Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhawn Joseph

Rhawn Joseph

Rhawn Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I stated in my WP:PROD, this particular person does not seem to have received the requisite third-party notice that Wikipedia requires for biographies. See WP:BIO and WP:PROF since the claim to notability seems to be one of academic success. The article itself appears to be a puff-piece made to generally praise the subject and I'm wondering if this article was created at the behest of the subject considering: this.

The question to consider here is if there are enough third-party notices in reliable sources for us to write an article on this person. So far, it seems that the passing mention of this individual has occurred to a level that is barely perceptible in the journals and really the most intense notice has occurred on blogs and personal internet pages which we should not be linking to considering WP:BLP. Additionally, much of the information is currently sourced to Rhawn Joseph's personal pages.

Another relevant guideline to consider is WP:FRINGE. I think that there are a number of users who are questioning whether he has the notability that we would require for a fringe promoter. There certainly are far more famous anti-Darwinists, anti-Big Bang-ist, pro-panspermia people that we write about (Chandra Wickramasinghe comes to mind as does the late Fred Hoyle), but I just don't think the subject of this article has risen to the level of fame we would require to write a decent article on the subject. Basically, we have a PR-piece written to promote Joseph at this point, but I don't see how we can satisfy WP:NPOV considering there aren't enough independent third-party evaluations that have occurred reliably. We're in a morass for satisfying WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG and WP:RS all at the same time. Generally, when it is the editorial decision of the Wikipedia community that it is impossible to write an article that follows the pillars of this website, we ask that the article be deleted.

It may be that Rhawn Joseph becomes more famous in the upcoming years. Maybe he will be regarded as the next Deepak Chopra, etc. If that happens, we can recreate the article with third-party evaluation. Until that time, I don't think that there is enough to keep an article.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete - fails to meet our standards of notability, either professionally or as a crackpot. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Rhawn Joseph is a well known academic with 1000s of references for his work on neruropsychology which can found online, he is well spoken of, just look on google books, he is even mentioned in mainstream neuroscience textbooks. How can you say he is fringe when Roger Penrose has peer reviewed some of his neuroscience publications? Dr. Rhawn Joseph PhD has over 120 peer reviewed publications in all kinds of journals. The user 76.119.90.74 is a sock account of a user "headbomb", he has a vendetta against Rhawn Joseph as Rhawn Joseph is in opposition to the Big Bang and this user headbomb is Catholic who does not like an eternal universe he is also a fascist calling anyone who believes in a different idea a "crackpot". Also see how this user has called rhawn joseph and his work "crackpot" on the Journal of Cosmology article, six other users have also said this user is not neutral, he has a vendetta against Joseph and anyone working for the JOC. I would also point out, that panspermia apart from Hoyle and Chandra has little advocates on wikipedia, Joseph should be on wikipedia, wikipedia is a free knowledge website, why supress information from it? Joseph is a scholar he should be on wiki.

IndianNationalist (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)