Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobel disease: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
+ image Tag: Reverted |
Undid revision 1045054569 by Andrew Davidson (talk) at worst a personal attack, at best irrelevant |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::A search on [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Nobel+disease%22 Google] only gives approximately 6000 hits, which is a remarkablly small number for a term in use for well over a decade. Of those six references you provided, we have [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/ a skeptic site], [https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/12/18/paul-krugman-now-has-nobel-disease-10609 another skeptic site], [https://skepdic.com/nobeldisease.html The Skeptics Dictionary], [https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/05/the-nobel-disease-when-intelligence-fails-to-protect-against-irrationality/ The Skeptical Inquirer], [https://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2011/10/08/the-nobel-disease/ a skeptic blog], and a [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2013-0273/html non-skeptic article that doesn't mention the term], (but does talk about something similar). I'm not finding much outside of the skeptic literature - there are a very small number of mentions here and there, but nothing particularly significant. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
::A search on [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Nobel+disease%22 Google] only gives approximately 6000 hits, which is a remarkablly small number for a term in use for well over a decade. Of those six references you provided, we have [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-dose-vitamin-c-and-cancer-has-linus-pauling-been-vindicated/ a skeptic site], [https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/12/18/paul-krugman-now-has-nobel-disease-10609 another skeptic site], [https://skepdic.com/nobeldisease.html The Skeptics Dictionary], [https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/05/the-nobel-disease-when-intelligence-fails-to-protect-against-irrationality/ The Skeptical Inquirer], [https://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2011/10/08/the-nobel-disease/ a skeptic blog], and a [https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2013-0273/html non-skeptic article that doesn't mention the term], (but does talk about something similar). I'm not finding much outside of the skeptic literature - there are a very small number of mentions here and there, but nothing particularly significant. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' per Michael Levitt.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 14:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' per Michael Levitt.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 14:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
[[File:Einstein - Ulm.JPG|thumb|right|"''[[:q:Albert_Einstein|Die Majorität der Dummen ist unüberwindbar...]]''"]] |
|||
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:MEDRS]]. Winning the Nobel prize is not a disease and it is derogatory to suggest that the winners are cranks. The issue obviously arises because the prizes are awarded for outstanding and ground-breaking achievements and these are not likely to be made by conventional thinkers. Other outstanding minds like Newton have had their quirks and Feynman was rejected for the draft on the grounds that he was crazy. Cherry-picking such anecdotes is pseudo-science. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 14:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:MEDRS]]. Winning the Nobel prize is not a disease and it is derogatory to suggest that the winners are cranks. The issue obviously arises because the prizes are awarded for outstanding and ground-breaking achievements and these are not likely to be made by conventional thinkers. Other outstanding minds like Newton have had their quirks and Feynman was rejected for the draft on the grounds that he was crazy. Cherry-picking such anecdotes is pseudo-science. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 14:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
**You can be a crank even if you have a Nobel prize. Case in point, these people. Kary Mullis's reasoning wrt to Astrology is not suddenly valid because he has a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Derogatory or not is irrelevant, what matters is that '''multiple reliable source''' all refer to this as 'Nobel disease', which is ''obviously'' not a medical disease/diagnostic, but rather an semi-humourous/informal term.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 14:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
**You can be a crank even if you have a Nobel prize. Case in point, these people. Kary Mullis's reasoning wrt to Astrology is not suddenly valid because he has a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Derogatory or not is irrelevant, what matters is that '''multiple reliable source''' all refer to this as 'Nobel disease', which is ''obviously'' not a medical disease/diagnostic, but rather an semi-humourous/informal term.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 14:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:56, 18 September 2021
Nobel disease
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nobel disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an apparant neologisms - a search on Google shows that the term is not in common use. The majority of the people included are referenced to one or two sources that used many times, or are original research with no mention of the term in the reference being employed. Bilby (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Oh... Come on! Bilby. Sure, it's a neologism, but it isn't "one or two sources". It has been in use for well over a decade and it has been well-documented in several reliable sources. I counted at least 6: Gorski, 2008, Berezow, 2016, Carroll, 2015, Basterfield et al, 2020, Winter, 2011 Diamandis, 2013 and these are just the ones that are currently used in the article. As for the OR, I have removed an entire WP:OR section myself (see talk), might have missed another. But the other links with no mention of nobelitis are there for a reason. Even if you remove all of them, there are enough reliable sources discussing it for the article to be kept. VdSV9•♫ 14:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- A search on Google only gives approximately 6000 hits, which is a remarkablly small number for a term in use for well over a decade. Of those six references you provided, we have a skeptic site, another skeptic site, The Skeptics Dictionary, The Skeptical Inquirer, a skeptic blog, and a non-skeptic article that doesn't mention the term, (but does talk about something similar). I'm not finding much outside of the skeptic literature - there are a very small number of mentions here and there, but nothing particularly significant. - Bilby (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Michael Levitt. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. Winning the Nobel prize is not a disease and it is derogatory to suggest that the winners are cranks. The issue obviously arises because the prizes are awarded for outstanding and ground-breaking achievements and these are not likely to be made by conventional thinkers. Other outstanding minds like Newton have had their quirks and Feynman was rejected for the draft on the grounds that he was crazy. Cherry-picking such anecdotes is pseudo-science. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- You can be a crank even if you have a Nobel prize. Case in point, these people. Kary Mullis's reasoning wrt to Astrology is not suddenly valid because he has a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Derogatory or not is irrelevant, what matters is that multiple reliable source all refer to this as 'Nobel disease', which is obviously not a medical disease/diagnostic, but rather an semi-humourous/informal term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Humour is, by its nature, not reliable. This joke is being used as a WP:COATRACK to make derogatory attacks on specific individuals. Their winning of the Nobel prize is being used as a form of guilt by association. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- You can be a crank even if you have a Nobel prize. Case in point, these people. Kary Mullis's reasoning wrt to Astrology is not suddenly valid because he has a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Derogatory or not is irrelevant, what matters is that multiple reliable source all refer to this as 'Nobel disease', which is obviously not a medical disease/diagnostic, but rather an semi-humourous/informal term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)