Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger D. Nelson

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 merge‎ to Global Consciousness Project. There was clear consensus not to keep the page in place, and merger received enough support to be accepted as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger D. Nelson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm having trouble finding secondary sources independent of this subject. WP:FRINGE is also a concern here. 0xchase (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might pass AUTHOR with book reviews [1], [2], but I wonder if those are about the same person; wiki article is about a parapsychologist, this seems to be about a more mainstream psychologist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first review you list is in Journal of Scientific Exploration, which (searching WP:FRINGEN archives) appears not to be considered reliable. The second is from the Society for Psychical Research, also of dubious reliability. Per WP:FRINGE, we need mainstream coverage of this material, not affirmations from other believers. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AUTHOR is just passing book reviews, no matter how good or bad they are. I suppose they aren't RS? Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they're positive or negative is not so important, but whether they're reliable is important. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe publications aren't a reliable source of information, regardless of the valence of the review 0xchase (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this and improve it. It is the way of the future; the Global Consciousness Project is now in it second phase and is set to be a vital source of information about the interaction of consciousness with the material world. Those who cling to materialism are a dying breed. 197.88.230.219 (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant the notability or lack of sources here Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, for articles on fringe subjects, we must base them on reliably-published mainstream sources, we have no independent sources at all in our article, I don't think the two reviews listed above are mainstream, and I could not find better in my searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of usable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the nonsense his work is, there does appear to be coverage of Nelson and his work over the course of multiple years. Some examples:

So Just What Makes the Earth Move? by JD Reed - The New York Times
The day the world got smaller by Claudia Smith Brinson (Page 2) - The State
Far out: The Global Mind by Mark Pilkington - The Guardian
When all earth grieves: Science finds astonishing consequences of our pain by Sarah Gibb - The Vancouver Sun
Shared tragedies breeding global consciousness: study - The StarPhoenix
Cambridge Institute Delves Into Paranormal Phenomena by Kenneth Chang - The Tampa Tribune
Roger Nelson’s “Global Consciousness” Does Not Exist by Dominique J. Persoons - European Journal of Theology and Philosophy

The exact sort of paranormal work he does appears to be the kind that gets the clicks and notice from the news media. Silver seren^C 23:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most or any of these pass both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV

Some of these uncritically embrace the paranormal stuff and clearly aren't mainstream
Most of these sources are primarily covering the Global Consciousness Project and only make passing mention of Nelson. The GCP already has its own article, and Nelson doesn't get inherited notability.

0xchase (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming mainstream major newspapers aren't "mainstream" just because they are uncritical? Whether they embrace a fringe topic or criticize it is irrelevant. It is significant coverage regardless. And it is coverage of his research, which is relevant for coverage toward him, since while he's fringe, this still falls under notability for academics. And, for this fringe field, he is clearly both a discussed and noted expert that has received significant news focus. Silver seren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion --Altenmann >talk 21:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC) delete The refs listed by Silver screen above are sensationalist blurbs and other not very reliable sources. In topics like this an encyclopedia needs references from mainstream experts. --Altenmann >talk 17:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your opinion on "topics like this" is irrelevant toward notability, including for those of academics, fringe or not. Are you seriously claiming entire multi-page articles in major newspapers are "sensationalist blurbs"? Please explain how significant coverage for notability works in your view, Altenmann. Silverseren^C 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didnt pay attention that some texts are really long. Reclusing for now; lazy to do research. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps we should redirect to Global Consciousness Project?. 0xchase (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've read the assessment of my sources above, if they aren't RS, we don't have much of anything left for notability. I don't think a redirect would help, I question the notability of the Project as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What assessment? I'm seeing none above and no actual discussion of the sources I presented. Especially if you're claiming that large page news articles don't count toward even notability of the project in question. How exactly are you determining notability, Oaktree b? Silver seren^C 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Epstein commented on the two sources directly below my first comment to !keep, which I've since changed. I was talking about my first vote. I've not reviewed the other, newer ones identified further down. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might take a look at them later, I have no time to do so now. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The NY Times, Vancouver Sun, and Guardian are good sources, however their articles are primarily about the project, not him. A few sentences (maybe a paragraph) introducing him using those sources found by Silver Seren would actually enhance that article. That would fill in his educational background (a short list of degrees) and perhaps something about his beliefs/goals. But for him I don't see SIGCOV for a separate article. Lamona (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project, in order for him to get coverage, we would need WP:DEPTH, which we don't have here.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverseren’s sources. He seems to have received SIGCOV and sources that debunk his views. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources only have WP:DEPTH for the Global Consciousness Project, not Nelson himself. 0xchase (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable fringe. Merge Change my mind. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Global Consciousness Project. The reliable sources that have been identified have WP:DEPTH about the project, not Nelson. 0xchase (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments are still divided between Keep, Delete and Merge. A further review of sources, and whether they focus on the article subject or projects that he has worked on, would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Global Consciousness Project There's not enough here to merit notability and the sources provided are almost entirely profiles taken from his various organizational connections. Nor have I seen in-depth independent coverage of Nelson himself in reliable and verifiable sources that would support a claim of notability. The article for the Global Consciousness Project best summarizes his work and whatever meaningful material that's in this article should be merged there, with this one turned into a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eliminate. Article written as evidence and there are no independent references that support the biographer. --Alon9393 (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2024 (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.