Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Marvin Herndon

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

J. Marvin Herndon

J. Marvin Herndon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to not be noticed enough by outside sources for his ideas which are generally not accepted in the mainstream. I do not think he is notable as an academic (WP:PROF) nor is he particular notable as a maverick (being profiled in Current Biography and mentioned in a single off-beat article in The Washington Post does not make for enough independent sources for a good article). I think between the lack of notability and the problems associated with unwarranted promotion of WP:FRINGE, we have a strong case for deletion. jps (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Added sources. To highlight, he initially received a lot of attention after his theory was originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences one of the most influential scientific journals. He and the theory were featured as the cover story in the August 2002 issue of Discover (magazine), plus the many other sources: The Dallas Morning News, USA Today, Toronto Star, U.S. News & World Report, Discover (a 2nd article). He was also in the journal Science, based on a ref in one of the other sources, but having trouble finding a cite. Regardless if his theory is accepted science, passes WP:GNG, topic has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think his idea itself may be worthy of brief dismissive mention at geodynamo or a similar article about theories of the terrestrial magnetic field, but we're not talking about the idea (which is supported by a few other researchers as well). We're talking about the person and the relevant Wikipedia notability has to be based on the biographical information. WP:PROF is pretty clear that you can't just be published in PNAS to be notable. There has to be more. I suppose you are arguing that he is notable for reasons other than WP:PROF, but I would argue that these reasons are covered by WP:FRINGE and, as one your sources states: "His theory is not so much refuted as ignored." Basically, there isn't enough independent coverage of this person's ideas to make him, as a person, notable. jps (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think a cover story in Discover plus the other sources are sufficient sourcing for WP:GNG. I disagree the theory counts under fringe, he's published in PNAS(!) and other reputable science journals ie. legitimate scientific method. That's how science works, scientists put forward seemingly crazy ideas in peer-reviewed journals and sometimes they are agreed with by some others, sometimes they are ignored by some others, but we don't discriminate, rather we determine if they are covered in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:FRINGE doesn't just apply an idea that hasn't been peer-reviewed. It also applies to ideas that have been marginalized. It's a matter of helping decide when sources can be haphazard (fringe subjects tend to be over-covered in the media because of the "everybody loves an underdog" angle and the understandable desire of many whose ideas are not taken as seriously by the community to make their case in other venues). I can point to a number of PNAS papers that are about fringe theories, and this does not mean to say that the theories are "bad", just that they are not well-covered. jps (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • The same source you quoted where he was "being ignored" also says right after that has "prominent champions".[1] If it is fringe is questionable, and meanwhile we have plenty of sources to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep WP:PROF is incredibly vague, but this might meet WP:PROF #7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity") as well as WP:GNG. He passes the WP:PROF "Average Professor Test": how many average professors get a cover story on Discover Magazine, or have their work reported in mainstream news publications? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, this recent effort to delete the page “J. Marvin Herndon” resulted because someone, not me, added references to some of my recent publications. The present deletion-effort is a microcosm of the activities that are leading to Wikipedia’s loss of credibility, including but not limited to a failure to understand what science is all about. Solid science, published in peer-reviewed world-class journals, has been called “FRINGE”, a pejorative assertion that might include topics such as alien abductions. I have been accused of self-promotion, although I have made no edits to Wikipedia pages in about five years. I have been accused of not being “notable “, although the subject of notability had previously been addressed in the Wikipedia community. Lengthy articles about my work have been published in Hörzu, Wissen, Sunday Times of London, Die Welt, Deccan Herald, Science & Vie, New Scientist, Sciences et Avenir, Japanese Playboy, San Francisco Chronicle, Newton (Italy), and others. I am profiled in Who’s Who in America and in the Internet Movie Data Base. I have been criticized because my scientific publications are not “mainstream”. Realize this: If the world were as presently perceived by the “mainstream”, there would be no need for science. Science is about finding out what is wrong with present perceptions and making improvements, replacing less-precise understanding with more-precise understanding. A new concept, a new understanding, typically begins with a single individual and is sometimes met with opposition and acrimony. For example, Alford Wegener’s 1912 evidence of continental drift was ignored and besmirched by the scientific community for 50 years until it was recast as plate tectonics. Are we so arrogant these days as to assume that plate tectonics is without flaws? Wikipedia has a poor track record of editing work related to my discoveries. For example, you may see that the page “georeactor” was deleted and the word georeactor on the page presently being considered for deletion is now linked inappropriately to the Oklo natural reactor. Years ago, maybe about 2006, someone posted that ‘georeactor” page, edits were made to it, sometimes pejorative edits. Then one day, I discovered that the “georeactor” page had been deleted. So, what is the misrepresentation here? In 1993, I demonstrated the feasibility of a nuclear fission reactor at the center of Earth called the georeactor. In subsequent work, including sophisticated calculations made at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, I improved upon the work. The work was thoroughly vetted in the international scientific community; it stimulated publication of copycat georeactors; it explained the origin of deep-Earth helium; recent geoneutrino measurements place upper limits on its output as either 15% or 26% of energy output revealed by geoneutrino measurements. The output may even be higher, because the published results did not include radioactive decay energy from the fuel component that was not engaged in fission. One of the recent references that someone added to the page presently under consideration for deletion is a review article entitled “Terracentric Nuclear Fission Reactor: Background, Basis, Feasibility, Structure, Evidence, and Geophysical Implications”. Read the paper and then ask why the “georeactor” page was deleted. Wikipedia has serious problems related to science edits and in the present instance, especially, to this attempt at deletion. Those who have doubts, should read my papers, many of which can be downloaded from the links someone recently added. One should question the motivation of the individual seeking deletion. In one previous instance, I discovered, a person calling for deletion was a graduate student of a professor who deliberately misrepresents my work in print. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia system of anonymous screen names tends to encourage the darker side of human nature. My screen name says who I am and I stand for the integrity of what I publish. Wikipedia should stand for integrity as well.JMHerndon (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)J. Marvin Herndon

Science by its nature is revolutionary seeking to overturn paradigms. The historical record is littered with theories that were ridiculed in their time. Plate tectonics, global warming, rocket science, antibiotics, etc.. we at Wikipedia need to be very careful about what we label as "fringe". If something is published in peer reviewed journals like PNAS, and has "prominent supporters", and coverage in reliable sources, benefit of doubt should be given, even if it is not part of the current accepted paradigm. Mr. Herndon, if you know of any other sources not currently listed (sources about not by) they would go a long way to defend this deletion. You're in a unique position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I am distressed that an anonymous vigilante has the power to delete 35 years of scientific endeavor, simply because he cannot appreciate it. That is wrong. If this were 1930, he'd be complaining about Tesla's page - another underappreciated outlier. In science, it is critical that well thought, provable theses be available to all. It's the main way we derive new directions and come to solid understandings. Wikipedia needs to be inclusive, not exclusive, and as Dr. Herndon's page strictly fits all the criteria, there is no basis for this waste of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWineberg (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — DavidWineberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you. If you know of any other sources not currently listed (sources about not by) they would go a long way to defend this deletion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Editors JMHerndon and DavidWineberg need to read up a bit on what "notability" means here on WP. As far as I can see, Herndon does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. According to the Web of Science, his works have been cited a grand total of 488 times (h-index of 13), which is not indicative of a lasting impact on the field (and my [[WP:CRYSTAL|crystal ball refuses to tell me whether this will change in future). I disagree with Colapeninsula that an article in Discover constitutes a pass of WP:PROF. However, it does constitute good evidence of notability under WP:GNG and the other sources unearthed by Green Cardamon seal the deal: a clear pas of WP:GNG. As an aside, although his theories don't seem to be generally accepted (and PNAS has published its fair share of real fringe stuff), they don't seem to fall in what I would call "fringe" either. Fringe is when someone sticks to some unlikely idea with only some crackpot theory behind it or in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary keeps sticking to an invalidated hypothesis (like the AIDS denialism of Peter Duesberg - published also in PNAS...). None of that seems to be the case here. Anyway, even if it did, it's immaterial to this discussion. The article needs some cleanup to be reworked into an encyclopedic biography (and please note that Who's Who in America is not a reliable source and should not be used to source this article - or even be mentioned in it). --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I agree that the J. Marvin Hendon Wikipedia article should NOT be deleted. I have written about Herndon in Chapter 11 of Cosmic Apprentice http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/cosmic-apprentice, a 2013 book on philosophy and the history of science that was the lead book on the spring list at the University of Minnesota Press. Science is ultimately not about consensus but about finding the truth, and alternative empirical hypotheses need to be cherished not buried alive. Science needs to keep alive unpopular ideas some of which will prove right in the long run; see Clarke's Laws and recall that G. Marconi, a key figure in the development of the radio, was recommended for the mental institution by the papal cleric to whom he applied for a grant to explore the possibility of wireless communications.

Here is a scan of an approving letter to Herndon from Inge Lehmann, whom Wikipedia informs us "received many honors for her outstanding scientific achievements, among them the Harry Oscar Wood Award (1960), the Emil Wiechert Medal (1964), the Gold Medal of the Danish Royal Society of Science and Letters (1965), the Tagea Brandt Rejselegat (1938 and 1967), the election as a Fellow of the Royal Society (1969),[3] the William Bowie Medal (1971, as the first woman), and the Medal of the Seismological Society of America (1977)": http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Inge%20Lehmann%20letter%20x600.jpg

Please let's not let anonymous Wikipedia posters prematurely decide on the validity of Herndon's ideas, which as far as I can tell tend to be supported by a variety of coherent evidence, including the recent discovery of Jupiter-sized extrasolar planets in surprisingly close orbit about their suns. Bibliorrhea (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Dorion Sagan

• Comment Thank you for your !vote, however, none of your arguments are policy-based, I fear, and the scanned letter that you provide really is immaterial to the discussion here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• The book resource mentioned, Cosmic Apprentice, is a reliable source and I added it to the article in support of WP:GNG, so it was a helpful post - Just saying in case anyone else wants to post more information like it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There are two points I wish to raise here. One pertains to citations and one pertains to rewriting the J. Marvin Herndon page. In 1951 the US National Science Foundation (NSF) quite literally wrote the rules for the government support of science, rules that have been adopted for publications and for the support of science in other countries. Briefly, NSF decided that scientists would review each other’s proposals for funding, and the reviews would be anonymous. Over time this has led to individuals fearing that if they cite work which contradicts the work of one or more of the anonymous reviewers of their proposal, it is likely that the proposal will receive at best lukewarm reviews. So, the safe thing is simply not to cite the work of anyone who might challenge the status quo. That adversely impacts people like me who do challenge extant work. Counting citations can be misleading. The Wikipedia page J. Marvin Herndon should be rewritten. The page is not representative of my work. Not wanting to incur the wrath of Wikipedia editors, I have not made any changes. I am providing here a link to the important scientific contributions I have made, with references, and with links in many instances to webpages that provide easy to understand explanations: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/advances.html. I hope that any editorial revision will represent the totality of my important contributions. Thank you. JMHerndon (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)J. Marvin Herndon— JMHerndon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Counting citations can indeed be misleading, but nobody says that low citation counts prove a lack of notability. It's the other way around: high citation counts are prima facie evidence that someone has had demonstrable influence on their field. In your case, the citation counts are too low to indicate notability (in the WP sense, which has nothing to do with "good", "bad", "meritorious", etc but just means something like "can be shown to have been noted". --Randykitty (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. GS h-index of 12. Not so good for geoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC).
• Keep He is more familiar for the contrary nature of his theories than for his citations index, and this controversy is covered well enough with citations. But also note that other scientists will discuss Herndon's theories with Herndon; he is more completely dismissed in the popular press than the scientific; look at some of the dialogue and scientific responses. Do we delete Greg Graffin's article for a low citation index and failing prof? Professor Herndon, Wikipedia biographies, all articles, are often based entirely upon internet sources that have been picked over for the most basic and easy to understand information--or so it seems to me. Hoping for a balanced article will get you disappointed. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC))
• Keep' on the basis of the GNG, which permits us to cover academics who do not meet the WP:PROF requirement. That guideline is very explicit that the GNG and PROF are alternatives -- an article is not required to meet both. There is sufficient general coverage, and I would be inclined to accept a full article in Current Biography as enough to justify notability for anyone--it's the equivalent of a biographical encyclopedia, and we include what other major encyclopedias include. The entire notability guideline is the way we deal with those subjects that other encyclopedias do not include. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (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.