Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Baumgardner

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 keep. Singularity 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Baumgardner

John Baumgardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is an obscure scientist who is not notable. He, however, happens to be a creationist and that's probably why someone thought to write an article on him. WP:BIO and WP:PROF need to be looked at in reference to this person. I note that there has been one mainstream publication on him in US News and World Report. Does that satisfy notability? I'm pretty sure it doesn't as US News and World Reports has also done an article on one of my academic advisors and they would never pass the notability gambit at Wikipedia for inclusion. If Baumgardner was not a creationist he would not be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, therefore to judge Baumgarder to be notable simply because he is a creationist seems to me to be pandering toward biasing Wikipedia in favor of coverage of creationists. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT which may be violated since giving this guy his own article lends him more weight and notoriety to his ideas (which are obviously outside the mainstream) than those of other run-of-the-mill geophysicists. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep You don't have to agree with either his politics or his science (I don't agree with either) to note that he has been the subject of independent articles in reliable sources (US News and World Reports is cited directly by the article, for example. The New York Times calls him an "authority.": [1]. Even journals that specifically refute creationism have written about him: [2] Creation science may be bunk, but by the Wikipedia definition of notability (OTHER reliable sources have covered the subject), he is notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are fairly out-of-the-way citations: neither of the articles are actually about Baumgardner. As such they really do not establish notability. In the New York Times citation, Baumgardner is only mentioned in passing in a paraphrased quote. Doesn't get much more obscure than that. I hope you'll agree that just because someone is mentioned in the New York Times, that doesn't mean they are notable. Likewise the Iol source simply quotes a Baumgardner paper at the very end of the article for what seems to be mostly effect. If being mentioned in the New York Times isn't criteria for notability, how is being quoted in the much less notable IOL news of South Africa? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He is notable, as he appears to be a vocal and controversial figure in the creationist debate. He has a (highly POV) article on Creationwiki, and he has been credited as having extensive knowledge on the subject, as indicated by his repeated use as a source by the mainstream and creationist media. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Baumgardner apears to be a notable figure in the creationist debate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Let's put it this way,he is a notable geologist among creationists. As such, he is frequently quoted by them, and better that people find an article here making it clear where he stands. They can then interpret it as they think appropriate. It's satisfying to pretend the opponents of rational science are not important, but that doesnt make them go away. DGG (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Although I agree with DGG's reasoning, I wonder whether this person would still be considered notable if he would be a mainstream scientist. Just being a flat-earther doesn't make someone automatically notable, I think. But then, I'm from Europe and fortunately we don't have to deal with this kind of muddled thinking much over here. --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• thought(ec) (with much envy of Crusio's intellectual environment) he probably would not be considered notable if he were a mainstream scientist. I think DGG's logic is along the lines that no one would run to wikipedia to look up a mainstream analog to Baumgardner, but because of his relatively prominent role in fringe theories, it is quite likely that someone will look up Baumgardner here, and that makes it worthwhile to have an informative article on him. As long as the article itself is NPOV about endorsing his beliefs, it isn't a violation of NPOV to have a lower bar for notability for creationist "scientists" than honest-to-snot mainstream ones. (*disclaimer: DGG might well believe that a mainstream analog *is* notable, but I take the liberty of misrepresenting his larger views this to highlight the point I thiink he's making here). Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. I hadn't yet analyzed his notability as a geologist in the ordinary sense. But I'm looking now at his CV [3], and I see he has two papers in Nature, one in Science, one in PhilTrans, and a number in impt. specialized journals--all the way from 1983 to 2003 at least. So his conventional work does seem to be taken seriously by peer-reviewers. In fairness, this should be added to the article, because it does affect the way people would think of him. People sometimes get a PhD and then do nothing else or go in non-science directions, but he has actually continued to publish very respectable conventional work. (I will admit, I did not expect to find as much as this. I've added to the article the citation counts for the top 3 of his 20 peer-reviewed conventional papers: 89, 75, and 65.) I don't know the standards in geology, but this would be at least borderline notability as a conventional scientist. There are precedents of scientists with both accepted good work and also really strange views on their subject, like one of my former teachers, Peter Duesberg. DGG (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am in total agreement with Crusio's sentiments, but unfortunately pseudo-scientists are very notable and influential in the most powerful country in the world, as is evident from this week's discussions in Bali. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As per the above arguments, I am convinced. --Crusio (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Looking it up he is notable in this "field." Although I'd like to add that the America-bashing seems to be "piling on" a bit too much. Europe has its pseudoscientists too, some quite notable, they just go in different directions. There are a great many notable European pseudoscientists like [[Erich von Dänikenl], Anthroposophists (largely European), and List of Ufologists#Europe should have some other pseudoscientists. Although Giuseppe Sermonti, Maciej Giertych, Per Landgren essentially go creationist.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! Didn't want to imply that we don't have our share of fringe theorists here, just that we are lucky that creationists are not as influential here as in (certain parts of) the US! --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Articles on notable scientists should be kept. ^rossnixon 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability != reliability. He's not notable as a respectable scientist, but he's certainly notable as a fringe theory scientist. Fortunately or not, activists' use of scholarship can render that scholarship (and that scholar) notable. --Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 16 December 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.