Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
too long go for that
Line 56: Line 56:
:::<s>There was canvassing and uncivil behaviour from IP editors during the AfD - I'd like to know if any of that was connected to Bechly or his workplace.</s> [[User:Szzuk|Szzuk]] ([[User talk:Szzuk|talk]]) 11:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
:::<s>There was canvassing and uncivil behaviour from IP editors during the AfD - I'd like to know if any of that was connected to Bechly or his workplace.</s> [[User:Szzuk|Szzuk]] ([[User talk:Szzuk|talk]]) 11:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: Striking own comments. Too long ago for anything useful to come of it. [[User:Szzuk|Szzuk]] ([[User talk:Szzuk|talk]]) 13:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
:::: Striking own comments. Too long ago for anything useful to come of it. [[User:Szzuk|Szzuk]] ([[User talk:Szzuk|talk]]) 13:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' The obvious SPA "votes" for keeping are a major concern, and the fight-to-the-death battlefield that is creationism vs evolution should not pertain here, and yet it apparently does to some extent, unfortunately. The closing admin did a reasonable and rational close, following the guidelines at the time, and ignored the canvassing and the arguments without foundation. There clearly were insufficient [[WP:RS]] to make Bechly notable, and Jo-Jo Eumerus did a fine job in explaining his closure. The arguments made by Hijiri88 and other endorsers also resonated with me, so this is an endorse per them as well, without repeating their arguments. The reaction to the deletion is fascinating (in the sense of watching a disaster), and extremely troublesome. That reaction must not influence the existence of this article in WP. The sources referenced don't seem to understand Wikipedia and approach this as if it were a political issue. It's not. It is, and remains, an internal discussion among experienced editors about a particular article with reference to [[WP:Notability]] and [[WP:RS]]. If the subject gains sufficient RS (better than what we have here) to support notability, then there is no objection to undeleting the article into draft space and working on it. - [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 01:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:07, 7 February 2018

< 2018 February 2
2018 February 4 >

3 February 2018

Günter Bechly

Günter Bechly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article for Günter Bechly was deleted several months ago due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources I was considering rewriting the article on the basis that the subject passes WP:GNG, especially seeing as the close itself got some media attention which adds to potential sources. Sources:

Ironic that the deletion of his article for non-notability might actually lend itself to his notability. I previously discussed this with the closing admin, Jo-Jo Eumerus, on their talk page (can be found at the bottom of this archive) in December. They suggested I go here. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here so that people know I am aware. I won't comment before tomorrow, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was a fair close. Having looked at the refs above I'm unconvinced they would have made much difference, I would likely vote delete at a new AFD. If you seek and find better references during this DRV you could sway the vote in your favour and I suggest you do that. Szzuk (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I had a conversation with the closing admin User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Günter Bechly where I stated my opinion about this deletion and gave a few links to websites endorsing his notability. .The refs given above are of much less quality. Remember, the notability criteria are guidelines and not a rule. In the worst case also remember Wikipedia:Five pillars : Wikipedia has no firm rules ! JoJan (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would be helpful to see the quality of the refs in the deleted article. Szzuk (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the refs in the article, the AFd and the DRV I won't be changing my endorse vote. Given the length and depth of the AFd I expected the article itself to offer much more notability than it does. Szzuk (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The notability problem hasn't changed since the original discussion, there isn't any mention of Günter Bechly in secondary publications of the fields he writes in, and only a few smatterings of publications referencing him in passing outside of that field. The tempest in a teapot that happened after the deletion is all non-neutral sourcing making reliability a problem too.--Kevmin § 17:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in our deletion policy says the sources have to be "neutral". Nor should they. We'll write the best article we can given the sources. And the Haaretz article certainly doesn't put a positive spin on his ID work/views. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here (feel free to remove it in that case) but I feel it might be worth mentioning that a lot of those new refs listed above do not seem reliable at all, pretty much all the media coverage on the deletion was was accusing me and others who supperted deletion of bias, which is completely untrue and obvious to anyone who bothered to read the conversations without having an agenda. Even if the article is recreated, please do not endorse any of those ridiculous publications by using them in a BLP.★Trekker (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to comment and vote here. Szzuk (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no doubt that most of this is the internet at its worst, a combination of ignorance and "outrage", but simply because a source is biased doesn't inherently mean its not sufficiently independent or reliable in some circumstances (which is why I chose to omit the stream of diatribe from the Discovery Institute, as it employs Bechly) -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion and restore the keep arguments were on the whole poor and while the NBC and Dailymail articles in the article weren't horrible, there is a rational argument to be had that they weren't about him. But now we've got sources that are actually pretty good. The Haaretz article is navel-gazing for us but would seem to count toward WP:N. The Adventist article can't really be said to be non-independent. I think we are now well over WP:N. No objections to a relist if, as it seems, there is some debate about this. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD had a lot of canvassing and it is quite plausible that those new references are a result of the same canvassing. To make someone notable for getting deleted off WP and then kicking up a great fuss would be setting a bad precedent. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also WP:ONEEVENT to consider. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent point is good, but I think ONEVENT would apply if the event were found to be notable, so essentially we would be tacitly acknowledging that "Deletion of The Wikipedia article of Gunter Bechly" would be notable, which would be odd, to say the least. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, he's got better coverage than most of our BLPs at this point. A few articles purely about him. And only one of the four articles I listed are about getting deleted from Wikipedia. I don't see how one out of four being largely about that event makes ONEEVENT in play. Now it is the _best_ source, but still. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it deleted. The AfD was brimming over with canvassing, and the coverage of the deletion was mediocre journalism at best (for example, Haaretz — whose write-up is the best of a sorry lot — completely botched the history of Wikipedia deletion discussions). Sound-and-fury from unreliable sources is not adequate basis to bring an article back. I would say that the dust-up over deleting the article could itself be mentioned in some other page, but I don't think the sources we have are actually reliable enough for even that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It seems clear to me that a scientific author with many publications who has named several new species, and has been recognized by his peers and had species named after him, is in fact notable. Invertzoo (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative" of notability, per WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This was aan example of an afd where a scientist with an orthodox and notable record in their field, was held to a much higher standard because they were also a creationist. It has always with everyone else here where the question was raised at AfD, that discovering new species is an indication of notability (not having a species merely named after oneself, because the discoverer can name it after anyone or anything they please.) And he did discover quite a number of new species and also described at least one high classification. That in particular is expertise amount to recognition by ones peers. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see; a) Bechly self authoring his own article b) Canvassing during the AfD c) bogus anti-creationism being used as a vehicle to generate the news refs above. Also note the nom for this DRV isn't asking for an overturn, he's asking for allow recreation. Szzuk (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well, I was thinking of writing one myself, but it would make sense to start with what we have. I'm a supporter of the article and he didn't canvass me. Point c. I don;t understand.
  • Overturn or userfy and rewrite. New sources easily push borderline scientist over the top GNG-wise. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The AFD close was a reasoned and valid conclusion to the discussion. I don't see how additional coverage about the fact that the article was deleted adds to the subject's notability; after all, the subject is a person, not a Wikipedia article. I have no objection to re-creating the article afresh in draft space, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was reasonable. I don't think it very likely that we would have had an article if the subject had not been advocating creationism, and its creation by an account with no other edits, followed immediately by editing by the subject, not only supports this but also stinks. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost half the edits to the article are by the subject or an IP address where he works, as well as the single-edit SPI who created the article. Yes, it stinks. Blow it up and start over, I say. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I estimate 99% of the content originates from Bechly himself or his work place. Szzuk (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to that 99% of the content was totally unsourced and unsourcable when Bechly's personal webpages (which are not reliable sourcing) are removed.--Kevmin § 23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator - I think its important for me to emphasize that I'm arguing for the recreation of this article in light of new coverage, not because I thought the original AfD was wrong. If someone else has other sources (pre or post-AfD) they think would support GNG then by all means list them, but please understand I'm not arguing for the mere restoration of the old article with all of its old problems. If it were brought back I'd want to improve it, naturally. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle: I don't believe that point has been lost. I and others who endorse the deletion have no objection to starting afresh, particularly if the deleting admin also doesn't object. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: What do you say? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I stand by my previous close but that was before the new sources. Now I see there is some question about whether the new sources are adequate so I dunno. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I have looked at the new coverage and in my opinion it isn't quite enough to make him notable. There may, however, be enough coverage to justify an article about the deletion. As for the accusation of a double standard, I think that it is pretty clear that we have one standard, but some of the least notable BLPs don't get enough attention and remain despite the fact that if we looked at them they wouldn't survive an AfD. Günter Bechly drew our attention because of his being a creationist. He would have drawn our attention if he had streaked the Superbowl, made a wildly popular YouTube video, or any number of other things that in themselves don't make someone notable. The answer is not to relax our standards for Günter Bechly but rather to AfD the other non-notable BLPs that have escaped our attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse So a bunch of creationist publications came out against our deleting an article on a (supposedly?) ID-sympathetic scientist -- do we buckle and restore the article regardless of what our policies and guidelines say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Actually a bunch of the sources are really about Wikipedia, NOT Bechly, and I don't get the impression that anyone who would cite them in favour of undeletion has actually read them. This is a particularly glaring example -- one gets the impression that the headline (quoted above, out of context) was either written by someone other than the author of the article, or was meant to be deliberately tongue-in-cheek, since it is actually praising our community for having prevented the religious right from hijacking our encyclopedia. what began as an orderly debate about whether Bechlys [sic] work qualifies him to have his own entry in Wikipedia and whether the entry about him meets the criteria required for academics – standards thoroughly covered by Wikipedias [sic] general notability guidelines [sic] – soon deteriorated into a battle royal between science-minded Wikipedia editors and promoters of creationism -- such a source obviously can not and should not be used to undelete the page as though it somehow solves the notability problem. The ACSH source is also questionable -- browsing other articles by the same author on the same website, one gets the impression they are promoting the (fringe) "the left is more anti-science than the right", as anti-vaccination movement coverage is rampant, NPR and the New York Times are apparently just as fake as Infowars and Natural News, and most telling of all the only entry on the website of a scientific/educational organization that mentions ID is one that creates a false equivalence between an ID proponent we have "erased from history" and Alexander Graham Bell.[1] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report Incident?. The pattern of behaviour discovered during this DRV might be worthy of an incident report at ANI. There is self authoring, a COI, canvassing and in the words of a couple of editors it "Stinks". Bechly may even welcome this - he could fire off some emails complaining about his topic ban on editing himself and generate some more references. Szzuk (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was canvassing and uncivil behaviour from IP editors during the AfD - I'd like to know if any of that was connected to Bechly or his workplace. Szzuk (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking own comments. Too long ago for anything useful to come of it. Szzuk (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The obvious SPA "votes" for keeping are a major concern, and the fight-to-the-death battlefield that is creationism vs evolution should not pertain here, and yet it apparently does to some extent, unfortunately. The closing admin did a reasonable and rational close, following the guidelines at the time, and ignored the canvassing and the arguments without foundation. There clearly were insufficient WP:RS to make Bechly notable, and Jo-Jo Eumerus did a fine job in explaining his closure. The arguments made by Hijiri88 and other endorsers also resonated with me, so this is an endorse per them as well, without repeating their arguments. The reaction to the deletion is fascinating (in the sense of watching a disaster), and extremely troublesome. That reaction must not influence the existence of this article in WP. The sources referenced don't seem to understand Wikipedia and approach this as if it were a political issue. It's not. It is, and remains, an internal discussion among experienced editors about a particular article with reference to WP:Notability and WP:RS. If the subject gains sufficient RS (better than what we have here) to support notability, then there is no objection to undeleting the article into draft space and working on it. - Becksguy (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_February_3&oldid=824386369"