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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some discussion here regarding his meeting notability, as almost every source is either unreliable or only trivially about him. Kept through an AFD in November 2009, but the concerns are being voiced strongly enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apparently I started this article, years ago. Thanks to the efforts of many editors, the article is a lot stronger now than when it went to AfD before, and the publications list has been expanded. I have never seen an article with so many citations go to AfD on notability grounds before. Strongest media sources include: San Francisco Chronicle and Good Morning America. But it is Tucker's notability as a well qualified and widely published researcher, and author, that impresses me. Apparently Life Before Life has now been translated into ten languages, see Cedar Creek Institute Board Members: Jim B. Tucker. And I just noticed that Tucker received a research bursary from the Bial Foundation for € 50,000 in 2001 [1]. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:PROF and there has been no compelling evidence that he meets the GNG. That one of his books may be notable or has been translated into x languages is irrelevant - the books have articles already. I'd have rather continued to try to find sources showing notability, but as it has been so long and they haven't been forthcoming, I must !vote delete due to lack of notability. Verbal chat 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep given the number of references claims of non-notability are utterly ridiculous. Artw (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the number, but the quality. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wasn't going to bring the article up for deletion again, but no specific claim of WP:GNG or WP:PROF has been substantiated. Yet. As of a few hours ago, there were few sources which (clearly had, or were claimed to have) significant coverage about him, rather than about his works or cases. One of the "better" (i.e., most used as an example justifying WP:GNG) sources was about one of his subjects, with any comment about him or his works being secondary. As for the specifics above, the second reference above is about the book Life Before Life (and is not strong evidence that the book is notable; it could easily be sponsored by the book publisher), and the research bursary is clearly not notable, as has been pointed out before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. His work and his cases clearly pertain to him. Mitsube (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referering to the documentary about his investigation of Cameron Macaulay I've addressed that here [2]. You'll note that per the GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", so even if you could argue that it was more about Macaulay than Tucker the significant coverage ithin still counts towards notability. Artw (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep He is obviously notable, even a very brief look through the references and a cursory online search would show that. While I personally think that this sort of woowoo actualy creates a negative space in the sum total of human knowledge, being rubbish isn't a valid reason for non inclusion. He is sadly notable.Amentet (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arthur Rubin (which is not something I get to say often enough). Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Assistant professor in pseudoscience area. Minimal GS cites yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep He is certainly notable as per WP:GNG considering Artws answer to Arthur Rubin above. He is also notable as the successor to Ian Stevenson. (This is all utterly ridiculus.. Go to Stevensons article & check the other guy with with the same name, the cricketer.. there you may have a genuine case for AFD )Hepcat65 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parapsychologist Ian Stevenson has a substantial presence on Google Scholar. This candidate has not yet achieve the same level of distinction. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. The overwhelming coverage that has been made on Tucker's research and his routinely being employed as an expert on the subject by mainstream media is quite sufficient as a rationale to keep the article. The dogged assaults on these articles, with much sophistry, leaves me with a strong impression of I don't like it and it is increasingly difficult to retain a good faith attitude towards editors who appear to want to purge Wikipedia from covering certain topics which remain paradoxical towards current scientific consensus, based on that as the main motivating factor. With basis in Hepcat65's comment about other biographies I think a major argument here is that there shouldn't be another standard for articles on people which some editors scorn, basically on dogmatic grounds. __meco (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not scorning the subject on dogmatic grounds. As I said above, the article on Ian Stevenson is well sourced and the subject is notable. I would oppose its deletion. My problem with the present article is that it doesn't reach the same standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you read my previous comment carefully, you'll notice I'm commenting on Ian Stevenson (cricketer)s notability compared to Tuckers. This is of course no argument, just a comment on the suspected tendency to I don't like it that directs editors who keep on nominating well sourced articles for deletion. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reincarnation_research Hepcat65 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is unusually strongly sourced, and the opposing arguments have hanging over them the unmistakeable wiki-odour of IDONTLIKEIT, not to mention ITDOESNTMATTERWHATYOUSAYCOSIMNOTLISTENING, as put better by User:MECo above.HeartofaDog (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meco. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think we have an unfortunate double standard here: mainstream scientists are consistently held to a much higher standard than fringe scientists, and that this double standard leads to an unduly large amount of coverage of the fringe in our encyclopedia. For a mainstream scientist, a keep in an AfD needs to document significant scholarly impact of their work (typically thousands of citations with some individual papers having hundreds) while a fringe scientist typically garners many keep votes on the basis only of a few sources that show that they exist and believe what the article says they believe. By typical academic biography standards Tucker does not have the impact we should be asking for: e.g. in a Google scholar search for Tucker and reincarnation I found only 11 citations for his top publication, far below the usual standard for WP:PROF #1. All that said, I think the sources on the article provide some evidence that he passes WP:PROF #7. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a very uneven comparison you are making. By stepping outside the reigning paradigm of science as defined by its most rigidly dogmatic apologists the "fringe scientists" have taken upon themselves a very heavy burden indeed, i.e. that of being outsiders – scorned, ridiculed and marginalized – by default. If nothing else, following such a career path takes courage. The very basis of your argument is flawed, because if it were valid, Wikipedia would violate its own policies by giving such topics as covered by the paranormal, religious and spiritual topic realms any attention other than as social phenomena, let alone attempting to describe the arguments and investigative results presented by their proponents. You cannot judge the opposition by the rules set down by the incumbent class alone, even though you can do so with members of the incumbent class. That is why everyone accepts that mainstream scientists be judged by their own standards. However, since one fundamental function of these standards is to enforce loyalty towards the mainstream view of how science must be performed and delimited, it does not constitute inconsequential acting when the opposition also gets to have its views on what the rules of conducting science should be, considered when evaluating these non-mainstream, dissident, non-conforming to (some of) the majority-set rules, scientists for a general audience. It is relevant and significant that Wikipedia is produced for a general audience and not for the mainstream scientific community. Thus our guidelines and policies appropriately acknowledge the majority position, defined as compliance to the mainstream scientific consensus paradigm, and to a large extent conform to it, however, for the reason that we are producing a general encyclopedia, we have modified our rules accordingly. So, as you write that "[b]y typical academic biography standards Tucker does not have the impact we should be asking for", we are nevertheless not bound to evaluate Tucker's notability on those standards alone. Indeed we shouldn't strive to do so. None of us should. Because to advocate doing so exposes a detrimental flaw in comprehending what a general encyclopedia is in contrast with either a chronicle of scientific proceedings or annals of academic living. And as long as that fallacy persists we shall keep fighting among ourselves. And that surely is not to the benefit of developing Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this supposed to make sense, or is it just intended to sound poetic? Because I'm not getting much out of this long comment beyond some vague special pleading for giving more attention to the nuts because of how brave they are to be so nutty. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an objective observation, Eppstein's statement is sound. The criteria for notability of mainstream academics/scholars/scientists, as demonstrated on these pages, are in practice much higher than for those outside the mainstream. Fringers tend to get favourable treatment in WP so I don't think you have much to complain about. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And even that observation is based on the flawed presupposition that the same ratio of mainstream scientists versus fringe scientists should be deemed notable. That certainly goes to the core of my reasoning above, and although that may be a correct observation per se, the underlying argument that this is a problem to be corrected is myopic. You simply do not address, nor take into consideration, my main points. How many (tens of) thousands of scientifically trained researchers aren't working with grants from the pharmaceutical industry to advance development of heart medicines or cancer drugs? Non-mainstream scientists/researchers mainly engage in primary research, whereas mainstream scientists to a very high extent work in applied fields or on specialized research assaying a large territory where its boundaries have previously been established. Dismissing such monumental factors from the equation simply belies your argument altogether. __meco (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a fair number of news accounts in RSs. [3] DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meco and hepcat. I will remember to copy and paste their arguments the next time someone nominates this article for deletion. Mitsube (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:Author 3 "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." i see a continued pattern of deleting academics with notable mass media references. is it "popularizer envy"? Pohick2 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt it. I think the legitimate concern is that WP should not inadvertently develop the reputation as a "white-pages" of fringe and crank "scientists", just as it shouldn't be a superset of facebook. (Note that I'm not necessarily commenting on this particular case!) This is largely why notability criteria are much more strict than a few years ago. I don't think you should read anything more into it than that. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Ample news coverage about this guy. Dream Focus 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.