Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations

Add links
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 speedy delete. POV forks are not the way to resolve content discussions, especially not with borderline BLP vios using iffy sources. It doesn't really matter what the creator calls it. No proof was given that this merits a standalone article given the standalone notability of the topic, although I suppose that might change in the future. For now this stands as a collection of opinionated criticisms on a living person by sources that don't seem to meet WP:RS, and which we should not be helping propagate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations[edit]

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations (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)

1- Not nearly enough WP:RS coverage, most sources used are thefederalist.com (see thread in WP:RSN) and Twitter.

2- Ongoing RfC about whether this content should even be mentioned in the original article (see TP section)

3- Definitely fails WP:NOTABLE big time. Gaba (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Content being appropriate or not for the primary BLP is not the same as it being appropriate as a standalone article. See Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism for a similarly blogger-ginned-up controversy. Sources include Daily Beast (newsweek), Wapo, and while twitter commentary, twitter from notable individuals. This isn't the biggiest event ever, but it does pass the bars of notability as an event. That said, it may not belong in the primary BLP article as part of the BLP weight. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"it does pass the bars of notability as an event", I'm sorry but where is that bar? A blog post in The Volokh Conspiracy and a single article mentioning it in The Daily Beast? Are tweets now considered notable media coverage? Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this a joke? There's a serious argument that can be made about a possible brief inclusion in the biography. A entire separate article, especially while the original inclusion is still debated, is an obvious POVFORK. a13ean (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a WP:POVFORK, and we should attempt to arrive at consensus on the Talk page of the main article about how to handle the issue before creating a new article. Also, much of the "sources" are blog posts and tweets, which may violate WP:BLP. Certainly fails WP:NOTABLE, at least until it gets more widely reported. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Iselilja (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Iselilja (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RFC is still divided on main article inclusion. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge It is not a POVFORK as has been stated and the article is well written. Granted, it has not recieved a whole lot of attention as of now, but considering the allegations and the lack of evidence to refute those allegations, I don't see this Genie being put back into the bottle. Arzel (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete. I think it's very clear per POVFORK and also GNG that this should not be a stand-alone article and there is BLP concerns about having the article up at all. If a concensus forms at the main Tyson article to include the allegations, this article could be redirected or merged, but currently these allegations aren't even mentioned in the main article. Better to take discussion at that article whether anything (and if so, what exactly) about the "controversy" should be included. Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, as the author, I would say Keep. A note - this article is not a POV fork, it is a content fork, which is allowed and encouraged by Wikipedia. I originally began this article in an attempt to draft a neutral section in the main article and, though keeping it as short and factual as possible, I still felt it was too long for a section in Neil deGrasse Tyson and better as a standalone article with a brief summary in the main bio, which I proposed at the article's talk page. For those who claim it is a POV fork, what is the POV being expressed? I did my very best to write it according to WP:NPOV guidelines, and all potentially controversial facts are sourced to the Washington Post, the Daily Beast, and to verified Twitter blog posts of notable individuals with knowledge of this topic. I would welcome any specific examples of POV wording, or of facts detailed in the article which are not adequately sourced. I haven't yet seen any specific critique. Kelly hi! 16:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So far as notability concerns, I felt that this topic was as well-sourced and interesting as many of the other topics in the biography, such as the speculation about his particular brand of atheism, though ultimately that notability will be up to the community to decide. My opinion was based on the sheer number of notable individuals who had discussed the allegation, including Tyson himself. I also should have mentioned that I did include Tyson's response to the allegations as even-handedly as I could. Kelly hi! 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an acceptable content fork, it is an expansion of highly contentious material that many editors feel violated WP:UNDUE even when it was in the original article in abbreviated form. That is, by definition, a POV fork. That doesn't mean that anyone is necessarily saying that the content is poorly written or intended to push a particular agenda. But it is a well established principle on Wikipedia that presenting material well out of proportion to its coverage in reliable sources and its significance and notability as per those sources, even when written fairly and neutrally, still violates NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard or seen that definition of a POV fork, do you have a policy source for that? Kelly hi! 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what I said is consistent with the language at WP:POVFORK and WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "well established principle" to weight issues IS to create a fork. Consider the example cited in the WP:WEIGHT policy of flat earth concepts not being includable the earth article due to weight issues. The solution the policy illustrates is not to simply scrub and censor the encyclopedia of flat earth ideas... the solution is to create a fork, as Kelly has done here. Saying that discussing fabrication allegations in a fabrication alligation article is giving it undue weight is ludicrous. Marteau (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This "principle", such as it is, most certainly is not compliant with WP:BLP as regards living subjects' biographical content. The policy directs: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." It does not direct editors to fork the views of minorities to their own, poorly-biased articles where they have disproportionate weight and impact. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. The WP:BLP policy does not allow for such a fork (for "tiny" viewpoints, where "tiny" is not explicitly defined), whereas the WP:WEIGH policy does. This may all boil down to whether this is a "tiny" viewpoint or not. Reasonable editors can disagree on that. Marteau (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of adjudicating "tininess". Nor is WP:WEIGHT relevant if it is in conflict with BLP; where other policies and guidelines conflict with the BLP policy, it is always the BLP policy which triumphs. And that policy also says: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects" (emphasis mine). It says: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." All of which can rightly be a matter of discussion as to whether this merits a minor inclusion in the parent article. None of which permits the creation of a fork exclusively to give prominence to the allegations. This simply is not the way we are to handle allegations regarding living people. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The standard in WP:BLP for forking IS "tinyness" of the minority opinion. And I agree, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects". What thas says is that we, as editors, and our encyclopedia, should be non-partisan in our edits. That does not mean partisan events should not be included in the article... that means text about partisan events occuring in the world needs to be documented without bias. It is certainly possible to write about a biased event in a non-biased manner and that is what the sentence you quoted means Marteau (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the "tininess" of the opinion, I could not find a single source that claims Tyson was telling the truth about the Bush quote. Kelly hi! 10:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The single most common criticism above is that this is a POVFORK. I actually read WP:POVFORK and it is not. Although people did object to including the information in the main article, most of the objections to including it were that it had not been mentioned in reliable sources and that it is not notable, not POV concerns. (Some of the sources were considered unreliable because they were biased, but that isn't the same thing). We do need to have reliable sources, but this is not a POVFORK. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed..." That's exactly what is happening here. It's a WP:POVFORK - not of the entire article, but of this topic. Can't get the material you want into an article? Well, just create your own! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation would mean that creating an article using material that has been deleted for any reason whatsoever would be a POV fork, since the deleted material is content and someone disagrees that it should be in the main article. I don't buy that. It makes a lot more sense to interpret "disagreement about content" to mean factual disagreements, not disagreement about anything whatsoever. Disagreement over content, then, would not include notability issues. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given the controversy over inclusion in the main article, this separate one is inappropriate. General Epitaph (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is controversy fabrication. We don't need to create an article every time a biased blogger tries has a bone to pick with a celebrity. Not notable. --Shabidoo | Talk 16:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Neil deGrasse Tyson as a noteworthy situation with coverage in reliable sources, or keep if people are going to continue to keep it out of the main article. There wasn't enough coverage earlier this week, but that has clearly changed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus ultimately reached for the main article is that it's not notable enough to merit inclusion there, then your Keep for this separate article would not make sense. General Epitaph (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Our guidelines demonstrate it's notable enough, which is ultimately what matters. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any judgement on whether it is or isn't notable enough, but rather that the consensus is what matters. General Epitaph (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What additional coverage are you referring to? Adler's blog post went up Monday. The National Review and sundry bloggers are continuing to bang the drum but I'm unaware of other recent additional coverage. Am I missing something? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been multiple mentions at the Washington Post now, we also have coverage from The Daily Beast, National Review as you note, and The Weekly Standard, all of which would be reliable for this information in any other form. We were correct when it was only The Federalist discussing this to not have it in the article or have it as a stand-alone. We're incorrect in not including it now, as this story is getting wider press. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...multiple mentions at the Washington Post now... Really? I'm aware of the Jonathan Alter blog post on the Volokh Conspiracy (a source that is editorially independent of the WaPo, but hosted on its servers) Are there others?
Also, the Daily Beast piece was from last Friday, the Weekly Standard article pre-dates that, so your statement "There wasn't enough coverage earlier this week, but that has clearly changed" seems unsupported by your examples. I'm wondering what I'm missing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider multiple mentions at a blog hosted at The Washington Post as multiple mentions, yes. As for the timing on those articles, I was wrong on the timeline, and it appeared to be notable as early as last Friday. The timing is not the issue as much as the sourcing is worthwhile. Really, it belongs in the main article. If editors will continue to stand in the way of it being there, a subarticle for the noteworthy information is appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Swordfish pointed out above, that is the definition of a POV fork. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the POV being expressed in the article? Kelly hi! 19:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second this question. No POV is being expressed, it's a neutral accounting of a noteworthy situation regarding an academic. That the people raising the issue have a POV is granted, but there's no POV being asserted within the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your questions in my response to Kelly above. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you seem to think this specific article is pushing a POV when it's simply documenting a notable situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a violation of NPOV to disproportionately over-represent the significance of this situation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you'll note that my preference is that it be merged before being kept. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple mentions? There's the Adler post. What others? Are you counting the comments? I'm still only seeing one post, and BTW the Volokh Conspiracy is not a WP:NEWSBLOG since it is editorially independent of the WaPo. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A blog bully trying to tear down a living person with over-the-top hyperbole. Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No basis for a separate article except as a manufactured attack page. The issue may or may not warrant a paragraph in the main article, but this article is inappropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Referencing is utterly inadequate. Twitter, The Daily Beast, and PJ Media are not the way to reference this sort of article. Further, as a contentious allegation originally voiced by The Federalist, its own articles on the topic are not independent coverage. The Adler citation is misleading as presented, making it appear as though this topic received coverage in the Washington Post rather than in The Volokh Conspiracy blog; from its own description: "We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog." There are inherent due weight and notability concerns here, and an argument can be made that this is unacceptable prima facie under the BLP policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious POV fork. Nuke from orbit on BLP grounds. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This grossly fails WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AQFK.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POVFORK to sidestep RfC in main article: source reliability is being debated in RfC, notability is being debated in RfC, let the RfC determine the fate of this content. Lingnik (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious POVFORK, isn't and probably never will be independently notable. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously as proposer. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In the current RfC for whether this issue should be in Tyson's article, the issue is WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. These policies point out that, for example, mention of flat earth concepts do not belong in the earth article because flat earth ideas are a distinct minority viewpoint and including them in the "earth" article would be undue weight. The policy does not advocate this minority viewpoint be scrubbed from the encyclopedia... no, because the policy links to the flat earth article itself. The solution to WP:WEIGHT issue is in fact to create a fork, which is what is being proposed here. WP:BIO issues will be addressed in this fork by ensuring that it is well sourced... using WP:BIO as an argument to avoid mentioning this issue at all is a misapplication of WP:BIO. People who are arguing that this Tyson "Our God" issue should not appear in his article due to WP:WEIGHT, and are also arguing against discussion in a fork, are simply proposing censorship, in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No offense Marteau but "..this Tyson "Our God" issue..", is not an appropriate commentary and takes strength out of your argument. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think he was sarcastically referring to Tyson as "Our God." He was referring to a quote allegedly promulgated by Tyson which had George W. Bush saying "Our God is the God who named the stars" Phillip A (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Marteau (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to the main article until such time as the RfC there concludes. If concensus is for exclusion of fabrication allegations in the main article due to weight issues, then link to this fork from the main article. Discussing fabrication allegations in an article devoted to fabrication allegations cannot be called undue weight. Marteau (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not easily personally offended - however, for those above claiming "POV" or "attack page", I would appreciate either providing some evidence or backing off the hyberbole. Kelly hi! 19:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of the Paul Ryan marathon time incident. This received a great deal more attention at the time (actual newspaper articles), and eventually ended up as two sentences at Paul_Ryan#Personal_life. I personally suggested a much more cautious wording which did not imply any intent. Note in particular Milowent's comment which implies (in my reading) that it would be absurd to make an article about this. User:Arzel appears to feel very different about this case though. a13ean (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't beleive you would compare this to Paul Ryan. It is, however, a pretty good example of the hypocritical nature of much of the press. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citing me as precedent is always very persuasive, I believe. I just went looking for Rand Paul kidnapping of female student in the name of Aqua Buddha and Fareed Zakaria plagiarism controversies and couldn't find them either. These things seem notable in the heat of the news cycle, but usually sort themselves out as not meriting a separate article. We don't create articles on every stretch of the truth by George Will either. And for the record, I am not a Neil Tyson Truther. And e/c add: You disagree that Paul Ryan deceived the entire American public with his marathon times and mountain climbing accomplishments? How can he live with himself?--Milowent • hasspoken 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as based on POV-pushing bollocks peddled by third-rate bloggers with no credibility whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that the WaPo had 3rd rate bloggers. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – As others have said, this is clearly a WP:POVFORK for a non-notable event. Also probably a WP:BLP vio for lack of WP:RS. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 20:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious POVFORK, Also fails GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All the sources are either Sean Davis of The Federalist, or references to him. The debate is currently raging on the main biography on whether this supposed "scandal" is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia at all. I think it's obvious it doesn't need its own page. Therefore, delete per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:FAILN Phillip A (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
That sources refer to Davis is natural, seeing as he lit the proverbial fire that got the whole debate going. Whether you agree with Davis or not, any discussion about this issue must begin with him. However, sources are making their own assertions independently of The Federalist such as the Weekly Standard who asserts "nothing about this anecdote is true". They say that independently of The Federalist and without qualificaiton. Marteau (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as "Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations" is a sort of idiosyncratic title, I don't see the value in a redirect to his main biography. If the subject isn't notable enough for its own article, I favor deletion instead. Phillip A (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this wouldn't work. This sources fails criteria #2 (and possibly a couple other criteria) of WP:SELFPUB. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Povfork of a non-event that barely, if at all, warrants weight in the main article. It's sourcing blogs, a podcast and freaking TWITTER of random people who aren't publishing stories because magazine editors and newspaper editors don't consider it a story. Alsee (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources you mention are only used for some of the minor "meta" aspects of the story, such as interviews with Davis discussing the origin of his interest in the topic and the reason for his research on Tyson. There are plenty of mainstream sources discussing the allegations themselves, along with plenty of notable people. Kelly hi! 08:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for those concerned about sourcing, I've beefed up the references and added additional sources, though I believe most of the new ones simply reinforce the ones that were already used. Kelly hi! 09:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV for of a non-notable event which is covered chiefly by unreliable partisan sources and blogs. I also suggest this is a particularly egregious violation of WP:BLP considering it was removed from the original article as a BLP violation. Second Quantization (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources include The Washington Post, The Daily Beast (formerly Newsweek), Physics Today, and The Tampa Tribune. Can you specify the nature of the BLP violation you are alleging? Kelly hi! 10:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Physics Today piece says Neil deGrasse Tyson has come under conservative attack and calls them all attacks. That's all it says about it. Those attacks are the entire basis of this very article. Secondly, the sources in use in this article are twitter, "a conservative and humor-driven U.S.-based Political Blog", a conservative opinion magazine and a minor conservative website. Thirdly, the Volokh Conspiracy is editorially independent from The Washington Post as you are aware. So no, the post is not a source. Fourthly, the Tamba source is a right wing blog (it's even called "The Right Stuff" where "Jackson provides insight into the evolving human condition from a distinctly conservative point of view"). So basically no, your sources are terrible and it's an attack page, where the only reliable source just said conservatives have been attacking NGT, and not much else. Second Quantization (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my count is correct I see 4.5 keep, 2.5 merge, and 21 delete so far. Considering that this is a WP:BLP attack piece, it would be swell if an admin gave this an early close. Alsee (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of the BLP violation? I don't want to tiresomely repeat myself, but I keep seeing that asserted with no examples or evidence provided. Kelly hi! 11:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the tally of the vote but the multiple good reasons given for deletion. Speedy delete is reasonable. --Shabidoo | Talk 11:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters the fact that you tried to source it with a pile of random TWEETS blogs a podcast and Volokh Conspiracy are all gross violations of WP:BLPSPS. Yes, Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy is directly prohibited because it is explicitly not under Washington Post editorial control. But lets set aside that and just look at the best sources. WP:BPL sets a much higher standard than normal for including negative material in a Bio article at all, much less trying to spin off a Bio-attack piece. WP:BLP is "firm about the use of high-quality sources", and WP:WELLKNOWN italicizes multiple high quality sources before we can even consider including it. There is currently an RfC underway discussing whether the existing sources have sufficient high-quality weight to justify inclusion in the main article. They do not remotely support a spinoff article. Your spinoff article probably should have been blanked or speedily deleted under WP:BLP. You can't run off an make a spinoff article just to evade the policy-based objections in the main article. But the main problem here seems to be that you want Wikipedia to tell the WP:TRUTH about this, which is a sure fire way to lose Wikipedia policy arguments. On Wikipedia it doesn't matter if the story is true or not. Wikipedia reflects what Reliable Sources say, and we only do so in accordance with proper weight for inclusion and weight for quantity. Alsee (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pile of random tweets? I'm not seeing that. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion about the blogs at the WaPo but I believe WP:NEWSBLOG would apply in that case. In any event, there are multiple other sources. And I don't get where the WP:TRUTH accusation is coming from - is it simply because I've written an article? But the fundamental question I have is, exactly what is the nature of the WP:BLP violation you are claiming. The article basically boils down to a few main details - 1) Tyson attributed a quote to Bush, 2) Davis wrote about it 3)Other public figures stated that Bush never said it. That's it, and those central facts are sourced in accordance with WP:RS. There are other sources for non-contentious facts, such as the history of the news story being written, but those are not contentious. One of the blog sources is to the response from Tyson himself, which would be unfair not to include. So could you please specify how BLP is being violated or the subject of the BLP is being harmed? Kelly hi! 12:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without regard to your other points, The Volokh Conspiracy does not meet the conditions described in WP:NEWSBLOG. Despite being hosted by the Washington Post and, confusingly, sharing its masthead, The Volokh Conspiracy is an entirely independent blog over which the Post exercises no editorial control (as described on The Volokh Conspiracy's about page, in fact). It isn't a blog-format column published by a news organization. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way the Post would continue to host a column like The Volokh Conspiracy if it violated the newspaper's standards of conduct and journalism. Kelly hi! 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog." "... we speak only for ourselves, and not for the institutions that employ us." That's unequivocal. Second Quantization (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they were to violate standards of journalism, the Post would dump them in a heartbeat. Kelly hi! 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not helping yourself by continuing this fiction that the Volokh Conspiracy equates to the WaPo. They make it abundantly clear that they are not a part of WaPo, have sole editorial control, and speak only for themselves. Your prediction that it would be dropped by WaPo if it did not meet, what you call, “standards of journalism” is an opinion. They cannot be independent of WaPo editotial control and inherit the Wikipedia mantle of RS held by WaPo. Objective3000 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional sourcing from John Aziz of The Week which was published today.[1] Kelly hi! 13:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of you have mentioned notability. It is clear, from WP:FAILN, that articles that do not meet notability criteria should be either merged or deleted. The notability criteria for events can be found at WP:EVENTCRIT, and read, in part,

...not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).
...
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

I think it's clear that the "enduring significance" of Sean Davis' allegations is by no means established at the present time. If this controversy ends up changing how Americans view celebrity science communicators, or something like that, then it might warrant its own article. But not now. That, above all else, is why I advocate deletion as recorded above. Phillip A (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but I don't think it's applicable here. The article is a content fork of Neil deGrasse Tyson's biography, and he is certainly a notable individual. Kelly hi! 15:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being an acceptable fork does not exempt an article from notability criteria. For example, the article on Shakespeare's religion is acceptable, not simply because William Shakespeare is a notable person, but because the question of Shakespeare's religious beliefs has received significant scholarly attention. (If I created Size of Shakespeare's feet, I think it would be deleted.) I don't think you can make a serious argument that this article is in fact a section of the main Tyson article spun out for length, but even if you did, there is still the question of WP:UNDUE weight, especially when we're dealing with a WP:BLP. Phillip A (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: this is a BLP violation, covered up by a conspiracy theory, stuck into an urban legend that was actually repeated by the subject, slathered in racism, and wrapped into paranoia. Seriously, this is about as bad an attack job as I've ever seen in seven years. On top of it, every source is a blog, tweet, letter to the editor, or conspiracy website. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the racism? That is a pretty inflamatory remark and sounds like a red herring. Arzel (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch the racism. But yes...the paranoia and urban legend...that's a nice touch! I would add college-prank to it. --Shabidoo | Talk 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do in fact consider these allegations notable, but they all could (and should) fit comfortably in one or two paragraphs on the Neil deGrasse Tyson page; a separate article is pointless. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable stuff indeed. Only the alleged Bush quotation is potentially worth including in the main article. According to a statistician, four fifths of this article is below average. Paul B (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_fabrication_allegations&oldid=1086363192"