Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Peratt

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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Peratt

Anthony Peratt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was prodded on the grounds that it fails WP:PROF. I, too, believe it fails PROF, but think that its a close enough call that we should discuss it here. semper fictilis 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom; insufficiently notable. semper fictilis 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete His research and name can be mentioned on the pages describing the subjects he researched. Notability does not "rub off" onto someone just because they found something notable, unless they did something notable to find that something notable (like Galileo or Columbus). NobutoraTakeda 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1]
with that policy, WP would be a kindergarten-level encyclopedia. 5 or 10 scientists, 5 or so explorers, possible 20 rock bands... The criterion you refuse to accept, "because they did something notable" is WP notability. But i shouldn't bite, today is your first day on WP. DGG (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable (added by user Onceonthisisland)
  • Keep lots of google hits for his books and his name; lots of hits in Google Scholar - passes WP:PROF. I note too that he has been in Wiki for three years and has edits from about 20 people - indicates notability. Springnuts 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Ghits are not a good way to determine the notability of an academic. I think that many people have edited the article because there are a number of catastrophists who are active on Wikipedia trying to promote and advertise their ideas. They generally choose a few obscure academics whose ideas they like and blow them out-of-proportion. --Mainstream astronomy 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist,[2] but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe)[3], his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in Astrophysics and space science, in Science, and in Sky and Telescope, and I'm sure he will be found to be notable by the 3000 professional engineers and scientists who are members of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who receive the journal Transactions on Plasma Science (in which he is am Associate Editor)[4], and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[5] --Iantresman 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.[6]. This is a gross misrepresentation of who has signed the open letter. Most of its signatories are Big Bang Busters with agendas ranging from Velikovsky to creationism. Such votes ought to be removed from consideration on the basis of his dishonesty. --Mainstream astronomy 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The list shows 218 "Scientists and Engineers", excluding the original signatories. But you are correct that most of the people who signed their name, are not shown as either Scientists and Engineers (ie. 187 independent researchers, and 105 others). But my statement does appear to be accurate, and yours to be unsubstantiated and uncivil --Iantresman 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Relying on the self-identification of scientists and engineers leads to some absurd characterizations. I see a member of the Creation Research Society identifying himself as a scientist/engineer. Oh, look! A scientist from The Noah's Ark Research Foundation, one from the US Department of Transportation, one from the Empirical Church, USA, and the glorious diploma mill Capital University for Integrative Medicine/California. This site is a parody of itself. --76.214.223.142 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
simply false, it requires being more notable than the average academic,and as you yourself say, he meets this. DGG (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the criteria for WP:PROF require more than being "above average." Peratt appears to be good at what he does, but he's no more notable than several of the guys down the hall from me. The stuff that Iantresman cites, for example, is normal for any professor at a Research-I university. Raymond Arritt 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
it is perfectly possible that several of the guys down the hall from you may be notable. DGG (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's more likely that they aren't per the Copernican Principle. Wikipedia has articles on less than 1000 astronomers living and dead. A common estimate thrown around in the community is that there are something like 6000 astronomers alive on the planet today, and something like 20,000 astronomers who have kicked-the-bucket. We're talking about 4 out of every 100 astronomers who are notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. Even if we skew towards "recent-memory" inclusivity and assume that there are the same number of living and dead notable astronomical figures (highly unlikely, but we'll go with it), we're talking about one out of every twelve astronomers who are notable. Twelve just happens to be the size of a medium astronomy department, so Wikipedia right now is catching on average about one astronomer per medium-sized department. Therefore, your argument above is akin to arguing that Wikipedia is grossly unrepresentative of notable astronomers. I don't think that this is the case at all. --76.214.223.142 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see your point regarding the "Copernican principle." What in there specifically are you referring to? "The earth isn't the center of the universe" doesn't seem to apply. Peratt hasn't, to my knowledge, ever argued it is... Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a better bet to assume you aren't special than to assume that you are. There was a recent article about the local application of this principle in The New York Times. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also I fail to see how your "statistical analysis" has any bearing on whether or not Peratt is notable. It's like saying, well, since we haven't included EVERYone, no one else should be added, ever, despite being notable. Seems to not quite make sense. Now, I'm not arguing that Peratt is more notable than others, or that competency=notability. However, he has contributed quite a bit or documented notable research to plasma physics & astronomy. Whether it's more than the "average" researcher, hard to say. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The argument was made by DGG that a few scientists down the hall were notable. However, as is pointed out below, it's more likely that a few scientists down the hall are not notable. If Peratt is really equivalent to "a scientist down the hall" then by the simple statistical argument he will likely not be notable. --76.214.213.166 04:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I might also point out that it it seems to be the intent of many here to get "delete-happy." I tend toward being an 'inclusionist' rather than a 'deletionist.' If a topic is notable or a person is notable and people want to know more about the person or topic, it should be included. Keeping in mind that WP should be a NEUTRAL representation of people and things "out there" in the world. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Peratt's views or others' views of Peratt should not automatically disqualify an article about him. IE, if someone has a problem with catastrophism and someone else uses Peratt to justify their viewpoint, that's not Peratt's fault, and he and/or his article should not be blamed or ostracized because of it. That's POV and agenda pushing (indirectly attacking an opponent's idea through unrelated or minimally related means). It would be like saying "Christians use the Big Bang to justify creationism, so we should remove the Big Bang article to undermine their Creationist position." That type of reasoning is ludicrous. I'm just saying that "agendas" should be weeded out. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I do, however believe that the article should be NPOV, and any unsupported claims, or material not related directly to Peratt, his work, his notable/verified beliefs or accomplishments or discoveries should be removed from the article, and a better more comprehensive, more NEUTRAL article should be molded from the old one. Mgmirkin 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It is troubling that Peratt's views keep coming up because I agree with you that they are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If anything I see a slight bias in application of this on the keep side with certain voters saying that we should strive to keep articles about unconventional ideas or accomodate those who are on the fringe by giving them a pass for WP:PROF. However, I think WP:FRINGE is the right way to think about this. The people advocating the "fringe" need to be subject to the same standards as those who advocate the mainstream. No more, no less. WP:NPOV should be applied fairly and equitably to all people and ideas. As I see it, the fringe automatically have a disadvantage because they are, by definition, marginal. However, it is not Wikipedia's place to right great wrongs such as this. --Nondistinguished 04:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Peratt is a figure in the specialty of "plasma cosmology" which is not necessarily regarded as mainstream, as an examination of the links in the article on him will show, and in the past those associated with this movement have aroused a considerable amount of possibly POV discussion on all sides. This presumably accounts for some of the comments in both directions expressed above. I want to reexamine his record systematically.
Some non-mainstream figures have in the past been considered important at AfD, based on the non-academic notability as shown by popular books, and press mentions; this seems not to be the case with him, so he must be evaluated on the basis of academic accomplishments.
The practice, since there is no formal "precedent" at AfD, in evaluation of academics is that all full professors at research Universities brought to AfD have always been considered notable, because of the work they have published and the peer reviews they have undergone--all instances where these have been investigated here in detail have been found notable, for at least the last 6 months. This correlates to the WP:PROF criterion of being highly respected by ones colleagues for ones body of work. If the astrophysicists at say, Princeton or CalTech regards someone as distinguished enough for their top academic rank, I think we'd accept their judgement. However, Peratt is not a professor at a research university. For some reason the bio in the article is somewhat sketchy: a full one on the website of IEEE is at [7]; (I cannot account for why it was not included in the article; we normally regard information from such sources as reliable for factual career details unless there is evidence to the contrary) He is a scientist at Los Alamos, and his previous career has been there and at Livermore; it is difficult to correlate positions at these labs with academic ranks, so this cannot be used as a preliminary criterion.
So we go by the publications, honors and awards. Being the editor-in-chief of a major peer-reviewed journal has been held highly notable--this are the prestige positions for the most distinguished; IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is an important mainstream journal from the most important scientific society in the general field of electrical engineering and related subjects. But he is he is not editor in chief, but rather one of the 15 associate editors. This by itself has not always been considered enough for notability, though sometimes it has been, in connection with other factors. He holds several awards as listed on that page, but no really major honors. Publications are judged by citations. Using WebofScience, as customary, I find he has 69 publications included there, not all of them peer-reviewed papers--about half seem short comments or editorials. However, they are not highly cited: the five most cited are cited 24, 18, 18, 18, 17 times He has 9 papers cited 10 or more times, for an h index of 9, not particularly impressive. However, he has two papers in Physical Review Letters, the very most distinguished physics journal.
On balance, this is borderline. The associate editorship is almost enough for notability, the publications are relatively weak. Put together I would call it a Weak Keep.
I want to add a word about possible prejudice: I have such high respect for the scientific establishment that I have devoted my career to its service. But this does not diminish the importance of the non-mainstream people for a comprehensive encyclopedia, for by confrontation with these views, progress is made. I am, frankly, very suspicious of the attempts of those in any establishment to exclude those without: I call it negative COI. I do not think this article should have been nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Your analysis is good, DGG, up until the last paragraph. I think you are doing some defending of the marginalized, perhaps in the capacity as a devil's advocate or a fan of the underdog. This is not a good rationale, however. There are plenty of non-mainstream advocates that are notable (e.g. Halton Arp, Hannes Alfven, Hermann Bondi, William Tifft, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge) who deserve encyclopedia articles. The accusations of negative COI are unwarranted, otherwise the rest of these scientists would be here at AfD too. Peratt just happens to be one of the second tier scientists with an interest in non-standard cosmology who is simply not very notable and he only has an article because there is a "positive" COI at work by people fighting mainstream cosmology here at Wikipedia. Peratt hasn't proposed any new ideas in cosmology since his toilet swirl galaxies (Rocky Kolb's description, not mine). Indeed, the only claim of notablity Peratt has is that he advocates a rather marginalized view. Pretend that the guy didn't advocate such views, would you be arguing for weak keep then? --76.214.223.142 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
comment I did two things, & I separated them. I analyzed, and then I stated my conclusions. My analysis is intended to provide data to be helpful to the discussion, regardless of the conclusion people reach from it. I think my data accurate, & I will defend the method and the criteria. But my conclusion is only my own evaluation overall, and each of us will have his own. I do not mean to imply that if you accept the analysis you should accept the conclusion. I separately state the factors for the conclusion--for people to follow or not as their independent judgement thinks best. (& when I say weak, I mean that I put forward the conclusion as an hypothesis, & regard the alternative as possible also--I think others use it that way as well.)
But in answer to the question, I say freely that I have a strong personal bias against marginalized scientific views. I don't want my bias to be reflected in WP-- I therefore deliberately counter this bias in my evaluation--I consider that is what NPOV means. Others think differently. AfD is for consensus, and I accept the results of it. To obtain good consensus, the different views should be expressed so that those who may not have strong views on the matter can see the range of reasonable opinions. When I think an article unsupportable, I say delete. When I think it so unsupportable as to be obviously, a speedy delete or a prod, I do that. I deleted a speedy for an academic yesterday, and nominated another for speedy, and several for prod. . Beyond that, you may follow my reasoning or not--just as with everyone else's reasoning.DGG (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well put. Even-handedness is appreciated. Awareness of bias is the first step to adopting a neutral point of view. If we can't perceive our own biases, we can't keep them from coloring our opinions or expressions on WP. Took me a while to learn that one. But I think I have, finally. Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise, I tend to think, as you appear to, that all voices should have a certain say in things on WP, so long as they're presented neutrally. I'll grant that's sometimes hard for people who come from a particular POV to write about it NEUTRALLY. But the point being, if we WP:ASSUME, everyone has a right to exist on WP to some extent. Granted, the material should be presented evenhandedly, but thats' what good editing is about. Not promoting a POV, or suppressing a POV because you disagree with it (in itself a POV-pushing violation, which I think happens more frequently on WP than is preferred or proper). Hope that made sense? Mgmirkin 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
All voices do NOT deserve a say at Wikipedia. People have a right to contribute to Wikipedia, but unless the voice they are contributing is verifiable and notable, it does not deserve a place at Wikipedia. That's why Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Nondistinguished 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Question WP:PROF mentions the alternate criterion: the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor. In using this, what group of academics do we take the average of? If we take the average of all college instructors, including instructors at 2 -year colleges, people at primarily teaching institutions, and people near the beginning of their careers, then according to DGG's count, Peratt has published more than average. If we take the average of full professors at good research universities he has published less than average. Cardamon 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point; I've raised this question on the Talk page for WP:PROF. A strict application of "more notable than average" would give us articles on 49.999% of all college instructors, which is plainly unwarranted. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously if one uses it in too broad or too narrow a sense it becomes meaningless--the way I use it is of tenure track faculty at research universities--which more of less comes out to full professors vs associate and assistant professors, in US terms. this matches the results of afds in general, where very few US associate or assistant professors have been held notable, and almost all full ones at Research universities have. In the UK its a little different, because Professor there is only used of the equivalent of US/Caanadian heads of department. Senior Readers, the next rank down, have often but not always been held notable. (an alternative way, which gets about the same result, is all full professors at US universities and colleges, in which case the ones at research universities are the upper third or so. DGG (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Peratt comes close to the level of "full professor". If application of WP:PROF is really heading in the direction as you say it is, then this may very well be the death-blow to claims for his notability. --Nondistinguished 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 'delete per comments by nom and 76.214 among other reasons. The best test for writing an article about any person is whether there are reliable sources that are about the person (as described at WP:N,WP:BIO and relevant to this case WP:PROF). There are no reliable sources about Peratt, only about his work. It might make sense to merge some of the information here to other articles. JoshuaZ 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So in the article on Zecharia Sitchin you edited, which are the reliable sources that are about the person? --Iantresman 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award" as shown by the previous link as required by WP:PROF Corpx 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of what the "United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award" is or how difficult it is to get it? For example, hundreds of scientists won the award from LANL in 2002: [8]. Los Alamos gives out this award like candy while Argonne, for example, usually gives only about half-a-dozen or so per year. The IEEE doesn't even recognize the "Distinguished Lecturer Award" as being worth listing and, in fact, Peratt is not listed as having any award from them, despite the fact that they list hundreds of award recipients. [9]. Almost anyone can trump up a "dubious distinction" award. Does every National Merit Scholar deserve an article? Surely not. --Nondistinguished 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
— Nondistinguished (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bucketsofg 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, IEEE does have a page about Distinguished lecturers, but it doesnt list the recipients. I searched around for other winners of this award in 1999 and couldnt find anyone else. Corpx 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Every member-society of IEEE is allowed to choose their distinguished lecturer each year. Often the boards choose the editors of the particular society's transactions. Not a particularly meaningful "award" in that case. --Nondistinguished 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What about the books that he has authored? Dont you think they give notability for him as an academic? Corpx 01:36, 18 July
  • No, they don't. These books range from obscure texts to compilations of papers, nothing rising to the notoriety described in WP:BK. Publishing books in scientific fields is not considered the crowning academic acheivement: writing well-cited papers is what distinguishes them. Since these books are not themselves notable, it is hard to see how the author of these books can gain notability from them. --Nondistinguished 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see anything that distinguishes Prof. Peratt from the great mainstream of (non-notable) professors, per WP:PROF. I'm sure he's smart and has great theories that he's working on proving, but so does every other professor. Carlossuarez46 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with above - not clear evidence that subject passes WP:PROF. Eusebeus 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No clear evidence of notability. BTW - The research of pertoglyphs does not help to establish his credentials as a notable cosmologist. --EMS | Talk 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - accomplished senior scientist, as indicated, puts him near the borderline, but his plasma cosmology work has led to some additional (popular) notability - a check on Amazon shows that he's referred to in some other books. Also, I'm not certain that WP:PROF gives a fair shake to non-academic scientists. Hal peridol 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. I just don't think he passes WP:PROF. Douglasmtaylor 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Is he more notable than the average professor? I can't tell from the article as it now reads. Bearian 12:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope that circular logic won't dictate whether or not this article is kept. IE, the WP article doesn't in itself give notability, so I'm not sure why we're looking at the article itself to try to determine if he's notable. Hal Peridol's comments above at least try to quantify the issue somewhat. IE, references by other authors, etc. Didn't he author a textbook on plasma physics at one point (IE, he knows his stuff)? Can't find a citation, though, don't have enough time ATM... So, I guess I'll withdraw that for the moment. Though of course authorship doesn't necessarily equate to notability either, as others have said. Mgmirkin 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial references covering the subject. Burntsauce 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


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.