- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There are definitely issues with the content of article, but consensus is that this will be best handled through editing rather than deletion. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Edward J. Steele
- Edward J. Steele ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be drawn almost entirely from primary sources associated with the subject. Its tone is promotional, and overall it reads like a PR biography. Taken at face value, this is the biography of someone who has singlehandedly overturned the theory of evolution and restored Lamarckian inheritance to the scientific mainstream. Anyone familiar with the subject knows this is not the case. Guy ( Help!) 07:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'll ping User:Randykitty, but [1] seems to show his research is relatively widely cited, etc., so he may pass WP:PROF. And if so, the article doesn't need a WP:TNT - worst case, cut 90% of the promo stuff, and reduce to the lead. Or tag with {{ peacock}} etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep GS h-index of 29 passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Article needs to be cut by 90% to remove peacockery. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
- Delete. Here's an excellent example where h-index is not particularly relevant because of incestuous citations. If you actually look at the citations, you will see that they are to essentially a WP:Walled garden. WP:PROF is not supposed to be a suicide pact. Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this WP:FRINGE proposal and there isn't much else going for this person's biographical notability, I say delete. jps ( talk) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't see a walled garden in his citations. Looking at the cites to his top cited (202) paper I find no self-citations in the first 20 cites.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
- I think you are not looking at his papers here but rather a book. I am of the opinion that book citations are generally not particularly useful as a means to gauge interest in how accepted a particular POV is since they reach non-academic audiences. I would argue that the citations to his books are rather, um, fringe-y themselves. jps ( talk) 14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't see a walled garden in his citations. Looking at the cites to his top cited (202) paper I find no self-citations in the first 20 cites.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
- of 2146 only 191 [2] are for his book.
Weakkeep Some does not mean none there has been independent evaluation done of this. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was quoting you. You said "Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this " I am taking you at your word.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I like to leave open the opportunities for others to show enough
WP:FRIND-complaint sources that would change my mind. Simply positing that they exist and then offering bupkis is not my idea of a
good faith discussion.
jps (
talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- So why then not wright "I have seen nothing but am willing to be convinced" rather then implying you have seen some sources? So are you saying you have seen no analysis of this mans work in RS? Are you saying that I should in fact not take you at your word?
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is this whinging really necessary? I mean, you now know what I mean, so what's the point of complaining about my wrighting(sic) style?
jps (
talk) 14:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- No I do not know what you mean, Have you or have you not seen RS that analyses his work. It really is a simple yes or no answer. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is this whinging really necessary? I mean, you now know what I mean, so what's the point of complaining about my wrighting(sic) style?
jps (
talk) 14:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- So why then not wright "I have seen nothing but am willing to be convinced" rather then implying you have seen some sources? So are you saying you have seen no analysis of this mans work in RS? Are you saying that I should in fact not take you at your word?
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I like to leave open the opportunities for others to show enough
WP:FRIND-complaint sources that would change my mind. Simply positing that they exist and then offering bupkis is not my idea of a
good faith discussion.
jps (
talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was quoting you. You said "Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this " I am taking you at your word.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. If kept, the article should be stubbed and all fringe apologetics removed. It is tempting to say that the resulting article would be so different from the current one that TNT could be invoked to support a detection outcome. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, per Guy and others. As I've noted before, I can't think of a single case where an entire body of scientific research has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by someone who lacks expertise in that field. This is classic WP:UNDUE. I suppose a case can be made for stubbing, with removal of all the nonsense, but unless better NPOV secondary sources can be produced, my preference would be outright deletion. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:I DON'T LIKE IT is no reason to delete material. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
- Keep per Xxanthippe and others. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- comment Well now I have found RS discussing his work I no longer feel a weak keep. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, his claims are pure malarkey and the article needs rewriting. But he seems to have a following of sorts in the pseudoscience sphere and it's probably worth having a few words about how his claims are not widely accepted. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC).
- Maybe we need to cover his other work and not concentrate on a single book or theory. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As Xxanthippe said, the article subject has a GS h-index of 29 which passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Plus with all the present citations in the article it passes WP:GNG. The promo stuff needs to go, like around 70 to 80%. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Some sources
american scientist [3] The Quarterly Review of Biology [4] New Scientist, Volume 162 Slatersteven ( talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society
more [5] Slatersteven ( talk) 16:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
And for his work and impact out side Lamikins.
His dismissal, [6], [7], [8], [9]
This should be enough. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and improve, still too much promotional stuff, but as others point out it passes
WP:PROF and
WP:GNG. @
DoctorJoeE I am pretty sure that
WP:UNDUE is only a valid justification for removal of material from an article, not deletion of an article.
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:UNDUE specifically says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
DoctorJoeE
review transgressions/
talk to me! 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- The policy you quoted only concerns how an article describes its topic, not what topics can have articles. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never have an article like HIV/AIDS denialism, which concerns what is obviously the viewpoint of a small minority. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:UNDUE specifically says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
DoctorJoeE
review transgressions/
talk to me! 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Right, this is about what is allowed in articles, not what articles are allowed. Also this article is not about something only a few people believe in, I suspect the fringe view is this person does not exist (if he does not exist can we have some RS saying this). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There are definitely issues with the content of article, but consensus is that this will be best handled through editing rather than deletion. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Edward J. Steele
- Edward J. Steele ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be drawn almost entirely from primary sources associated with the subject. Its tone is promotional, and overall it reads like a PR biography. Taken at face value, this is the biography of someone who has singlehandedly overturned the theory of evolution and restored Lamarckian inheritance to the scientific mainstream. Anyone familiar with the subject knows this is not the case. Guy ( Help!) 07:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I'll ping User:Randykitty, but [1] seems to show his research is relatively widely cited, etc., so he may pass WP:PROF. And if so, the article doesn't need a WP:TNT - worst case, cut 90% of the promo stuff, and reduce to the lead. Or tag with {{ peacock}} etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep GS h-index of 29 passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Article needs to be cut by 90% to remove peacockery. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
- Delete. Here's an excellent example where h-index is not particularly relevant because of incestuous citations. If you actually look at the citations, you will see that they are to essentially a WP:Walled garden. WP:PROF is not supposed to be a suicide pact. Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this WP:FRINGE proposal and there isn't much else going for this person's biographical notability, I say delete. jps ( talk) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't see a walled garden in his citations. Looking at the cites to his top cited (202) paper I find no self-citations in the first 20 cites.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
- I think you are not looking at his papers here but rather a book. I am of the opinion that book citations are generally not particularly useful as a means to gauge interest in how accepted a particular POV is since they reach non-academic audiences. I would argue that the citations to his books are rather, um, fringe-y themselves. jps ( talk) 14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't see a walled garden in his citations. Looking at the cites to his top cited (202) paper I find no self-citations in the first 20 cites.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
- of 2146 only 191 [2] are for his book.
Weakkeep Some does not mean none there has been independent evaluation done of this. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was quoting you. You said "Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this " I am taking you at your word.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I like to leave open the opportunities for others to show enough
WP:FRIND-complaint sources that would change my mind. Simply positing that they exist and then offering bupkis is not my idea of a
good faith discussion.
jps (
talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- So why then not wright "I have seen nothing but am willing to be convinced" rather then implying you have seen some sources? So are you saying you have seen no analysis of this mans work in RS? Are you saying that I should in fact not take you at your word?
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is this whinging really necessary? I mean, you now know what I mean, so what's the point of complaining about my wrighting(sic) style?
jps (
talk) 14:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- No I do not know what you mean, Have you or have you not seen RS that analyses his work. It really is a simple yes or no answer. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is this whinging really necessary? I mean, you now know what I mean, so what's the point of complaining about my wrighting(sic) style?
jps (
talk) 14:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- So why then not wright "I have seen nothing but am willing to be convinced" rather then implying you have seen some sources? So are you saying you have seen no analysis of this mans work in RS? Are you saying that I should in fact not take you at your word?
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I like to leave open the opportunities for others to show enough
WP:FRIND-complaint sources that would change my mind. Simply positing that they exist and then offering bupkis is not my idea of a
good faith discussion.
jps (
talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was quoting you. You said "Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this " I am taking you at your word.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. If kept, the article should be stubbed and all fringe apologetics removed. It is tempting to say that the resulting article would be so different from the current one that TNT could be invoked to support a detection outcome. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 15:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, per Guy and others. As I've noted before, I can't think of a single case where an entire body of scientific research has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by someone who lacks expertise in that field. This is classic WP:UNDUE. I suppose a case can be made for stubbing, with removal of all the nonsense, but unless better NPOV secondary sources can be produced, my preference would be outright deletion. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me! 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:I DON'T LIKE IT is no reason to delete material. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
- Keep per Xxanthippe and others. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 01:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- comment Well now I have found RS discussing his work I no longer feel a weak keep. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, his claims are pure malarkey and the article needs rewriting. But he seems to have a following of sorts in the pseudoscience sphere and it's probably worth having a few words about how his claims are not widely accepted. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC).
- Maybe we need to cover his other work and not concentrate on a single book or theory. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As Xxanthippe said, the article subject has a GS h-index of 29 which passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Plus with all the present citations in the article it passes WP:GNG. The promo stuff needs to go, like around 70 to 80%. Antonioatrylia ( talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Some sources
american scientist [3] The Quarterly Review of Biology [4] New Scientist, Volume 162 Slatersteven ( talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society
more [5] Slatersteven ( talk) 16:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
And for his work and impact out side Lamikins.
His dismissal, [6], [7], [8], [9]
This should be enough. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep and improve, still too much promotional stuff, but as others point out it passes
WP:PROF and
WP:GNG. @
DoctorJoeE I am pretty sure that
WP:UNDUE is only a valid justification for removal of material from an article, not deletion of an article.
Insert
CleverPhrase
Here 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:UNDUE specifically says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
DoctorJoeE
review transgressions/
talk to me! 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- The policy you quoted only concerns how an article describes its topic, not what topics can have articles. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never have an article like HIV/AIDS denialism, which concerns what is obviously the viewpoint of a small minority. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:UNDUE specifically says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."
DoctorJoeE
review transgressions/
talk to me! 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Right, this is about what is allowed in articles, not what articles are allowed. Also this article is not about something only a few people believe in, I suspect the fringe view is this person does not exist (if he does not exist can we have some RS saying this). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.