Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Brignell

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 no consensus to delete, although it would be appreciated if the numerous sources and references provided in this discussion were to wander their way onto the article; if following their addition, there is still a feeling the article should be deleted, no prejudice towards discussion being reopened. Neil ム 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Brignell

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

Non-notable; fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The only secondary sources ever provided are critical, and consist of links to Tim Lambert's blog and to brief coverage in the Skeptic's Dictionary. This is not "non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources." The article is a WP:COATRACK and POV fork to present Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. MastCell Talk 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • weak delete, based on Brignell being certainly less notable than Lambert William M. Connolley 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There's literally nothing here. Primary sources like Brignell's self-published books and his personal web page can't sustain an article. wikipediatrix 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is poor, and POV-biased against the subject of the biography. But the solution is to fix it. The initial version[1] was actually quite good. Unfortunately, the solid informational content has been deleted, and replaced by almost nothing at all, except a couple of blatantly POV attacks on the subject of the biography. My vote is against deletion; rather, the article should be restored to its earlier, substantive, NPOV form. NCdave 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: While the earlier version is indeed longer, it contains no additional secondary sources. It merely expounds at greater length on Brignell's views - so it suffers from the same lack of notability and compounds that problem by functioning as a POV fork and WP:COATRACK by regurgitating Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. The older version is actually less NPOV, because it gives more undue weight to his views without providing any independent sources to back up their notability. MastCell Talk 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep His primary career was notable. For some reason, a recent ed. removed the discussion of it from the article. I have just restored it. That material is considered reliable--an official site is an adequate source. What he may have been doing since then--its a question of the reviews of his books. If he is regarded as an important guy who got things wrong, he's notable for that part also. But in any case he was formerly chair of his dept. at Southampton.-- among the information that was removed. I think it's been established that full professors and chairs of UK university departments are notable. The book he wrote then was removed also, and we can look for the other publications, but he would hardly have been appointed without them. southampton is a technologically oriented research university of very high order, and the information comes from its official site. , I consider the removal of this material as an accident, for otherwise it would have been an absurd attempt to sabotage the article by removing material showing unquestionable notability--absurd because it's still in the history, where anyone could see it and add it back, as I have done. I did not remove the questioned material about his subsequent activities. It's not necessary to show notability, and the eds. can dispute this part on the talk page, as I'm sure they will. DGG (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I am of the opinion that, per WP:PROF, even full professors require some sort of independent evidence of notability - and that is missing from all versions of the article. It would seem that the information removed from the article contained no independent or secondary sources, but simply a lengthy exposition of Brignell's views as sourced to his website. To me, the article fails WP:PROF either way, and I'd have nominated it whether or not that information had been removed. But DGG's comments do give me pause, because he always takes a very well-considered approach to AfD's. MastCell Talk 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As for actual evidence for WP:PROF, there's the two published books, and the learned society fellowships. I'm working on a fuller list. the length exposition of his views in he orig. version bothered me too. i did not add it back when I added the academic documentation. DGG (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The books themselves don't convince me, although if the reviews and outside sources indicate that they're influential, that would be a different matter. The fellowships may satisfy the "notable award" provision, though I'm not entirely sure of that. MastCell Talk 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No more notable than a typical full professor at a research university (what we call Research I universities in the U.S.; don't know if the UK has a similar system). I strongly disagree that full professors and department chairs are prima facie notable. No secondary coverage outside his specialization. Articles on figures of borderline notability are serious BLP risks, as there are few people watching should they be vandalized or edited with malice. Raymond Arritt 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. First holder of Chair at major university, now professor emeritus; two textbooks with a few citations on Google Scholar (7-10); I can't access his publication record, but as DGG points out, Southampton is one of the higher ranked UK universities for science & technology, and wouldn't give a Chair to someone without appropriate publications. His popular books, while apparently self-published, have decent sales figures; The Epidemiologists: Have They Got Scares for You! has an Amazon.co.uk rank of 271,452 [2]; Sorry, Wrong Number has one of 297,791 [3]. He gets a decent no of Google hits (16,800) for a retired professor, the great majority of the first few pages of which appear to refer to the subject. At least according to his website, his popular books have received several independent reviews in eg the Telegraph,[4] Times Higher Educational Supplement, & on many websites. He has also been used as an expert by eg BBC London.[5] I believe he not only meets WP:PROF, but also WP:BIO as an author. Espresso Addict 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, if we find one more link to in-depth coverage such as the Telegraph's book review, he might make the cut. The BBC piece only features a passing mention. Sandstein 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, here's another review from the Telegraph,[6] plus some mentions there as an expert:[7],[8]; I can't find the Times HES review online, but it's quoted in full on Brignell's website, [9], along with others from Secure Computing & Journal of Economic Issues, and surely someone has access to check? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Espresso Addict (talk • contribs) 20:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. For someone who is apparently mainly known for his controversial positions on scientific issues, one would expect much more substantial coverage by reliable sources, as opposed to the niche websites that are currently cited, if he were in fact notable. Sandstein 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think that The Telegraph and The Times are "niche sources". They have a fairly large readership. — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete Although I think he's worth covering and have worked extensively on the article, neither his own publications nor the rebuttals of his claims are reliable sources, which makes it impossible to write a decent article about his controversial positions in a way consistent with the rules of Wikipedia. His primary career isn't that notable.JQ 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Brignell also notable as per his CV [[10]], at least two significant awards [[11]], and from [[12]]. Cited on BBC [[13]], book review [[14]], writes on spiked [[15]], [[16]]. PeroxisomeI, personally, do not mean to take legal action against anyone on wikipedia 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation: his academic career may be notable (I don't see it in the articles Peroxisome cites, but his position suggests that he probably was), but his work since does not have independent external sources (the website is edited by him and the two books are published by "Brignell Associates" = SPA). I don't think his recent work is notable, and since that's what 90% of the article focuses on, it's best to delete. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Espresso Addict. These two Telegraph articles both cover him/his work non-trivially. They, combined with all of the other references, make a moderately good case for notability. — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There are also the following articles devoted solely to Brignell:
      • Gaitskell, Robert. "Smoking Facts Out Of Statistics", The Times Higher Education Supplement (March 8, 2002)
      • Sapsted, David. "Scientists 'using own cash to fund research'", The Times (London) (March 16, 1987)
    • I can't find freely-available online versions, but they can be accessed via LexisNexis. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:05, 30 August 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.