Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woodley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[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)[reply]

Is Scientific American also a sensationalist rag like WP:NEWSCIENTIST? [12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a blog. jps (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a WP:NEWSBLOG? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I mean WP:BLOG especially with reference to its final exhortation: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." jps (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not self-published. The author did not publish it, since the publisher, Scientific American, still had to accept it. That should be obvious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the WP:BLOG policy is clear. This counts as a blog according to it. Sorry. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN and ask for other opinions, but I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be. jps (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from plain language what "self-published" means and that Scientific American article is not it. I can let others in this AfD figure that out for themselves. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Tetrapod Zoology" or "Tet Zoo" is the personal blog of Darren Naish, which was hosted by the SciAm blog collective until he departed in 2018 [13]. Without more information about how much editorial control SciAm exerted over their bloggers at the time, it's actually hard to say whether Tet Zoo counts as WP:SPS or not. (The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American, says a disclaimer in tiny font.) One could well argue that, to be prudent, it is not suitable for sourcing a contentious claim in a BLP. And since it's Naish blogging about something he did with Woodley, it's a WP:PRIMARY source, meaning that we could only use it with extreme care, and that it doesn't contribute to notability. (I wouldn't magically become wiki-notable if my coauthors blogged about me.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that explanation makes more sense because it seemed like he was the equivalent to a columnist at a newspaper at face value. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: is this because of its new ownership? Does the RSNP statement "There is consensus that New Scientist magazine is generally reliable for science coverage. Use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims." need revision? Because you seem to be basing your statement on two events that happened over a decade ago. I'm asking this as a general question not related to this AfD. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: There were many incidents other than those two from that time period [14], none of which are easily forgiven, and the most recent discussion linked at RSP indicates that they're just sleazy: They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy, etc. N. David Mermin took the trouble to make an arXiv post about how New Scientist wouldn't quote him accurately about his own work [15]. The new ownership is just icing on the cake, and an indication that nothing's going to improve. XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need a new RSN discussion, right? Because I certainly have been relying on RSNP and knee none of this. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fringe academic that was originally [16] deleted but re-created by (Personal attack removed) B. Pesta (Redacted). 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, [17] or mention him once only [18], so these sources are being used inappropriately. (Personal attack removed). 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)[reply]
  • Keep. This non-mainstream scholar passes WP:Prof#C1 on Google scholar|Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley publications indexed by Google Scholar cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    • This looks like Googlehacking to me which has been an increasingly common game played by fringe academics. Google Scholar does a pretty poor job of distinguishing between self-citations, churn, and pocket journal citations, for example. It's also clear that this list is one that is being monitored by the subject which Google Scholar now allows you to do, making it less unbiased for our purposes. jps (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "monitored by the subject"? Anybody can monitor any GS profile: they cannot alter it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, you can alter it now by claiming the profile and linking to your papers. It's game-able in a way it wasn't in the past (Note that I am not saying that this person has done the specific charge listed in this blogpost, but I just link here to show that it is possible to add things to one's profile]. jps (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has the subject added citations to other authors with the same name? If so please specify them. That is the only way a GS profile can be gamed. (Actually, the way the system works is that citations cannot be added; they can only fail to be subtracted from the profile).Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
That is not the only way a GS profile can be gamed. You can explicitly add sources if they aren't identified in the default Google Scholar search. Some may call that "fair play", but it is a unique feature that Google Scholar has that no other index has (unless you think ResearchGate functions as an index of sorts). jps (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK But please show where he has done this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I did not say he has done this. I noted that he has claimed his profile. In response, you claimed he could not alter it, and I said that, contrariwise, it is possible to alter it. As far as I know, Google doesn't make public what things a profile user adds to their Google scholar profile. jps (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you still claim that the subject Googlehacked his citation record it would be useful to have evidence. A rather different case of citation shenanigans is here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Googlehacking is something that happens through a lot of means in fringe contexts, as pointed out by XOR'easter in a more eloquent fashion below. jps (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a curious anomaly in Google Scholar: there will often be a slightly different different set of papers if you go to it through the user profile, or if you search on "MA Woodley" or 'M Woodley" (and remove those from other people with the same initial). I've come across occasions where this is significant, though it does not appear to be for this individual. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to discount straight-up citation counting as meaningful for WP:PROF#C1 in fringe fields, due to the commonality of walled gardens, citations from dubious journals, random web documents that Google Scholar happened to scrape, etc. Other than that, there just isn't much to go on. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request from user I have received an email from the subject of the article that he "would prefer that it be deleted". He made a similar request at the first AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I change my vote to Delete as it is a borderline case per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete There are insufficient sources to create an informative and neutral article. And no, he fails WP:PROF. WP:PROF incidentally is a guideline, not a policy. The assumption is that anyone who meets the criteria must be notable. Hence, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." However, it has not been shown that he meet the criteria. Note also that the guideline says that published works alone do not make someone notable, "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." But again, this subject does not meet the criteria. Finally, the debates about the content are what one expect when someone lacks notability and we are relying on fragments on information about them to sew together an article. TFD (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went though the articles (that weren't paywalled for me) that should be the basis of his notability and they were mainly just quick mentions of his work. Konnikova mentions Woodley in the Smithsonian article probably the most, but it is only in one paragraph and only about his work. Woodley whom I had not heard of before seems to have many mentions of his work in various RS but no real content that would put him over the line for him to have his own stand alone article. I would be against salting as he still seems active and possibly in the future he might pass notability. Just not now. Sgerbic (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DGG and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems pretty straightforward, an edge case where the subject himself calls for deletion as well. ValarianB (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, borderline notability, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE takes precedence over other concerns. --Jayron32 16:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When I see arguments like they are not notable (not a public figure) to justify exclusion of criticism which is required by policy to avoid GEVAL and the promotion of fringe beliefs, or that sources are lacking that criticize them, it's generally an indication that WP:BLPN is not met. As for BLPREQUESTDELETE, it would also not matter if BLPN was really met: the article would stay and be properly sourced. —PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. While I personally think this individual passes the threshold of notability, this clearly is a borderline case, so I think the right thing to do in this situation is to respect the article subject's wishes for it to be deleted. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Woodley_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1075750493"