. I actually would not be rejecting it as DRV due to its parochial source quality, that should be an AfD question.

I do not misunderstand "Independence". I use the term in the historiographical sense, noting that Wikipedia is an historiographical document and should always be treated in that sense. I challenge you to substantiate your "interview is essentially by definition", as I think you mare mixing concepts of "reliable source" and "independent source" A blog story is not reliable, but when republished verbatim in a reliable source, the story is now reliably sourced. Independence of the progenity of the information is unchanged. Independence is not a question of vetting. Vetting is a process of reliability of the publication, not independence. Go back to the article. David Schechter investigates and writes a story on ghost hunting. It is a great source on ghost hunting. In the investigation, Schechter skyped with Biddle. Information on ghost hunting attributed to Biddle is included. In passing, there is some information revealed on Biddle. Is this information independent of Biddle? Does this information satisfy the independence test for a WP:STUB? Go sentence by sentence, every occurrence of "Kenny" (the source calls him by first name). What is that information, and where did it come from? It came from Biddle. Is it reliable? Yes, it is pedestrian, not likely to be be challenged. "He’s a skeptic who writes about paranormal investigations"? Sure. Did he laugh about the science of voices coming through radio frequencies? Who cares. Is the science of ghost hunting Biddle's "biggest problem" with it? Well, he says it is. Does Biddle say "ghost hunters don't use technology in a scientific way"? Schechter has reliably published that he does say this. Is fact independently sourced? No. Does the GNG, does WP:THREE call for independence for attesting Wikipedia-notability? Yes, it does. An investigator who involved Biddle in a story on ghost hunting does not make Biddle sufficiently notable for his own biography. It does warrant explicit mention of Biddle in the article ghost hunting, which is currently the case.

I suspect that you mix the scientific concept of independence with the scientific concept of reliability. In that field they mix. In historiography, they do not.

There is nothing in this source to support a stand alone biography on Biddle. In simpler language: Schechter is not a third party source on Biddle. And yes, Schechter is the source of the information. kare11.com is the publisher, not the source. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

You are way overcomplicating things and going out on a limb that is essentially of your own invention. This interview is of Biddle. Whether it is in-depth enough or of the sort that we would want to establish notability of Biddle as the subject of a standalone article is a matter that is unrelated to the independence of the source. Let's be clear: Concern about source independence is only something we care about because sources that lack independence are not really showing external notice (which is what notability is all about). Lacking independence also may indicate that the source is not reliable. In the case of this source, I agree that the notice of Biddle is somewhat incidental, but he is being referred to as an expert by a third-party source. That's notice, but it may not be as in-depth and serious as we would like. After all, WP:BLPs should be sourced a bit more stringently. jps ( talk) 01:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

You make the point that the interview is evidence that he is regarded as a ghost skeptic expert, I can agree with that. Maybe this is worth a week or more at AfD? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

3. No. This is just a mere mention of Biddle in relation and to end of Ghost Hunters, talking about Ghost Hunting Gadgets. Kenny Biddle is worth a mention at Ghost_hunting#Skepticism.

Weaken to weak "Endorse". Keep deleted with prejudice. Leave salted. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply

"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." Biddle is not an academic per se. but the field of scientific skepticism is similar as "research" and "investigations" are done and reported internally in support of science... but are generally ignored by mass media sources. Biddle is a converted paranormal enthusiast, now published widely and frequently by important organizations (JREF, CSI...), and embraced as an expert in what he does by his former adversaries. And his investigations are used by others in the field to back-up there own analyses (Radford, Hill...) Find another in this category. You can't. It irks me to no end to come across articles on soccer players and the like who are a dime a dozen... who played in a single pro game (maybe), and have an article - with minimal refs that they did that. ( One random example.) And yet they are WP:notable. Something is very wrong with this system. RobP ( talk) 15:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Well, you're preaching to the choir here about Wikipedia's overcoverage in sport, popular culture, games, and geographical trivia (to name a few problem areas). What has happened over the years is that editors who collaborate in those subjects have worked on developing subject-specific notability rules that enable them to have much looser ideas for who/what is notable than they would otherwise enjoy. Occasionally, some of us curmudgeons wander into their WP:GARDENs and make a stink, but Wikipedia is ultimately a volunteer enterprise run by consensus and unless/until we get people to identify the systematic problems and what to do about overcoverage, it is something we have to live with. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the classic link people will post. In the meantime, I think the problem with the idea that someone who is simply unusual should be considered notable is WP:SENSATION -- which is to say that focusing on unusual things can end up causing Wikipedia to become lopsided in coverage. Match that to WP:BLP concerns and suddenly you've got some very scary precedent if being unusual is a standard for inclusion.

I really do think this case is borderline so I might just say that we should see if this current flurry of interest on the part of the media in hot readings continues and Biddle is picked up as an expert more and more. That could push him over the edge with a clarity that would satisfy the most strident critics here. Remember WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. I would say, keep the draft, turn on a newsalert for your favorite aglomerator, and see what kind of media notice is generated. Maybe in a few months it will be obvious he is notable according to WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or WP:CELEBRITY.

jps ( talk) 20:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a plan! RobP ( talk) 21:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply