Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Patterson
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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Francine Patterson
vanity, not notable We99 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Bad faith AfD. Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Bad faith AfD.. Parsssseltongue 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't understand what makes her different or special enough from any other faculty member. Generally most faculty members are running some kind of "Center" these days and the fact that one of her parents died of cancer, while tragic, doesn't make her so unique that she merits an entry into Wikipedia. Also, the fact that her youngest sibling was 5 years at one point isn't that special either. Has she been able to repeat her success with other animals? Or was Koko a one time wonder? We99 23:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've heard of Dr. Patterson and Koko, and I haven't read a newspaper in years. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is one of those cases where people who lack understanding or awareness of an article's subject should not nominate them for deletion. Either that, of you have some kooky agenda. Looking at your contributions history, most of what you do around here is nominate things for deletion. Parsssseltongue 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- If Danny hasn't read a newspaper in years, how does he know Dr. Patterson? Should we give more weight to his vote if he knows her personally and lacks objectivity? If you look at what I have done, you will see that most other people agree with me when I suggest something should be deleted. Therefore, it's not just me saying something should be deleted, but rather, the Wikipedia community as a whole agrees. I'm sorry but these ad hominem attacks will have no bearing on whether the article is kept or deleted. We99 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're too young, or what, but this is a well-known, notable person from a well-known, notable news story. I doubt Danny knows Dr. Patterson personally. So I question your motives. This is a bad faith nomination, period. Parsssseltongue 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are trying to shut down discussion on whether this article should be deleted. If she is really distinguishable from many other professors -- let's keep the article. All I'm saying is that if we had to include every professor who ran a "Center" or published a book (semi-well known or not) of one-hit wonder professors, the quality of Wikipedia would go down. Why hasn't she been able to replicate her results? A good measure of someone's contribution is being able to replicate the results somewhere else. We99 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have used {{prod}} instead? Regardless, you have some other agenda, or you're knowingly nominating what you know is a notable article. BAD FAITH!!! Parsssseltongue 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think yelling at me with "BAD FAITH" in bold makes your argument stronger. It just means you are resorting to ad hominem, which is a fallacy. If she is truly notable, the Wikipedia community will find her to be that way. Maybe we should focus the discussion on what makes her more worthy than a lot of other professors who have published but aren't in Wikipedia. Are we going to include every professor who publishes a semi-noteworthy book? We99 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- 20,500 Google hits for "Francine Patterson," 15,600 for "Penny Patterson," 45,100 for "Koko the Gorilla"... use some common sense. Parsssseltongue 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think yelling at me with "BAD FAITH" in bold makes your argument stronger. It just means you are resorting to ad hominem, which is a fallacy. If she is truly notable, the Wikipedia community will find her to be that way. Maybe we should focus the discussion on what makes her more worthy than a lot of other professors who have published but aren't in Wikipedia. Are we going to include every professor who publishes a semi-noteworthy book? We99 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you should have used {{prod}} instead? Regardless, you have some other agenda, or you're knowingly nominating what you know is a notable article. BAD FAITH!!! Parsssseltongue 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are trying to shut down discussion on whether this article should be deleted. If she is really distinguishable from many other professors -- let's keep the article. All I'm saying is that if we had to include every professor who ran a "Center" or published a book (semi-well known or not) of one-hit wonder professors, the quality of Wikipedia would go down. Why hasn't she been able to replicate her results? A good measure of someone's contribution is being able to replicate the results somewhere else. We99 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're too young, or what, but this is a well-known, notable person from a well-known, notable news story. I doubt Danny knows Dr. Patterson personally. So I question your motives. This is a bad faith nomination, period. Parsssseltongue 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- If Danny hasn't read a newspaper in years, how does he know Dr. Patterson? Should we give more weight to his vote if he knows her personally and lacks objectivity? If you look at what I have done, you will see that most other people agree with me when I suggest something should be deleted. Therefore, it's not just me saying something should be deleted, but rather, the Wikipedia community as a whole agrees. I'm sorry but these ad hominem attacks will have no bearing on whether the article is kept or deleted. We99 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment High numbers of Google hits isn't notability. Are all those 20,500 hits of Francine Patterson the same Francine Patterson that we are talking about on Wikipedia. If not, I submit that your argument has been made in bad faith, because it's misleading. You're trying to imply that she is more popular than she really is. In any event, Koko never used ASL signs. Non-signing people saw them where there were none. Ape sign language is a pipe dream. See Pinker, S. The Language Instinct. Also, as the article currently stands, it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. notice that someone else nominated it for cleanup. So it's not just me who has problems with this. We99 23:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cleanup is far different from deletion, and let's leave our debate at that. Parsssseltongue 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just a note. This isn't a debate to defend the article from being deleted. You act as though we have to present evidence that the article should be kept. But these proceedings aren't votes. Danny Lilithborne 23:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- In case your comment is to me... I realize I'm beating a dead horse here (or maybe feeding a troll), but this nomination is so ridiculous, I am trying to point out why it's bad faith. Parsssseltongue 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well it wasn't so :P :) Danny Lilithborne 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- In case your comment is to me... I realize I'm beating a dead horse here (or maybe feeding a troll), but this nomination is so ridiculous, I am trying to point out why it's bad faith. Parsssseltongue 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think she is notable and I've made my arguments. Since this is not a vote we should discount the two speedy keeps and look at whether ape sign language is really a pipe dream. If you don't believe me, check out the book I cited. We99 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Regardless of whether or not ape sign language is a pipedream, Francine Patterson is very notable and meets WP:BIO in at least two ways:
- 1. "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." (the field being zoology)
- 2. "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." On Amazon.com, there are positive reviews for her books from Library Journal and Booklist.
- I'm sure I could come up with more, but this seems sufficient. --Joelmills 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Koko apparently was well known enough in the US in the 1990s to be a major joke in a Seinfeld episode (the one where George Constanza wants a cool nickname at work) Bwithh 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Clearly notable.
Not a bad faith nomination though because the article should do more than just a link to her affiliation and an outdated U of I website.I get 23 JSTOR hits, most of which seems to be about her and her books. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC) - Obvious keep. I've heard of her, and it has nothing to do with my newspaper reading habits, it has to do with her work being discussed in one of my university classes umpty-ump years and the long-time big freakin' controversy regarding the validity of her work. On the latter score, it looks like the nominator has decided the work is bogus and is trying to get the article deleted on that basis. Uh uh: the work is controversial but very well known, which is what counts more than one editor's opinion of what the truth is. It does look like a bad-faith nomination, given that most of the nominator's arguments is made up of vigorous handwaving. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Helen Hunt played her in a movie, after all. Let's calm down and Assume good faith first, always first. Teke 03:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Koko? That chimp's all right! High Five! -- GWO
- Comment it seems the people who want to keep her can't support her science so they turn to the fact that they have heard of her as a reason for keeping the article. Seriously, look at the article. It's not notable that her mom died of cancer. Her proclaimed contribution is of questionable scientific value, and the article doesn't cut the standards of Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but 2 years have passed since its creation. If we can't clean it up to meet the standards, it's because the content of what we have to say about her is not worthy to be on Wikipedia. Also the fact that she has reviews on Amazon means nothing. Anyone can write a review on Amazon. Merely because people have "heard" of her is not a reason. A lot of people who have heard of freeones.com but that does not mean we need to have an entry for it in Wikipedia. We99 07:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Only since none of the key policies other than WP:BIO have been cited yet and I'm assuming that you're simply unaware of them rather than pushing a bad faith agenda: It is completely irrelevant what we think of her science. The key criteria for inclusion are verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. For an article to warrant inclusion the subject must have garnered enough scholarly or media attention that any editor can write a balanced article, based only on reliable sources, without any foreknowledge of the subject. Patterson has clearly received ample scholarly and media attention, and not all of it positive or flattering. If you're so adamant about this book you're touting, quote from it in the article and see if it stands the WP:RS test. Whatever your scientific objections are to her research, an AfD is not the right outlet for it. And I'm writing this as someone who hasn't called your nomination in bad faith yet. ~ trialsanderrors 08:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, AfD Is Not Cleanup (or Source Check). Solid or questionable observations aside, I heard of Koko and her landlord years ago. From television. From books. From everywhere. I was quite a fan of apes and monkeys at one point, see. =) And in Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if the subject is truthful or not, as long as the article is truthful and accurate. We have a category full of hoaxes, for crying out loud. In conclusion, either we have here someone who taught sign language to a gorilla, or a scientific "scandal" that has stood at the verge of mere suspicion for a couple of decades. It's notable either way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep she is notable, but her work is also probably pseudoscience; certainly her work has been severely criticized (should be easy to find citations if you search). So someone should check for NPOV edits and keep watching. ---CH 09:45, 26 June 2006 (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.
