Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Rummel

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. -Splashtalk 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R. J. Rummel

non-notable political theorist; greatest claim to fame is a mistaken claim to membership in a non-existent Nobel short list of a hundred or so. He has a friend who is a Swedish politician; there was a mistaken AP story; he has himself retracted. Statement of retraction: [1] Article hopelessly PoV Septentrionalis 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I nominated this because Scaife and Ultramarine were reverting whether it could be speediable. I think it probably claims notability; but that in fact he is not notable, and WP would be better without this article. Weak delete. Septentrionalis 03:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad faith nomination of local opponents of the Democratic peace theory. Now one of the great controversies in political science. There are many people who have contributed to the theory but Rummel was one of the earliest and certainly the most well-known. Much of his research is about another subject, democide. This article has been in Wikipedia four years. Google gives over 100,000 hits for "R. J. Rummel" [2]. Very well-known in his field and cited by many other researchers there.(Google Scholar [3]) Has received many honors[4] and nominated for the Nobel Prize.[5] Has written 24 scholarly books and over a hundred professional articles.[6] Certainly passes Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. Ultramarine 03:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Another Rummellite opponent. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that this is the statement of retraction mentioned above. Tens of thousands are asked for nominations, including many professors, and many of them do nominate. Septentrionalis 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This is incorrect. People are not asked for nominations. There may be about a hundred nominated each year and Rummel has been nominated repeatedly. Anyhow, this is just one of the reasons he is notable.Ultramarine 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable researcher, questionable research, way too POV. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a good faith nomination. Rummel's contribution to DPT after his initial study is dubious. Most of his "books" and "papers" are only published on the internet, any contributions by him that were published in any major scholarly journal is minimal and absent after the mid-1980's [7], those that do occur before this time are usually pertaining only to quantitative methodology. Any mention of him by any other scholars is usually anecdotal. [8] Finally, to illustrate a point "Ultramarine" occurs 1.9 million times in google, so that is hardly a standard of "importance". --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Another DPT opponent. Note that ultramarine is a color so it is hardly surprising that it gets many hits. ""r. j. ultramarine" gets zero hits.[9] Ultramarine 03:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually it gets 10,300 hits. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that this is outright defamation of a noted researcher. There are extracts from his scholarly books and articles on his website, but they were certainly not published on the internet originally. Many of his works were published in the 1990's, for example Death by Government and Power Kills, often cited by other researchers in this field.(Google Scholar [10]) Ultramarine 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected, he has self-published several books since the mid-1980s. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This is still defamation. His scholarly books are not self-published.Ultramarine 05:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This one is [11]. Septentrionalis 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That is a supplement to his novels.Ultramarine 15:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Controversial, but definitely notable. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, but POV, needs TLC to be up to standards. Eivind 04:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This smells like a bad faith nom. Eivind 04:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notwithstanding the "professor test" this guy has written several books, it seems likely that he would qualify under the "published a book with an audience of 5,000 or more" test. Crypticfirefly 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A fairly absurd nomination, even I think Rummel is anything but a serious scholar. / Peter Isotalo 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup POV--Vercalos 07:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of the two publishers that seem to handle many of Rummel's Amazon-listed books, Llumina Press is a self-acknowledged vanity press [12], but Transaction Publishers appears to be a respectable social science publisher (supposedly over 40 years old) [13]. I'd like to see some reliable sources cited for the article, which might help to provide editors with sound information to reduce POV, but I think this guy is sufficiently notable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Llumina Press has only published his alternative history Never Again series where he tries to communicate his findings to a wider audience.[14] Not his scholarly works which have different academic publishers. Here are his Amazon books [15] and here are his scholarly works in Google Scholar.[16] Ultramarine 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep, meets notability criteria as published author. Monicasdude 14:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published author. Clearly not a boring topic ;) Fagstein 20:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published author of several works. Capitalistroadster 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable scholar. dbtfztalk 01:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a notable author with multiple published works. --Elonka 06:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rummel termed democide didn't he? He's actually fairly notable, possibly not a household name but even my old history teacher had a book of his. Can't believe this was ever nominated for deletion. --Knucmo2 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite my distaste for Ultramarine's Rummelolatry, and the inherent non-verifiability of any claim concerning a nomination for a prize that makes confidentiality a condition of nomination, I think Wiki is not paper governs here. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I do note with some amusement that Rummel's article exceeds in length the combined articles for Nobel winner Val Fitch, Field medalist Edward Witten and Nobel near misses David Wilkinson and P.J.E. Peebles, any one of whom is a more significant scholar by any objective standard. None have a dedicated fan who is a Wikipedian, however. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Advanced mathematics and physics often do not receive much attention outside the field since it is very hard to understand. Political arguments and theories usually receive much attention and this is reflected in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 12:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, their *theories* are fairly adequately covered under appropriate articles. My point is that I think Rummel's bio overlong, mostly because much of the material looks like advocacy for Rummel's particular position. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has 3 articles about Ward Churchill, so I see no problem with the length of the current article. If you think something is missing, add your own referenced information. Ultramarine 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Further discussion belongs on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Obviously. Notable author. --Ragib 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't understand what much of the fuss is about. John Smith's 23:40, 9 March 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.