Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Seneff

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. Overwhelming and well-argued support to keep the article even though it needs work. Subject has been shown to meet notability requirements. The article's POV regarding the subject is not a sufficient reason for deletion, as this can be fixed and the article salvaged. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Seneff[edit]

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

Fails notability; only criticisms from blogs are included in body. No neutral coverage could be found in RS. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 7 references. One is a primary source for her employment details. The remainder are non-notable blogs criticizing her glyphosate study (note that glyphosate is the base for Monsanto's main product, RoundUp herbicide). The final reference, from Keith Kloor for Nature is perhaps not as reliable as it may appear, given that recent FOIA records landed him in this article: Journalists Failed to Disclose Sources’ Funding from Monsanto. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below and WP:BLPSPS, I've trimmed the criticsm, leaving what I believe is a questionable source for the criticism, but wanted to satisfy DGG and NPOV. At this point, I would withdraw this deletion request, and hope folks put this article on their watch list, lest it become an attack page again. Thanks, petrarchan47 คุ ก 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to keep this BLP all note that the criticism needs to be cut down. I attempted to do that last night, but was reverted by an IP and KingofAces43. Votes to keep article based on a caveat don't hold water if the work isn't done to keep the criticism under control. I remain in favor of deletion, and still see no RS to support this BLP. petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I created the article, a fair amount of additional negative material has been added cited to questionable sources (e.g. the blogs above). Nevertheless, there actually is one reliable independent source in the article now: the Washington Post (reference 3). Other reliable sources include Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic, and this admittedly brief article in the Pacific Standard: [1]. I think, though, that the strongest argument for Seneff's notability comes from her h-index, which, according to Google Scholar, is 48. [2] (Note that I used this tool on Chrome to calculate her h-index.) I think an h-index this high is enough to meet WP:PROF#C1 in almost any field, including computer science (her actual area of expertise). Given all this, I think the article should be kept, but having created it I do not consider myself unbiased enough to vote as to whether it should be deleted or not. Everymorning (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing you've uncovered seems promising, however you've not added it to the article that I can see, instead you added Alternet and cherry picked criticsm from it. Can you explain? IMO, it doesn't make sense to ignore the Chicago Tribune piece whic gives detailed, unbiased coverage of her work, and instead choose a quote from Alternet.petrarchan47 คุ ก 14:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not adding the other sources I brought up above. However, I originally added the Pacific Standard source and Snopes when I first created the article, but they were both later removed by someone else. In any case, I have since added the sources I cited above (and the Snopes article) to this article. Everymorning (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for sorry. Snopes is not RS, and Alternet is usually not allowed in our articles. The point about adding the neutral reliable source Chicago Tribune is that it covers what our article promises, but fails, to: Seneff's research. The section that used to be titled "criticism", now "research" does not give the reader any idea about her work, but gives extensive rebuttal of it. We have a serious problem with using proper sourcing, cherry picking from them instead of neutrally summarizing their contents, and using the page to attack a living person even after the problem has been explained. I believe a non-involved editor or admin should oversee the rewrite of this article - which shouldn't be difficult as this person is only notable for one or two papers, if indeed she is notable at all. petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 for her computer science publications but the problem is that that's mostly not what the article is about. Instead, it's focused on her recent fringe bandwagon anti-vaccine anti-GMO anti-acetaminophen autism scare pieces. There's enough coverage of that part that she might be notable under WP:GNG, and the self-published sources look like they pass the recognized expert test, but that's why my keep is weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but rewrite to eliminate the use of the negative adjectives. Saying what she supports is sufficient indication. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- shift balance to fairly represent CS work as well as the paper. ~~I disagree that all negative adjectives should be removed -- it's part of the reception of her work. But it's undue weight here.~~ -- remove criticism section; no non-self-published sources supporting it.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is appropriately sourced for a WP:FRINGEBLP. We can't violate WP:BLP and remove the fact that most of the subject's notability comes from controversial publications. Sources such as blogs.discovermagazine.com are not WP:SPS sources even though they have the term blog in the name. They are selected contributors for the website as opposed to an open blog anyone can post. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org is a recognized reputable source for dealing with fringe subjects and is also appropriate per WP:BLPSPS. Both BLP and WP:PSCI policies are at play here, so editors need to take care in upholding both. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, I haven't looked at the article and don't want to get involved here, but I want to respond to your post that sciencebasedmedicine.org is appropriate for BLPs. As I understand it, it's a group blog, and no self-published material is allowed in BLPs, unless authored by the subject. There are no exceptions to that. We do allow a general exception for self-published experts on occasion, but that exception does not apply to BLPs. See WP:BLPSPS:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.

SarahSV ^(talk) 06:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the same BLPSPS I was commenting on. The distinguishing factor is that we're not dealing with unfettered blogs from the general public, but experts with a professional standing. That takes it beyond just a group blog. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, as I said, there are no exceptions for experts.

WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..."

And WP:SPS says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (emphasis in the original)."

SarahSV ^(talk) 06:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate on this, it's an important part of the policy to uphold, because if you let in the self-published experts you like, you're going to have to let in the ones you don't like. And soon BLPs will be full of whatever any expert wants to say about other people on their blog, with no professional publisher standing between that author and publication. The policy is there to make sure that doesn't happen. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference when a source goes from being published by an individual to instead using the medium to publish under editorial control, as WP:BLPSPS points out. If for instance the editor of a magazine, newspaper, etc. wrote a piece themselves, that still wouldn't be self-published in the sense we're looking out for here. We assign different situations varying degrees of weight of course. SBM brings itself beyond being a self-published source as it has multiple editors overseeing the process, is the product of the Society for Science-Based Medicine, etc. We're not talking about just a personal website anymore. I for one wouldn't be able to distinguish it from other society "news blogs" that are run in an official fashion. We can't call it self-published like an individual blog or just a random group of people that got together at this point. Remember we also can't be violating WP:PSCI here, so we do need to include criticism of the studies related to the subject while not unduly focusing on the person. That's where the balance between the two policies lies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, the question is always whether anyone stands between the writer and the act of publication. (The society you mention consists of the people who run the website.) What is needed is a professional staff – editors, managers, lawyers – who decide whether something will be published, and who can say no.

Without editorial oversight, individuals can publish with no one else involved. This gives people a platform to make any claims they wish to make about other people. That's why two of the content policies, WP:V (WP:SPS) and WP:BLP (WP:BLPSPS), say those sources are never allowed in BLPs, no matter how much expertise the writer has.

The only exception is for the BLP subject, so long as the material isn't contentious and isn't about other living people; the exception is mostly to allow date of birth, cv and similar. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Just a comment on this. There is a vocal group of editors who are in love with this blog, and insist it has editorial standards. I have never found any evidence of the sort; it seems like the "editors" are simply blog authors. The site also accepts outside submissions from absolutely anyone, and reviews those, which apparently has given rise to idea that its main authors are subject to editorial oversight. The submission guidelines for outside authors are here. I have never heard anyone argue that this site meets the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which it clearly does not. In extensive conversation wherein I've brought up this issue, editors repeatedly affirmed that it is "good" without saying how it is a scientific RS. In the context of a libel case against it, the Washington Post described it as "a nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group".[3] --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that it might be an appropriate source for other articles. The question for BLPs is only whether it's self-published by the group of bloggers who run it. Quality is not the issue. The articles could be of a very high quality, but still allow self-publication about living people.

Re: submissions from others, bloggers can always review and decline outside submissions, so that doesn't help to decide the issue either. The question is whether anyone other than the group bloggers reviews the group's submissions, and to what extent an editorial staff can decline to publish those submissions or insist on changes. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To return to this particular case -- I think we need to be absolutely secure on these blogs/sites being reviewed/non-SP before using them. Even though the guidelines don't make a distinction about whether a BLP-SPS (not by the subject) is used for confirming birthdates/favorite-color or for potentially libelous purposes, to me common-sense would say that the strictest of scrutiny (on whether a source is SP or not) should pertain to the latter cases. Here was have a whole section about controversies that appears at this point to be entirely based on sciencebasedmedicine and publications with "blog" in their titles. Is any of this something that WP needs to cover? (My vote above was for keep for the CS papers; the article can stand w/o this section.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because this article is a BLP, it needs to be neutral NOW. Better no article than a hack job focusing almost entirely on her anti-GMO/glyphosate activism with scant attention paid to her computer science/AI work. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps and I would've closed as such as this seems convincing enough for a current article. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure what Petrarchan means by Snopes not being a RS, it scrutinizes everything it talks about in detail, is widely recognized as one of the best fact-checking sites on the Internet, and here's a RSN discussion about the website where the consensus seems to be that Snopes is reliable. [4] Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2016 (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.