Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
****Yes, there is nothing that prevents longtime editors who are grandfathered into article creation from re-creating deleted material. Yes, this has historically been something that has been called out as problematic at AfDs as an end-run around [[WP:DRV]]. I'm not saying sanction the article creator (though [[WP:COI]] could be a consideration here). I'm merely saying that the article was once deleted and it probably deserves to stay deleted. Should I ask for [[WP:SALT]]? Well, let's just see what happens in this discussion. The claim that "his peers cite him with no caveat" is not surprising when you are publishing in a backwater or walled garden. This is particularly common in [[WP:FRINGE]] areas such as [[race and intelligence]] or [[cryptozoology]], to be honest. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
****Yes, there is nothing that prevents longtime editors who are grandfathered into article creation from re-creating deleted material. Yes, this has historically been something that has been called out as problematic at AfDs as an end-run around [[WP:DRV]]. I'm not saying sanction the article creator (though [[WP:COI]] could be a consideration here). I'm merely saying that the article was once deleted and it probably deserves to stay deleted. Should I ask for [[WP:SALT]]? Well, let's just see what happens in this discussion. The claim that "his peers cite him with no caveat" is not surprising when you are publishing in a backwater or walled garden. This is particularly common in [[WP:FRINGE]] areas such as [[race and intelligence]] or [[cryptozoology]], to be honest. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' Non-notable fringe academic that was originally [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Woodley] deleted but re-created by a noted white supremacist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bpesta22 B. Pesta] (who is a colleague Woodley's). Not enough reliable sources give details about Woodley's life. Most of the sources on the article are not in depth and only passing mention i.e. sources 9-15 are excessive and some do not even mention Woodley (for example, [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/14/less-clever-than-victorians] or mention him once only [https://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/our-iq-is-on-the-decline-a-study-suggests-victorians-had-higher-iq-than-us/story-zmVx0lcPxMly6ZRSf1VCKP.html], so these sources are being used inappropriately. Pesta was desperate to create the Wikipedia article for Woodley because he wanted to get the article above Woodley's [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_A._Woodley_of_Menie RationalWiki] article in Google ranking. It's a desperate attempt to create a whitewashed biography for Google ranking. Also the claim that Woodley has abandoned cryptozoology is not true, he is still researching the topic as of 2022 and has also co-written several crazy paranormal papers which are not notable. I understand there are notable fringe people, but this guy is not one of them. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Non-notable fringe academic that was originally [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Woodley] deleted but re-created by a noted white supremacist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bpesta22 B. Pesta] (who is a colleague Woodley's). Not enough reliable sources give details about Woodley's life. Most of the sources on the article are not in depth and only passing mention i.e. sources 9-15 are excessive and some do not even mention Woodley (for example, [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/14/less-clever-than-victorians] or mention him once only [https://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/our-iq-is-on-the-decline-a-study-suggests-victorians-had-higher-iq-than-us/story-zmVx0lcPxMly6ZRSf1VCKP.html], so these sources are being used inappropriately. Pesta was desperate to create the Wikipedia article for Woodley because he wanted to get the article above Woodley's [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_A._Woodley_of_Menie RationalWiki] article in Google ranking. It's a desperate attempt to create a whitewashed biography for Google ranking. Also the claim that Woodley has abandoned cryptozoology is not true, he is still researching the topic as of 2022 and has also co-written several crazy paranormal papers which are not notable. I understand there are notable fringe people, but this guy is not one of them. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
||
** the person requesting deletion has been banned a million times for using sock puppets so maybe lay off the name calling. [[User:Nweil|Nweil]] ([[User talk:Nweil|talk]]) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:33, 28 February 2022
Michael Woodley
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Michael Woodley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was deleted in 2017 but then recreated by a colleague of Woodley in 2019 without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action. Aside from the WP:PROF concerns that we can address, I notice that many to most of the sources used for this WP:BLP are not discussing the biography of the subject per se but instead are essentially either a retelling of his published work and public appearances or deep dive into WP:FRINGE areas to which this fellow seems particularly attracted for better or worse (see WP:FRINGEBLP for considerations in that regard). It is absolutely the case that he has been mentioned in the context of lately salacious controversies that dominate, shall I say, "intellectually dark" corners of the internet, but mere mention is typically not enough on which to base a biography. As an academic, his work is not particularly highly cited, as a public intellectual his reach is niche and WP:FRINGE (note that I was first alerted to the existence of this biography through a notice on WP:FTN about his recent forays into claims that look a lot like championing parapsychology, though sourcing is weak), and besides that I see little in the way as to attestations of notability.
Should some of this material be included elsewhere? It's possible. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN over his participation in the London Conference on Intelligence, but I think his participation, if at all noteworthy, is better handled at that page rather than on a biography. His onetime enthusiasm for cryptozoology might be worth a brief mention in a page like Gloucester sea serpent or something like that, and the way in which he has positioned himself in race and intelligence discussions may also lead to as much as a paragraph in some article on Flynn effect where it is clear that some mainstream news kinda attached themselves, press-release-style, to his claim that human beings are losing their intelligence (but see WP:SENSATION). All in all, there is essentially no attestation to notability here that I can find for this person as a subject of a biography. That does not mean all mention of Woodley needs to be excised from Wikipedia, but when asking the question of whether a standalone article deserves to exist, I think we have to consider that when the sourcing is this precarious and the content this prone to problems, it is better to be conservative and remove the article than it is to have one sticking out like the sore thumb this one is. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to the issues which jps has laid out, I'll just add that two of the secondary sources used in the article (which may give the impression of conferring notability) are authored by Woodley's collaborators: 1) the entry in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science [1] was written by Matthew Sarraf (who has collaborated with Woodley on numerous papers, see e.g. [2], [3], [4]) and Aurelio José Figueredo (see e.g. [5], [6], [7]); and 2) the article "Cryptozoology at the Zoological Society of London" by Darren Naish [8] (who collaborated with Woodley here: [9]). Because neither of these sources is independent of the subject, it doesn't seem that either should count toward WP:GNG. Generalrelative (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Isn't the point of NPROF is to keep these academics' articles in order to summarise their contributions to academic fields rather than discuss their life outside that because they would otherwise flunk the GNG? You mention mainstream news often reporting on sensationalism, but what if RS like New Scientist, Psychology Today, and Smithsonian Magazine are also discussing his work?[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- New Scientist is a sensationalist rag, the item on the Smithsonian Magazine website is too brief to be WP:SIGCOV, and the item in Psychology Today is a passing mention that does not find it particularly credible. (
Personally, I am rather sceptical of this theory as it rests on many questionable assumptions and some rather shaky evidence. In this article I don’t intend to go into too much detail...
[11]) Overall, I'm not impressed with the quantity or depth of the news reporting available. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- New Scientist is a sensationalist rag, the item on the Smithsonian Magazine website is too brief to be WP:SIGCOV, and the item in Psychology Today is a passing mention that does not find it particularly credible. (
- Is Scientific American also a sensationalist rag like WP:NEWSCIENTIST? [12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's a blog. jps (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- You mean a WP:NEWSBLOG? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's a blog. jps (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Is Scientific American also a sensationalist rag like WP:NEWSCIENTIST? [12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPROF asks us to consider the academic noteworthiness of a person which may diverge from typical biographical considerations. But in this regard, the situation is even more dire. The guy is not a particularly well-known academic according to the usual measures. jps (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Greatly disagree that this article "sticks out like a sore thumb". It's very much in line with other academic articles. The references are very mainstream and reliable. You mention it was created "without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action" but don't explain.Nweil (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- When articles are recreated after being deleted, there is normally a discussion prior to "undeletion". See WP:DRV. jps (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weird that you think the article is "very much in line" with other academic articles given that by my reading most of the content relates to WP:FRINGE theories. That's not particularly common. jps (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- This was not an undeletion request. It was created anew. As far I can tell, there was no end-around the policy as you imply. There are multiple print references to Woodley's work. His peers cite him with no caveat. This is fundamentally opposed to your claim of "fringe". Nweil (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there is nothing that prevents longtime editors who are grandfathered into article creation from re-creating deleted material. Yes, this has historically been something that has been called out as problematic at AfDs as an end-run around WP:DRV. I'm not saying sanction the article creator (though WP:COI could be a consideration here). I'm merely saying that the article was once deleted and it probably deserves to stay deleted. Should I ask for WP:SALT? Well, let's just see what happens in this discussion. The claim that "his peers cite him with no caveat" is not surprising when you are publishing in a backwater or walled garden. This is particularly common in WP:FRINGE areas such as race and intelligence or cryptozoology, to be honest. jps (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- This was not an undeletion request. It was created anew. As far I can tell, there was no end-around the policy as you imply. There are multiple print references to Woodley's work. His peers cite him with no caveat. This is fundamentally opposed to your claim of "fringe". Nweil (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable fringe academic that was originally [13] deleted but re-created by a noted white supremacist B. Pesta (who is a colleague Woodley's). Not enough reliable sources give details about Woodley's life. Most of the sources on the article are not in depth and only passing mention i.e. sources 9-15 are excessive and some do not even mention Woodley (for example, [14] or mention him once only [15], so these sources are being used inappropriately. Pesta was desperate to create the Wikipedia article for Woodley because he wanted to get the article above Woodley's RationalWiki article in Google ranking. It's a desperate attempt to create a whitewashed biography for Google ranking. Also the claim that Woodley has abandoned cryptozoology is not true, he is still researching the topic as of 2022 and has also co-written several crazy paranormal papers which are not notable. I understand there are notable fringe people, but this guy is not one of them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)