Content deleted Content added
Shibbolethink (talk | contribs) |
SportingFlyer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
: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.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
: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.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
: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...--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
: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...--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::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. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 22:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:18, 28 February 2019
27 February 2019
Kenny Biddle
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- *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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
We need more then one source to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)