Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton

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 delete. Of the 36 participants in this discussion, 23 !voted for deletion, which is a reasonable 64%, and a number of those reconfirmed their vote after reading through the ongoing discussion, while one of those !voting to keep, offered little rationale – “I think the page should be kept” The arguments for and against deletion focused on the quantity and quality of the coverage in sources. John J. Bulten (JJB) offered an impressive list of sources; however, as pointed out, these did not deal with the topic with the significant detail required in the GNG. Claims that the topic meant with criteria in WP:Prof are rigorously challenged, and the strongest claim, that he is an “elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society”, is disputed, though not completely dismissed. The strongest argument for keeping, as put forward by DGG, is that under WP:AUTHOR he has some notability as he has created a well known work that has been the subject of multiple reviews. However this is disputed as the main work reviewed was assembled rather than created by the topic. This AfD discussion was initially closed as No consensus then undone as the original closer felt unable to put forward a closing rationale, and discussion continued on the article talkpage, which has been consulted. Overall there is significant enough consensus that notability has not been established for this topic, and deletion is the appropriate option. However, I will userfy the material on request to allow work to continue until notability can be established. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Ashton

John F. Ashton (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)

Unable to find secondary sources to demonstrate his notability as a BLP here. Most sources of his degrees, honors and professional positions are self-claims like the autobiographical blurbs in books he's authored. Cite to Richard Dawkins only mentions Ashton's name in passing, as the individual who compiled the book containing an article written by the individual (Kurt Wise) Dawkins is critiquing. The two subject areas which Ashton appears to have published are rife with pseudoscience (creationism and purported health claims attributable to foods/vitamins/minerals) promoted with a PhD, and his PhD doesn't appear to be in science or medicine. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 29. Snotbot  t • c »  21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep (talk page stalker). Seems to pass GNG, BASIC, and AUTHOR; significant collective body of work in multiple reviews. The SPS can be cleaned up. Will see what a quick source search turns up. JJB 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Should be an easy call for passing ACADEMIC as well: this search yields 9 journal articles and 23 people citing him. JJB 22:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• That citation count falls well short of the figures normally accepted as evidence of passing WP:PROF criterion 1, and can you identify those multiple reviews? I can find none either cited in the article or from my own searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:PROF #3 as a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I can find no evidence that RACI fellowship is selective enough to satisfy that criterion - it is not even the highest grade of membership of the society, which is "Chartered Fellow".[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Citations (including those of his religious publications) in Google Scholar are 35, 34, 32, 12, 11, 8, 6, 5, 4, 4, 2... with an h-index of 6. This is not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in the highly cited field of life sciences. I note that Ashton sometimes credits himself with a PhD in the author lists of the science papers he publishes. This is strictly correct, but his PhD is in theology, not science. There is a claim that he was elected a member of RACI in 1992. I have been unable to verify this as it is behind a pay-wall but, if it is correct, it is strange because he only achieved a publication record after that time. As noted above he does not hold the highest rank in that society and, anyway, it is questionable if RACI is a prominent enough society to give an automatic pass of WP:Prof#C3. I conclude that he fails all of WP:Prof. The only possibility of notability may be found through WP:Author in the topic of fringe religion. However, even here, his GS cites are miniscule many being to a book he has edited. Most of the sources that an enthusiastic editor has been adding to the article are so marginal as to be practically worthless. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
• Delete Xxanthippe's careful dissection says it all. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The case for WP:PROF is weak, as discussed above; the case for WP:GNG is even weaker (very little about him to be found in Google news or Highbeam, and not nontrivial enough coverage to suffice). The philosophy section seems problematic in its convoluted reading of its sources, and in any case seems to be largely about the content of a book that Ashton merely edited. The strongest case I can see for him is as the author of the "chocolate a day" book — that, at least, has some hits (14 on google news, 17 in highbeam) and while these sources still don't give nontrivial coverage of Ashton himself, they at least cover one of his theories in a little depth. But I think it was too much a flash-in-the-pan and WP:BIO1E thing to form the basis of an entire biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the page should be kept. Mormon Man (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reply: Keep arguments:
  • GNG is satisfied: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The accumulation of 30 sources to an article, many of them full-depth, used to be enough to pass GNG. Having 14 Google News and 17 Highbeam sources on one topic in addition used to be enough to pass GNG.
  • BASIC is satisfied: "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." See accumulation above.
  • PROF#C1 is satisfied: "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Nor did Xx link the citation count she did. This guideline doesn't say "h-index of 6 is not remotely enough", perhaps you could edit it if it should. (ADD: This link gives me an h-index of 10, which is remotely enough. JJB 13:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC))
  • PROF#C3 is satisfied given the data below: "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society ... or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". Per RACI, Chartered Fellow and Fellow are identical except that Chartered means 3 years chemistry experience, which Ashton perhaps never bothered to document to RACI. However there are 3 levels below FRACI and it requires "a position of eminence in the chemistry field [and] services rendered to the RACI" and is thus selective. Also our Chartered Chemist article demonstrates RACI is the AU equivalent to the UK RSC, which indicates sufficient selectivity and prestige to me. Thus, the burden of proof (showing that RACI is a major scholarly society and FRACI is a highly selective honor) is satisfied.
  • AUTHOR#C1 is satisfied: "widely cited by peers or successors".
  • AUTHOR#C2 is satisfied: "known for originating a significant new concept". Getting 50 doctorates to agree on creationism is a significant change in the debate and had not happened previously, as evolutionists admitted.
  • AUTHOR#C3 is satisfied: "significant or well-known work [subject] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Lookie there, 4 reviews of Chocolate a Day added without even trying, plus the 3 of In Six Days. How many more should I add?
• Delete arguments:
  • "Unable to find secondary sources": but there are thirty now.
  • Google Scholar "cites are miniscule" (sp): but there are many dozens.
  • SPS, pseudoscience subject-area, epistemology PhD, strange fellowhip date, secondary fellowship, problematic writing, convoluted sources: but none of those are deletion criteria.
  • No reviews: but three reviews are found so far: Dawkins (written about one chapter only), Groves (three pages analyzing entire book), and the American Scientific Affiliation. To misclassify the Dawkins review as merely a critique of an article Ashton merely compiled seems a bit odd as it's clearly a review of a book.
  • The idea that editing 50 doctoral authors is much less notable than writing one's own book: very odd to me.
  • The idea that every keep argument can be dismissed except the chocolate and that's a BIO1E: very odd to me.
• Conclusion: Usually deletionists don't tilt at several windmills at once. Here any one notability argument would settle the question, and there are at least seven potential. Usually four or five reliable sources of sufficient depth would settle the question, and there are at least thirty potential (and many more unlisted but found in passing). There are more conclusions to be drawn, but suffice for today. JJB 07:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There are too many misunderstandings and misconceptions of WP:PROF in the above argument to address them all. Suffice to say that after reading through all that, I see no reason at all to change my "delete" !vote. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know off. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep  This seems to be a case that is related to creationism, with the basic argument for deletion being that the topic shouldn't be notable to the extent that the notability arises from a religious belief.  As far as whether or not the topic passes WP:GNG, 43 sources in the article indicate that it does pass WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• None of those 43 references are to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is a textbook case of bombardment. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" is coverage that is not "trivial".  "Trivial" coverage under WP:GNG is simply material that cannot be used to write an encyclopedia.  WP:Bombardment is an essay that does not identify the concept of a "textbook case".  The primary concern of the essay seems to be that sources can be used redundantly.  Even if every source in the article were redundant, there would still be one source left, which disproves the premise that WP:Bombardment explains that "none" of the sources are to significant coverage.  Here are a couple of quotes.  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment bad? states, "Bombardment is not necessary when the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant."  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment good? states, "Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So which of those 43 references are to significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What I said was, "43 sources in the article indicate that it does pass WP:GNG."  Yes, the evidence can be reduced by the force of reason.  But given that the evidence has not been diminished, asking for yet more evidence is a form of logical fallacy—I'm not sure what that is called, but Moving the goalposts#As logical fallacy seems close.  Also, I'm not interested in getting in a tete-a-tete here, so I'll probably not respond again.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Three-page detailed Groves review; many other dedicated book reviews; in-journal publication with over 100 cites; 18 university research publications including 3 books; university courses citing his books as selected resources; and an accumulation of book citations. JJB 22:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here is a good miniessay. I think of this fallacy as the unwinnable "show me a rock" game, which I typically mu. I might need to repeat, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." JJB 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per the work of Xxanthippe, he doesn't meet the coverage requirements of PROF or the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yaksar, can you help me understand how I have misunderstood the clear words of seven retention guidelines, none of which have been rebutted? Did you notice that the h-index is 10 not 6 and the speculation about the fellowship was corrected from RS? I would appreciate having some idea of when I can stop adding reliable sources. OTOH the best arguments do win. JJB 22:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm seeing little-to-no substantive independent coverage here. Most sources listed either (i) include Ashton himself as a (co-)author, (ii) are creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) affiliates of Ashton, (iii) are/were Ashton's employer and/or (iv) make only passing (and/or dismissive) mention of it. The sourcing for this article is really crappy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (i) 5 sources are SPS, appropriately (retained from before AFD; they might be deletable). (ii) I count 14 sources that could be viewed as creationist, but, even if they were fringe citations, many are independent and they are not a deletion argument. If an author is fringe, the fact that he is often cited by the fringe is used to weigh his notability and is not zeroed out. (iii) 2 sources are his university. Counting generously, that's 21, which is not "most". (different iv due to Hrafn refactor) Journal articles (8) are independent, usually peer-reviewed, even if they are his own co-labor. (v) 12 reviews of 3 different books are independent. (vi) 4 other unclassified refs are independent (Chemistry in Australia, Food Australia, Mauboussin, Baura).
  • What is more important, though, is that AFD is decided not by what's in the article but what exists as to notability. The fact has been repeatedly demonstrated that many many more sources can be brought forward in many different categories and each category establishes notability in itself. I can go on all day. If the article were actually to start discussing the science of his food discoveries in detail (what! pay sources! in an encyclopedia!), it would have spinouts galore. JJB 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    1. Many of the creationists cited are those whose testimonies appear in Ashton's book -- not independent
    2. Most of the remaining creationists probably aren't WP:RS. Denyse O'Leary certainly isn't -- not even close. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." So this most certainly is "a deletion argument".
       • And I would particularly like to point out that creationists are notoriously unreliable on the qualifications and relevance of expertise of themselves and their fellow creationists -- so no I do not accept that "Ashton and White are permissible SPS for a mere roll-call". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    3. The Chemistry in Australia and Food Australia citation appear to be a bare mentions (as is van de Weghe). Mauboussin is a bare citation (as are the Whitney, Köstenberger, & Maxfield, citations). NOT "significant coverage".
    4. The reviews of In Six Days would appear to indicate that the book, not its editor, would be a better topic for an article. The coverage of A Chocolate a Day appears to be for more light-hearted and superficial (again not "significant coverage").

    All in all, you really haven't convinced me on notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

    • These are not deletion arguments until you impeach all the sources at once. (ii) Would you like to take the 14 creationists to RSN? By "many" you mean Bergman, Roth, White, Whitney; the rest did not contribute, though H. Morris is related to a contributor. Even the contributors are independently published, not self-published. (iii) University research is independently reviewed and significant. (iv) We haven't scratched the surface of his food-research notability; would you like me to buy some of these articles? (v) We have never objected to light-hearted coverage of a light-hearted book as nonnotable. It's certainly not superficial; these are ordinary book reviews that each confer AUTHOR criterion 3 notability. Would you like to take all 12 reviews to NPOVN? They have a 3-week backlog. (vi) Bare mentions as to fellowship, an important bio detail, are frequently used on WP. Further, a large number of bare mentions (in addition to the other substantive mentions) are accumulative toward notability, as above.
    • It's not my job to convince you, it's your "job" (if you accept it) to defeat all seven notability criteria at once. You deleted Dawkins from the article too, not a good approach. JJB 16:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Creationists are promoters of WP:FRINGE views, they are therefore prima facie unreliable sources. No prior discussion of each and every one of them on WP:RSN is needed to make this point.
2. "independently published" is WP:Complete bollocks. "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." -- WP:N It is the author that needs to be independent, not merely the publisher.
3. Research coauthored by Ashton is blatantly not independent of Ashton. Nor is mere mention/citation of his papers "significant coverage".
4. The reviews of A Chocolate a Day (i) do not appear to "address the subject directly in detail" & (ii) appear to lack sufficient expertise on the subject matter to qualify as "reliable".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if this were an article on a holder of a fringe view, the fringe views of others are appropriate for that article and, again, contribute to notability; these are two different guidelines. Fringe authors are RS (SPS) for their own views. Feel free to adjust on this point, as you have been already. They are not zeroed out as sources. Further, most are independent of the subject (Ashton) unless you have evidence otherwise. Research conducted by Ashton is a reliable source vetted independently; it's not given to contribute to independence, only to his reliability for the claims made in journals. There are many Chocolate reviews, they address the subject in their totality, and they have typical reviewer experience; they have all the marks of book reviews used in any other article. Sorry you ended up being the one to face me off on this one. JJB 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE#Notability versus acceptance appears to take a very different view on whether the views of fringe/unreliable sources add to notability. It gives no support whatsoever for your contention. "Research conducted by Ashton" is "produced by those affiliated with the subject" so is explicitly excluded from being independent by WP:Notability itself. Kindly cease and desist making assertions directly contradicted by WP:Notability! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact what I asserted was that "it's not given to contribute to independence". I also don't see in your guideline link something that contradicts what I said, nor was it written to support my contention, which actually appears as, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." The seven criteria applied are quoted above, and in each case where independence is called for it has been shown. JJB 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• delete - This article certainly merits a fringe tag, however a brief review of the sources shows that they are overwhelmingly of an unreliable nature. Everything I checked appeared to be either self-published or published via dubious sources. I'd happily re-consider this if a keep proponent could highlight one or two sources which they feel can carry this subject's notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that Hrafn listed this on FTN. As listed above, there are 7 arguments for carrying notability; reducing the discussion to a highlight would be argument by minimization. If you can wait a few minutes I'll be happy to retrace the whole argument, if that's what you're asking. JJB 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• GNG: sig cov in RS ind of subj: Groves (2.5 pages), Groves again (several grafs), Dawkins (1+ page on part of book), ASA (1 page, pro but independent).
• BASIC: subj of mult pub 2dary RS ind of each other and subj, including combination: Mauboussin, Baura, plus most of the other sources mentioned herein.
• PROF 1: several extremely highly cited schol pubs or substantial schol pubs w/sig cites: 8 articles (not SPS, not required to be independent) as representative of h-index of 10.
• PROF 3: RACI fellow, not rebutted: Chemistry in Australia, Food Australia.
• AUTHOR 1: widely cited by peers or successors: Scholar evidence above; also Bergman, U of Newcastle twice, White, Roth, Whitney twice (not required to be independent or unquestioned).
• AUTHOR 2: known for orig sig new concept: Giberson, MacDonald, O'Leary, Miller, Allen, Kostenberger, Morris, Van de Weghe, Maxfield recognize the novelty of the 50-doctorate book (not to mention Groves; not required to be independent or unquestioned).
• AUTHOR 3: sig or well-known work subj of mult ind periodical articles or reviews: 8 more independent reviews (not including 4 mentioned above).

This list was compiled to demonstrate seven prongs of argument each supported by a different subset of multiple sources. Naturally many sources support several prongs each, not just one. Wherever WP:SPS or WP:QS are used, they are used appropriately, and certainly not a majority of the time; but remember journals are not SPS. There were also 5 clear SPS not mentioned in the above list. I decline to put forward one or two of these sources as if the question can be decided on a single-champion monomachy. Further, the number of sources is limited by the amount of time in one week that RS can be found; that is, we are still only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Maybe we should extend AFD to two weeks if 45 sources is not enough. JJB 18:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nonsense: "novelty" of presentation≠"orig sig new concept", even if many of the sources weren't bare citations of Ashton that don't acknowledge anything beyond his book's bare existence. Most of the "peers" purported are unreliable WP:FRINGE sources and thus cannot support notability. No evidence has been presented that RACI is "highly selective and prestigious". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete (Updated May 10): After spending several days patiently sifting through the myriad low quality sources, I was not able to find anything at all that even came close to satisfying any of the the criteria of [[WP:PROF], WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.
  • Clearly fails all criteria of WP:PROF. Subject is a run-of-the-mill, undistinguished low-level academic with a lackluster publication and citation record and no outstanding awards or achievements. This is consistent with his low h-factor, as as Xanthippe demonstrated above. There is no substatiantial coverage of his academic pursuits or achievements in independent sources. He is not a tenured professor, but holds a low level, unpaid temporary honorary position as an "adjunct professor". He is not a chartered fellow of RACI, but only an ordinary fellow, which carries little prestige and adds nothing substantial to his notability.
  • Clearly fails all criteria of WP:AUTHOR. His books are far from bestsellers. Neither he as an author nor his books have received any substantial coverage in independent sources. His book on chocolate has gotten at best passing mention on a few occasions. The anthology he compiled was reveiwed by one independent sourced, but Ashton himself was only mentioned in passing, and the book was panned as unlikely to have any impact.
  • Clearly fails as a creationist. Receives only scant mention in independent sources. A minor bit player at best, third or fourth string. No evidence that he is widely known inside the creationist community, even in Australia. On a global scale, he's at best a blip on the edge of the radar screen, solely because of the anthology he compiled.

The amount of puffery in this article is truly staggering. The creator/expanders of the article seem to have indiscriminately larded the article with worthless sources culled from random Google, searches without examining them themselves. The sources provided are abyssma; few are independent of the subject, and the few that are are tangential, routine or trivial. In spite of their number, the total weight of the sources is still far below the equivalent of a feature article in a local newspaper.

Agree that WP:BOMBARDMENT is a problem. A whole stack of nothing still adds up to nothing. My own Google searches turned up nothing promising on Google search, Google scholar, Google news and Google books. My conclusion: an obscure third-or-fourth-string creationist noticed only by his close associates, who have a habit for inflating each other's qualifications and achievements (mutual adoration society). No substantial evidence in independent reliable sources of significant impact on either the scientific or creationist communities. Frankly, there isn't anything at all of encyclopedic value here. An impressive amount of pufferey, but no substance whatsoever. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The following refers to the May 7 version of the above, not the May 10 version: I'm quoting seven notability guidelines; Xx is conducting OR about PROF#C1 that does not exist in the guideline (not remotely close?). I'm citing h-index 10, Xx is not citing h-index 6. I'm quoting RACI, Xx is conducting OR about PROF#C3 (suspicious degree?). Your dismissal does not demonstrate why I'm specifically wrong on any of the seven counts. JJB 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A h-index of 10 is still not at all impressive; it would put him, at best, in the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL category as far as his academic acievements are concerned. Membership in RACI, if true, would still add little to notability; the organization is not selective enough. Sorry, but all I see here is a whole lot of scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as sources go, and a whole lot of mutual adoration by non-independent sources. I firmly stand by my Delete !vote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Already answered, except for your essay link that is about completely different stuff, unless you can point me to a notability talk that says otherwise. JJB 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -Please make this easy for me... what's the one thing John Ashton has done that would endure. 50 years from now what (if anything) will we remember him for? I'm not asking for a list of papers or associations or anything technical. Just explain to me without the use of complex arguments why this man is special enough to have a wikipedia page? I'm worried that we seem to be trying to justify his inclusion via complex seven-stranded arguments. That says to me that it's actually impossible to make a simple argument in this case. You could convince me to change my mind - just give me 2 reliable secondary sources that attest to his importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did list 2 RS several times over. I just did explain why he's special enough, seven times over. Sorry I didn't link monomachy: if I were to say that {In Six Days, Chocolate a Day, God Factor, FRACI or recognition of eminence in chemistry, or the like} by itself was special enough, and you were to say that's not special, I would be creating a situation where my argument appears weaker than it is. Your questions of "endurance" or "remembering" do not relate to notability but to some higher-stratified goalpost that this particular article is being threatened with. There are seven different arguments. You have the burden of proving that all seven are flawed because any one of them confers notability. Pick one and start with that, then come back with another and another. Nobody is doing that.

• Delete per my comments and questions above, which have not received any responses substantiating notability. This is nothing to do with the subject being a creationist, of whom there are many who are notable, but with the fact that he doesn't come close to meeting any of the many notability guidelines invoked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, the cite counts were improved, the reviews were found, the evidence for RACI selectivity was given, the "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" was given (22:26, 6 May). I'm quoting policy, where is your view that he doesn't come close coming from? JJB 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It comes from the fact that none of the claims that you just made are true. No evidence of citation counts meeting our usual interpretation of WP:PROF criterion 1 has been provided, there are no reviews of the subject's work cited (you seem to be using a very strange interpretation of the word "review"), no evidence of RACI selectivity has been given, and the claim that the references added to the article amount to "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" is simply ridiculous - they are just a rag bag of articles cowritten by the subject, self-published web sites and bare mentions of the subject not even amounting to a full sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that accusation without evidence Phil. What is your evidence for there being a usual interpretation of PROF other than the words in the guideline that I quoted? Why are the 12 book reviews not reviews (I also added one from Reader's Digest and one from a wine journal)? Did you not read the evidence above about RACI selectivity or do you have any to impeach it? Did you read the evidence above responding to a characterization similar to your own that more than half the sources are not in any of those categories? If there were not such a severe disconnect between policy and what the deletionists have said, we could make some progress. JJB 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep As per arguments cogently put forward by JJB isfutile:P (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment @keepers, Suppose I just asked you to show me the biggest two beans you have. Instead what you've done is point to a handful of regular beans and state that according to some arbitrary definition these beans are actually giant beans. Next you state that seven of them together constitute a hill of beans. Meanwhile I'm still left puzzled because all I see are a mess of seven ordinary looking beans in your hand. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• Meh. I don't accept JJB's view of SCHOLAR 1 (under our usual bar I've observed as an AfD regular, cite counts typically evidence a border 1.5-2x Ashton's) or 3 (no sign that that particular honor is honorable enough). GNG, I'm having some sympathy for. I think I could make a case that the first Graves source and the ASA source as rising to GNG. Dawkins, no, that doesn't help, that source be used in my view to establish notability for Wise, but using it for Ashton is an inheritance too far. This GNG argument is perhaps weakened by Ashton being an anthologist as much as an author here (but not much so), and the open question (open to me, I have no idea)... how tied is ASA to Ashton? The closer they are, the more the GNG argument is impaired. My formal !vote is abstain, but I hope my specific thoughts on the usual interpretations of SCHOLAR 1, 3, and some of the sources will be considered. No opinons expressed relating to AUTHOR here.--joe decker^{talk to me} 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have also been an AFD regular but have never had occasion to read Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) until tonight, as not a soul directed me there, I had to discern that the discussion was there on my own. I will cheerfully grant that there is some suggestion there that an h-index of 14 is more apt but it varies widely by discipline, so if you want me to back off on SCHOLAR 1 unless additional info turns up, I can. The point is not that there is a "hill of beans" such that it can be dismissed by bean-counting. The point is that any one proof establishes notability, and we have six or seven; and the response is to be repeatedly told I'm lying when I'm the only one quoting policy. GNG is not settled on the two sources alone but on all the independent RS with significant coverage, such as the dozen other book reviews and several of the book authors who are independent of Ashton (sharing of a philosophy is not dependence); thus he's notable. BASIC is listed separately because the briefer mentions accumulate to notability as well; thus he's notable on the bare mentions also. SCHOLAR 3, I listed the details and source above, FRACI is awarded for eminence and the institute is parallel to the RSC, and nobody rebutted this except by WP:IDHT; so he's an inherently notable fellow too. The AUTHOR criteria speak for themselves; so he's repeatedly notable as an author too. I've never before seen people argue that 40-50 sources is an N fail. You might enjoy another view I linked above also. JJB 02:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Among the latest 15 sources (total 60) I found another Groves review, this time of Seventh Millennium, but it is a courtesy copy that does not state its original publication. However, AGF it's certainly Groves again in a full published review of yet another book. I mention this because Joe seems to prefer that kind of source. JJB 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• ???????? You "have never had occasion to read Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) until tonight" and you never noticed that it is identical to WP:PROF, which you cited extensively (if interpreting it wrongly) above? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't always read talk. No, talk is not identical to policy, and as I said above there has been no consensus for this talk to become policy. Thus while there is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, PROF 1 is still a tossup to be decided on its own merits and as one plank in the overall decision. JJB 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep In my opinion, any legitimate university professor who also writes moderately successful books for a popular audience is notable enough to warrant permitting an article here (although by all means trim any trivia-bloat in said article). Furthermore, whenever like here we have multiple independent tests under each of which separately the topic has borderline notability (in the sense that people here are arguing over whether the particular policy/guideline wording is actually satisfied or not) then taken together it should certainly qualify. In this case I can't help to think that the only real motivation for deletion is the crazy fringe views promulgated by the John F. Ashton, but I think it is much better for the encyclopedia to cover the more highly respected proponents of fringe views (always doing so from an appropriately orthodox point of view) rather than to omit coverage outright (and appear to actually be censoring). Ashton is right among the top of the short-list which members of a huge organised group (SDA) cite to try to justify entire worldviews divergent with conventional reason. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is, not one of those seven criteria of WP:PROF (or Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) if you prefer) is met even in a borderline way. Note to closing admin: as it is sometimes argued in AfDs where many arguments have been presented (like here) that early !votes should be disregarded, because they didn't see the later arguments, I would like to stress that despite all the above wikilawyering, I maintain my delete !vote, not having seen any evidence that this person meets any of our notability guidelines. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Cesiumfrog: no actually he's not a professor ("legitimate" or otherwise), he's a "research scientist" -- a position considerably lower on the Australian academic hierarchy (various grades of Lecturers would exist between them). It would most probably be the equivalent of Research associate or Research fellow, in terms of position-titles that actually have Wikipedia articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

RMIT says [2] they recognise and employ him as a professor. Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as we're talking to closing admins, I'm sure we'll note that 5 of the 7 criteria are not PROF and that this debate is not settled by PROF. We'll also note that Hrafn appears to have declined to AGF about read the statement of professoriat made in the article, and now sourced by Cesiumfrog (54th source; there were a couple other hasty decisions by Hrafn in article history). This in addition to telling me to cease and desist about my "policy contradiction", shortly before Phil Bridger also accused me of untrue claims. I'm glad it's so clear where in the disagreement pyramid everyone stands. JJB 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WPs policies and guidelines certainly isn't what most people here think (I mean the whole WP community, not just the participants here). Neither Hrafn nor Phil are guilty of violating AGF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that (i) RMIT does not appear to be his main employment & (ii) an adjunct professor "is a professor who does not hold a permanent or full-time position at that particular academic institution" -- as such it is considerably less prestigious than a normal permanent/full-time professor position. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I almost struck my AGF comment, but on rereading what you said was 'not a professor ("legitimate" or otherwise)', and now you admit adjunct professor, so I guess it must stand; you didn't AGF about read the editor who originally inserted the now-sourced text. I made no AGF statement about Phil, though he did accuse me of lying (or being deceived); so Guillaume has misread my plain statement. My interpretation of policy is what policy says; the contrary interpretation has mostly been OR and, in one instance, a talk page. JJB 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I just did a bit of further checking, and the Australian usage of the title 'Adjunct Professor' is a purely honorary title ([3]). As such, it is highly questionable whether Collins can be considered a "legitimate university professor". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Because this is not a deletion argument, I will reply on article talk. Collins? JJB 18:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Still beating this "is not a deletion argument" WP:DEADHORSE I see. (i) This issue was explicitly raised here by Cesiumfrog. (ii) Per WP:PROF criteria #5, Ashton's exact academic stature is relevant. He is not however employed or remunerated as an "adjunct professor", the title is only honorary -- so confers little stature. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit harder to work with you when you call a dead horse a point that I made for the first time (whether a professor or not, it's not a deletion argument); and when you act like I've ever argued from PROF 5 without your realizing that passing AUTHOR, BASIC, and the rest makes PROF 5 irrelevant. Yes, Frog stated that "professor" was part of his first argument; but then he said a lot "furthermore". If deletionists would admit that even fully defeating one argument neither lessens any other argument nor creates a deletion argument (which would be required to annul every N criterion), it would help. JJB 19:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

RMIT says [4] to them an Adjunct Professors is a recognised person of eminence in a profession/industry, and is to be accorded the style, precedence and dignity of any other RMIT Professor (also noting that this is basically the highest position available in Australia whereas most doctoral supervisors will only be at the levels of assoc.profs, senior lecturers, etc). Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I, too, having read the long and tendentious arguments for keep, am unchanged in my vote to delete this BLP on the basis of the well-established Wikipedia policies WP:Prof and WP:GNG. All that has happened since this AfD debate started is that a vast amount of trivial and peripheral material has been added to the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (strong); per WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:PROF. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I submit that the plain words of GNG, WP:BASIC, PROF and WP:AUTHOR have been dissected closely here and there is no consensus that any of them (or RS) have or have not been met. Pile-on doesn't help improve argumentation. JJB 18:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:PROF, does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The article is a complete disaster and would require a rewrite to become encyclopedic (but with what sources?!). The AfD has only made the article worse because of the low quality reference stuffing, for example, this source [5] which was added does not even appear to mention ashton. The references are absolutely terrible. There appears to be a near total absense of any coverage in reliable independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Google snippet does not show the word Ashton, but in search view the review begins, "A Chocolate a Day Keeps the Doctor Away by Dr. John Ashton and Suzy Ashton. Chocolate contains calcium, magnesium and potassium, which are important for good health, as well as powerful antioxidants. It's Valentine's Day — chomp". Please do not !vote based on such hasty judgment, as if all 60 sources are not reliable and independent. According to WP:BASIC they confer accumulative notability, not to mention the other WP:N criteria that have been met. JJB 22:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering you appear to have added the majority of these sources, are you claiming that you have added many unreliable sources? Note that this is a BLP article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I think he meets WP:AUTHOR, though not WP:PROF. The books have been been reviewed, and together with the other work is sufficient for an article. Without respect to anyone posting here, thereare sometimes wierd feelings about borderline notable people who hold creationist views: in the first two corners, some people want to keep them in to shows that scientists are creationist, some to keep the in to shows that those scientists who are creationists are borderline; iun the opposite two corners, some try to keep them out to avoid showing that scientists who are creationists are barely notable , some want them out to include as few scientists who are creationists as possible, that the least said about them the better. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself I am not in any of those corners. I encourage Wikipedia to have articles about people who kick against the mainstream, religious or otherwise. However, they have to be notable according to Wikipedia's standards. WP:Author requires a "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." In the vast morass of dross that has been shoveled into the BLP, where are these multiple independent reviews? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Do you wish to automatically disregard all reviewers who have the same religion as the author? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Xx. I think Birmingham Post, Liverpool Daily Post, Publishers Weekly, New Straits Times, The Skeptic, and Reader's Digest (for some) are all periodicals. And they are multiple and independent and have the necessary articles and reviews. JJB 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Could you give the numbers of the links to these in the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Sure. From here they're 9, 18, 20+55+58, 26, 27, and 19. JJB 03:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpfulness in giving these links. I have had a look at them all and I am afraid I find them inadequate. All except [27] appear to be on chocolate, mostly of a very minor nature. [27] is a review by the distinguished anthropologist Colin Groves of a book which Ashton compiled (but apparently did not contribute to) about the views of creationists with PhDs. Ashton's name is mentioned in passing only twice. It seems that Ashton's work on creationism has not made much impact. A very weak case might be made for his work on chocolate, but I don't really think it adds up to enough for WP:Author, particularly in the article's present grotesquely overblown state. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

You may find them inadequate, but guideline consensus finds that multiple independent periodical reviews or articles indicate notability, and you haven't denied they are multiple, independent, periodical, or review and article. See why I don't do monomachy. JJB 06:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It's clear from the context of the section in question is refering to articles and reviews in academic periodicals, not newspaper reviews. You're quibbling on the word "review". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, you see the link to WP:AUTHOR. You see Xx's correct quote of it. This applies to any author. You can click the link and see the context being all creative professionals. The fact that an author may be palmed off as an academic does not mean that WP:AUTHOR does not apply. It's newspaper and magazine reviews. That's what makes authors notable. This is not the PROF page Xx is looking at anymore. Hope that helps. Sorry if being accused of quibbling makes me speak a little differently. Maybe we can now all just laugh and say we were looking at two different N pages and agree on NCDK and share a nice table at Wikimania later. JJB 03:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I was looking at the right page, and yes, scholarly articles and reviews are what is meant, not newspaper reviews. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So help me out. So John Cassidy (author) is not notable as an author under #3 unless recognized by several scholarly articles and reviews? Huh? Is the guideline missing the word "scholarly" there accidentally, or for a reason? JJB 04:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: two points: (i) this person's complete lack of any academic prominence is amply demonstrated by his chief cheerleader's (John J. Bulten) insistence on larding up the lead of this article with honorary/unremunerated/non-employment 'adjunct professor' titles, due to the lack of any substantive prominence. (ii) What (itself fairly marginal) prominence In Six Days has garnered is probably more due to, and attaches more directly to, the creationists whose testimonies are anthologised there, most (all?) of whom are considerably more prominent in the creationist community than the anthologist himself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that multiple independent honourary titles (of a significantly higher position in academia than what gets called a professor in north america) would merely be run of the mill? Seems to satisfy the condition of a higher level of eminence than an average faculty member, no? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) Actually, at this point I'm just defending myself against easily disproven charges such as that I'm a chief cheerleader or I larded the titles. I sourced them and corrected one. Also, Frog's cite of RMIT does strengthen Ashton's relationship there beyond your summary above of your source alone. (ii) Sorry, this is not a deletion argument, as even if it were true it does not undo any of the other arguments, such as (but not limited to) the healthy progress Xx and Dominus are making toward recognizing AUTHOR 3 is fulfilled. However, there are 38 writers in In Six Days who don't have WP articles, so I'll gladly use your testimony of their greater prominence in any debate on retention of any of those 38 needed articles. Actually, I'm tired of making smart replies, it's just that defense mechanism against illogic again. JJB 06:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

John "this is not a deletion argument" J. "this is not a deletion argument" Bulten: that purely honorary titles of "adjunct professor" fall way below WP:PROF #5 is indeed "a deletion argument". (ii) That you insist on including such titles, which do nothing to establish Aston's notability, in the article's lead, is indeed noteworthily poor editorial practice. (iii) That you are "his chief cheerleader" is easily established from this page's edit history.
Cesiumfrog: (i) I am saying that honorary titles provide little, if any, prominence -- they come at no cost to the bestowing institution and at no responsibility to the betowee -- they are professors only in name, not fact. (ii) You have not demonstrated that such a title is "of a significantly higher position in academia than what gets called a professor in north america". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) You still haven't realized that someone nonnotable for PROF 5 (which I never argued for) may still be notable for seven other reasons. (ii) I never insisted on such titles being in the lead; I linked how they were put there before I arrived, but you didn't take the hint. I'm not trying to organize the article right now, I'm trying to demonstrate notability. Feel free to move the whole lead downward, not counting the first sentence. (iii) Comment on contributions, not contributors. I had no interest here until I saw it at AFD; after that I'm doing nothing but making good on my very first comment above (and cutting through illogic that doesn't rebut what I said there). I will happily call myself a cheerleader for policy. JJB 07:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I "haven't realized" anything of the sort! Cesiumfrog made an argument-from-professoriat, which your adding of "adjunct professor" titles appears to be a continued attempt to support. I am (further) refuting that argument based upon WP:PROF. This is a "deletion argument". That I don't in that very post refute each and every other (spurious) argument does not stop it being a deletion argument. For the sake of clarity, I also state that the vast majority of the citations in the article either (i) aren't reliable, (ii) aren't independent (as WP:N defines it), (iii) don't provide significant coverage (i.e. are mere mention/citation) and/or (iv) unfortunately have very frequently been shown not to support the claim made to them (most recently the Mauboussin citation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to follow up one point: you can read the article on professors to understand that the term applies to most university faculty in north america who would be called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers (i.e. positions below the one RMIT selected to accord Ashton with) in most of the commonwealth. The professor test can be summarised "more notable than an average professor", and so it would appear that even any one-time adjunct professor at such a major Australian uni would automatically be far more notable than the average person considered a professor by the average (heavily north american) wikipedia demographic. (The "honorary" phrase itself is also a possible red herring here, since there's a world of difference between awarding a one-event visiting celebrity an honourary degree, versus choosing a title for an academic involved in substantial ongoing research collaboration with other faculty members as well as being entrusted with both teaching and supervisory roles.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I would also point out that we lack basic chronology information on Ashton. We only know (based upon a decade-old newspaper article) that at one time he was "a principal food research scientist at the University of Newcastle" and from that university's staff directory that he is no longer there. We likewise only know from a couple of articles that he is the co-author of that he is/was (??????????????????) "strategic research manager for the Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company" at approximately the same time (2002, 2006). Were these positions sequential or concurrent? Both have been stated in the current tense in the article, so I have to ask who is his current employer? It certainly does not appear to be RMIT or Victoria University (two of the positions mentioned in the lead). Lacking clarity on such basic information, can we really claim that we are able to write a better-than-half-arsed article about him? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you haven't realized it. No, I didn't add "adjunct professor", I only sourced it as someone else requested. No, Frog didn't argue from professoriat alone but from "moderately successful books" and "multiple independent tests". No, if I'm notable under AUTHOR 3 et al. but not notable under PROF 5, I'm notable and PROF 5 is not a deletion argument, as you haven't realized yet. Yes, some sources are (i) appropriately self-published, (ii) not independent, and/or (iii) less than significant; but in each case the exception is allowed under policy, as already closely detailed. (No, I only did 45 sources above and now there are 64, but I'm not retyping that list now.) Due to several editors working at once, some sources were temporarily (iv) not correctly glossed, but that is easily fixed and is not a deletion argument. Lack of complete chronology is not a deletion argument, as myriads of articles demonstrate. I'd love to know the answers as much as you, but WP is limited to what RS say. As to your last statement, perhaps you saw what the lowest level in the disagreement pyramid said (linked above)? JJB 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

John "this is not a deletion argument" J. "this is not a deletion argument" Bulten: (i) citing non-prominent non-experts for views on WP:FRINGE subjects is not good practice, nor is it supported by either WP:FRINGE or WP:DUE. (iii) a large number of citations of bare-mentions is indicative of WP:BOMBARDMENT, rather than demonstrative of notability. (iv) means that we cannot trust that the citations that you so blithely tally (one of which you have edited on the basis of, without ever having sighted it, only a Google snippet) actually say what they are purported to say, undermining all the 'keep' arguments to a lesser or greater extent. WP:Verifiability underlies most of Wikipedia policy, explicitly including WP:Notability. So whether an article's contents are in fact verifiable to their cited sources, is relevant to deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The parts of this comment which I have not already rebutted above are too trivial to need even this sentence of reply. JJB 09:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? When (for example) we now have three citations for "strategic research manager for the Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company in Cooranbong, New South Wales", but no good information as to when he worked for them (or whether it was simultaneous with or after his UofN position), I think my point (iii) stands pretty clearly. Another example is 6 citations for "soy milk". WP:N explicitly requires "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" -- I don't think that the current ridiculous patchwork meets that standard. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• On being an adjunct Somewhere in the morass of muddled arguments above (sorry no time to look for the exact spot, so I'll post my comment here at the end) the suggestion is made that being an adjunct professor (even an adjunct associate professor) is somehow more notable than receiving an honorary degree. All it takes is to read the PDF linked somewhere in above-mentioned morass, to realize that being an adjunct is an honorary title, but not in the sense of "conferring an honor on somebody". It's a purely pragmatic thing, where someone does some academic work, but not enough to justify being hired by the university and paid for what they do. universities are relatively easy with these adjunct nominations: after all, it doesn't cost them a penny. Honorary degrees are very different. They are conferred only exceptionally (unlike the adjunct title which is given out routinely). They also almost invariably are accompanied by significant coverage in the media. The larger and more important the university, the more coverage, of course, but even at a minor university, at least local newspapers will take note. (And such coverage is conspicuously absent here). And the risk for a university is much larger: if they name someone adjunct that subsequently embarrasses them, they just take away the adjunct status, no big deal. Taking away an honorary degree is a much more difficult procedure and is only undertaken if after the degree was given, something really embarrassing comes out (such as scientific fraud or otherwise criminal activity). And, John, please AGF that I actually know what I'm talking about here. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

TLDR

As with any debate concise presentation of the most important facts is the way to win your argument. Complex and confusing arguments cannot help make a point. It should not be necessary if to construct complex arguments involving novel theories of notability.

It's not realistic to expect everybody to review every single source attached to this article given that a random spot-check shows that great many links are of dubious reliability, quality or relevance. That's why I've repeatedly asked the keepers to think about they way they are presenting their argument and try to focus on what is important.

I'd urge anybody who backs keeping this article to focus on one or two sources which they consider most convincing. Simply present your two best sources (with links) and let them speak for themselves. That's pretty much all we require for GNG. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article appears to have more citations than sentences (by a fairly large margin, I would suspect), I don't think the 'keepers' are likely to want to let you tie them down to "one or two". As I stated above, WP:N requires "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". Attempting to sidestep this straightforward requirement is what has led to all "complex and confusing arguments" you refer to. 11:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My two would be the university page validating his position (bearing in mind which titles elsewhere in the world map to that level of eminence) and the review by the ANU prof. of what I suspect is the best selling of his books. Not that I'm aware of any policy which supports restricting the sourcing like you ask. Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Be concrete, please. Exactly which review are you refering to? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, links please. The idea is to make it simple for other editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree. There is no explicit citation either here, or in the article to ANU/Australian National University, and it is unclear as to whether the "university page validating his position" is for his old but rather junior employed position or one of his current but only-honorary ones. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Using a very little intuition takes you to the first sentence of Colin Groves, which mentions ANU. Frog probably means 9 and 33 in this link; but that's if you limit it to two, which is a logically fallacious trivialization of the argument. Frog also said they should be taken in conjunction with RMIT's description, the author criteria, etc. JJB 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseline

Feel free to stop reading when you've seen two sources that convince you. Here's the baseline again.

• Ashton is presumed notable for significant coverage in The Skeptic (2.5 pages) and the Being Human conference (one subject of the last 3-page section), reliable independent sources 33 and 34. I didn't see these rebutted.
• Ashton is presumed notable for significant coverage in Think Twice (2 pages) and IEEE Xplore (1 page), reliable independent sources 44 and 45. I didn't see these rebutted.
• Ashton is presumed notable for coverage in Free Inquiry (1 page) and Perspectives on Science and Chrisitan Faith (1 page) combined with the above, multiple published secondary reliable independent sources 35 and 43 (not required to be significant). Perspectives was rebutted as not intellectually independent of the subject, but "independent sources" means relationally independent of the subject.
• Ashton is notable for several extremely highly cited scholarly publications 5-6, 15-20 (not required to be independent, not required by the guideline to have any particular h-index). N.b. I have not pressed this argument after discovering talk evidence of its usual interpretation as having a higher bar than its plain words "several extremely".
• Ashton is notable for fellowship in RACI, a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor ("a position of eminence in the chemistry field [and] services rendered to the RACI"), as per Chemistry in Australia and Food Australia, reliable independent sources 1 and 3. This was not rebutted except with WP:OR questioning how this statement could be true given the dates.
• Ashton is likely notable (1) for being widely cited by peers Bergman, University of Newcastle, White, Roth, Whitney, and Alphacrucis (not required to be independent or unquestionable), sources 2, 12-13, 36, 38, 50-51, 58. Not rebutted.
• Ashton is likely notable (2) for originating a significant new concept, the book of 50 doctorates affirming 6-day creation, as seen in MacDonald, O'Leary, Miller, Giberson, Allen, Kostenberger, Morris, Van de Weghe, Maxfield (not required to be independent or unquestionable), sources 39-42, 46-48, 55-56. I haven't rechecked to ensure every one of them makes that claim but to the extent they don't they can be counted toward criterion (1), peers, above. It was rebutted that this was not a significant new concept, but prima facie, based on the number of people taking note of just that concept, it is.
• Ashton is likely notable (3) for reviews of Chocolate a Day in Just-Food, Birmingham Post, Daily Post, Reader's Digest, Publishers Weekly, M2 Best Books, Grocery Headquarters, Australian Grapegrower, That's Life!, New Straits Times, multiple independent periodicals 4, 11, 22-29.
• Ashton is likely notable (3) for reviews of Seventh Millennium in Nexus New Times Magazine, Publishers Weekly, and a Colin Groves article, multiple independent periodicals 59-60, 62.
• Ashton is likely notable (3) for reviews of Perils of Progress in Publishers Weekly and Fluoride, multiple independent periodicals 63 and 65.
• Ashton is presumed notable (miscellaneous) for coverage of Chocolate a Day in Nina Planck, review of God Factor in De Berg, and review of Perils of Progress at Wake Forest University combined with the above, multiple published secondary reliable independent sources 21, 57 and 64 (not required to be significant).
• Self-published, nonindependent, or not about Ashton but properly listed for context: 7-10, 14, 30-32, 37, 49, 52-54, 61.
• In addition to the deletionists' weaknesses noted, four delete !voters have contributed to the article, one very significantly, thus lending less weight to their delete comments. JJB 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC) JJB 17:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, please link to the sources (not the policies). Please limit yourself to the top 2 you'd like us to consider. Please delete anything that is not in your top two. As I said before, if you have 2 good sources, that's all we need for GNG. Just show me which are your two best. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • At this point, encouraging JJB to continue his filibuster seems counterproductive to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt one last time. Unless JJB can reformulate his passionately held beliefs concisely I was going to escalate this to admin/N for a speedy close. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I must comment on Salim's unusual request. The sources are all linked from the version of the article already linked above. The unabashed request to delete all but two sources appears an explicit refusal to consider all the evidence. Salim may simply start with the first two and stop reading there, one concise sentence without any tendentiousness, if it's true that "You could convince me [Salim] to change my mind"; but maybe it's true that two sources will not change your mind, in which case proceed to the next two, and the next. If Salim is unable to distinguish the first concise bullet point as a separate argument from each bullet point that follows, I don't think escalation will help. The illogic of Salim's request being demonstrated, I don't know that I have more to say, except to correct any future misstatements. JJB 17:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

John J. Bulten: when you repeat the ludicrous claim that an anthology of personal testimonies is in some way amounts to "originating a significant new concept", or that your witless parade of insignificant nonentities either (i) are qualified to make such a claim or (ii) actually make it, you quite simply jump the shark. I'm with David Eppstein in wishing that you'd stop with the argumentum ad nauseam. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB, I'm a little disappointed. I'm trying to play fairly here by explaining a better way to present your case. Instead of taking my advice you are simply making the exact same argument as before. Why not trust that your fellow editors know the applicable policies at least as well as you, and simply present the sources. Just link us to a maximum of two. A good source will speak for itself... it will be far more persuasive than any complicated arguments. If you really feel that this is some kind of dishonest ploy please say so and we can move to end the discussion promptly. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, JJB, for linking the first two of the sources under consideration. I'm still not convinced that they contribute to Ashton's notability, but rather to the possible notability of the book that he compiled. The sources discuss the writings of the authors of the various chapters of that book rather than those of Ashton. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• JJB, you are making some progress. Let me help you some more: Put only one link per line. If you are linking to a PDF make sure you tell editors where to look (e.g. give us the page number). There's no need to quote which policy you think it supports. Delete anything superfluous. Delete all the links we other than the two we are going to discuss. If in doubt, leave it out. Try to include two very different sources (e.g. do not select two skeptical magazines). I'm trying to help you simplify your argument. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB, Since you have decided to paste a wall, I will describe the first four sources:

1. The Skeptic, by it's nature looks at minority and fringe views. The book is not written by Ashton, the coverage is not of Ashton but the book.

2. For the conference proceedings there is a small mention (I've never even seen conference proceedings used to establish notability).

3. Ashton is not discussed in Think Twice.

4. Ashton is not discussed in the IEEE source.

This does not help build a picture of significant coverage in reliable sources per GNG for Ashton. Therefore I still say Delete. The other points have been addressed by others but you appear determined to ignore them. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) The Think Twice and IEEE Xplore sources do not have any coverage of Ashton, let alone two pages and one page, but are simply footnotes citing him. Citations do not contribute to the general notability guideline but can contribute to WP:PROF criterion 1, where the criterion is "highly cited", which in our practice means many hundreds of citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please give JJB time to identify his strongest sources and structure his argument. Certainly a source which only mentions the subject as a footnote or reference cannot be said to be "substantially" about the subject and does not qualify as the kind of thing we need in this discussion. I hope JJB will use this an an opprtunity to learn about what kinds of sources can be used to show notability and adjust his shortlist accordingly. Please hold back from debate until he is confident that he has identified his two most reliable secondary sources. I'm sure he understands that testing other editor's patience by presenting incorrectly selected sources cannot help his case. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• JJB presented those two sources, and has now presented more after I questioned them. It's quite reasonable to go through the sources two by two in this way in order to focus the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Free Inquiry source written by Richard Dawkins is about one of the contributors to the book edited by Ashton, not about Ashton. Again, this could contribute to the notability of the writer or the book, but not of its editor. Perspectives on Science and Chrisitan Faith is another such source - I presume that this is claimed to contribute to notability per WP:AUTHOR, but Ashton is the editor, not the author. A subsidiary issue with this source is that it is from an advocacy organisation, which I doubt meets our requirements for reliable sources. And, before any accusations of bias are made, I realise that some of the sources that I discussed above are also from advocacy organisations with a different viewpoint Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not my job to create special one-link-per-line include-page formatting for Salim to understand; I created WP-compliant formatting, in the article. It's not my job to act like seven or a dozen notability arguments are one or two so that anyone can trash-talk the one and ignore the rest as if defeated. It's certainly not my job to go along with the idea that my not doing these things is somehow escalatable. The 65 sources are listed in the article, with page numbers, and it's a much simpler matter to use the baseline link and look up the footnote numbers I provided than to go on with this (apparent) claiming not to be able to understand the argument. I repeated the source arguments in full, by request, three times with greater detail each time. Phil is free to do the review 2 at a time, or 65 at a time (like I do); there is no need for me to repeat all the links. I have never seen an AFD where multiple editors are actually saying, long after 1 week has passed, whoa, too many sources, don't make me rebut them all. As if that's a logical delete argument? Hrafn at least added tags and was satisfied when they were addressed, rather than repeating the same claimed inability to read what's been written many times. I'm not playing by nonpolicy rules created ad hoc. While the closer has a lot of reading to do, that's not all my fault. Each notability criterion stands or falls on its own, and even if only one stands it presumes notability and keeping the article. JJB 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the guy's academic publication history would be enough for me, but this source [[6]] p43 onwards, and this source [[7]] I think are enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:N. The fellowship also adds considerable weight. isfutile:P (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. JJB 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• One of those two sources is, again, about a book that Ashton merely edited; it is not about Ashton and it is not about Ashton's own intellectual contributions. The second, "a proposal for ABET criterion 9" by Gail Baura, contains only a single relatively trivial citation to the same edited volume (as an example of the sort of nonsensical beliefs that students in ABET-accredited programs are expected to distinguish from valid science); it does not contain any nontrivial detail either about the book or about Ashton. These are very very far from the sort of sources that WP:GNG requires, or the sort of demonstrated intellectual impact that WP:PROF#C1 requires. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@JJB, You have stated that each of these sources contains "significant coverage" of our subject, however the reviews above clearly explain why that the coverage is trivial at best and non-existent in some cases. Can you explain why you chose to put these sources at the top of your short-list given that they do not significantly cover the subject we are debating? I am sure we would all appreciate an explanation for this apparent discrepancy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not stated that each of these sources contains significant coverage: the two sources immediately above are Tonyinman's preference. No, I have not stated that all 65 sources are significant, I stated that the criteria calling for significant coverage were satisfied and the criteria calling for cumulative coverage were also satisfied. No, I did not put the two sources in question at the top of my "short-list", as the top two were both Groves, and it was not a short-list. Two 2.5-page reviews of a book are significant coverage of the editor of the book, unless you are thinking along the lines that all sources can be excluded since they are, again, only about a human body that Ashton is inhabiting; maybe Ashton's body is notable enough for its own article instead.

As yet another outreach attempt, the question you seem to want to ask was more like why my list was ordered the way it was. The first four sources were based on GNG because it is the general guideline, and also the first one I mentioned in my very first comment so long ago. Also, at least there is consensus that Groves is independent of Ashton, so there is OR that the reviews of his book are too short or not about him. Then there are several arguments from BASIC, AUTHOR, and PROF, all of which are also still standing. Now I previously stated many times that I believed your team would ignore the 60 sources and pick on the 2, which you have done in spades. I told you if you didn't like the first two to go down the list until you like two, and you have not done so. Therefore I have accumulated enough prima facie evidence of illogic that I decline to continue to explain to you rather than the closer. The various unrebutted criteria each stand on their own; I won't be tabulating a list of which criterion had which OR or illogical response, to demonstrate the failure of rebuttal in each case, unless necessary for DRV. I never believed I'd find people on WP telling me that an article with 65 good sources fails every notability criterion. JJB 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@JJB, Recently You wrote the following: Ashton is presumed notable for significant coverage in Think Twice (2 pages) and IEEE Xplore (1 page), reliable independent sources 44 and 45. I didn't see these rebutted.. As has already been explained these sources which you describe as having "significant coverage" actually contain no coverage at all. Can you explain this contradiction? --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I also commend Tonyinman's thoughts to you. The only reason I'm not repeating the burden-of-proof argument the fifth time (the first time was in the article itself) is that it is so clearly already laid out, and so illogically objected to, as not to need repetition. JJB 01:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Confirm Delete !vote: I'm tired of wading through the vast cesspool of lousy sources that JJB has created looking for the pearl that he assures us is there. I have honestly spent a great deal of time evaluating the sources, and have found NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, that comes even close to satisfying any of the criteria of WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. And so have a whole slew of other experienced editors.

I've given JJB every chance to prove to me that there is some reason to retain the article, and he has failed miserably. I wasted a considerable amount of time sifting through the dozens of extremely poor quality sources, and have come to the conclusion that this article is a hopelessy bloated piece of puffery that contains nothing of encyclopedic value and can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, I'll give you credit for doing the best at attempting to reply to the multipronged argument as it stands, instead of claiming not to understand it as another editor has done. I'm very concerned that your review above and here relies on a steady stream of peacock words and putdowns, such as I parodied when I said, "Not notable because these sources are only about the body Ashton lives in and have nothing to do with him personally". Anything can be made to appear nonnotable, or notable, with such language. However, your elaborations do merit review to glean whether they arrive at the crux of the argument, and that may occur prior to any DRV. For me, the ease of finding good sources is much greater than in most AFDs where I've been accused of use of a bicycle pump, and so it would not be easy to lose my views of the subject's notability. But who knows what a day will bring. JJB 06:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're routinely accused of using a bicycle pump, have you considered that there might be some truth to it? Did you ever consider that your reading of the notability amd sourcing policies and guidelines is way too lax, and requires adjusting? There seems to be an element of denial or WP:IDHT at work when you are at odds with and casually disregard the considred opinions of a whole bunch of experienced editors like Xanthippe, Hrafn, IRWolfie, Professor marginalia, Phil Bridger, Guillaume2303, David Eppstein and Salimfadhley, who have taken the time to actually look at the sources and explain why they are inadequate. A little self-examination wouldn't hurt, especially considering that the above-mentioned, like me, have taken your claims at face value and have devoted no small amount of time to patiently examining and evaluating them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Move to close debate I think we have debated this topic sufficiently. We appear to have reached a state of deadlock. I do not feel that the keepers feel any urge to approach this AFD differently. I do not detect any change amongst the deleters. There is probably not much more that needs to be said on either side. Could you kindly vote "close" if you want to end the discussion or "not close" if you feel there are significant issues which we have not yet addressed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC) close --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC) It's probably unnecessary, the lifetime of an AfD is about 2 weeks, an admin will be closing the AfD soon anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC) not close - just because you might be sick of the discussion, it doesn't mean no-one else has anything to add. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC) This section is as patently problematic as asking for two refs, seeing the two refs provided on one line, and asking them to be moved onto two lines before replying to them. Not looking for the policy that say that right now though. JJB 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment a note on the ASA: it is an organisation of Christian scientists. As such it is sympathetic to the theism expressed in creationism. The predominate viewpoint of the organisation however is that of theistic evolution. It does occasionally provide a forum for creationists to present and debate their views. I would however point out that the ASA/PSCF review is quite short and rather superficial, so would not seem to "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The effort that's been spent to provide the verification needed that this subject meets the necessary criteria is admirable, but regretfully, only underscores that it is not for lack of effort that the article doesn't merit here. Obviously having one's name published someplace is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, or most anyone would qualify somehow. And having a name published in numerous non-notable situations doesn't change things. Even the best of the sources produced for this article are just barely worth looking deeper into, but they don't help-not enough. It doesn't matter that there is just 1 source or 30 if none measure up. Piling 30 or 100 sources of no quality doesn't change things. If we have suitable sources, we don't need unsuitable sources-and we certainly don't need a pile of them. Besides the WP:Coatrack problem created by such "piles" of crumbs, it's impossible to deal with WP:UNDUE without WP:OR when dealing with fringe figures/subjects that go ignored in WP:RS. The abundance of paltry sources further convinces me the article should be deleted. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep WP:PROF #3 seems to apply quite clearly here, as StAnselm suggests (The person is ... a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor), since "The RACI Fellow Membership grade is awarded in recognition of a RACI Member (MRACI) who is in a position of eminence within the chemistry profession. A Fellowship is universally recognised as a marker of professionalism and expertise. Election to this grade is based on: Services rendered to the RACI, Academic qualifications and honours, Experience and status, Creative achievement in chemistry, Responsibility and contribution to chemical science." The FRACI is in no way lesser to the "Chartered FRACI," as Phil Bridger suggests (there is simply a distinction made for certain types of professional registration), nor is there any reason to take an Australian society as inferior to its US counterpart. Ashton is also an adjunct professor; this is a substantial honour in Australia and the UK, where professor is the highest level of academic rank (unlike a US professorship which is equivalent to an Australian or UK lectureship). RMIT's annual report defines it more specifically as "a person of eminence in a profession or industry." Since Ashton's recognised contributions are largely in the Australian food industry, they are not reflected in a large h-index, although the searches above have missed this paper with 108 citations. -- 202.124.73.201 (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why this assumption that people are looking at this with a pro-US and anti-Australian bias? I, for one, am not American, and am more familiar with Commonwealth-style academic ranks than American ones, and disagree with your characterisation of an adjunct professorship as a substantial honour. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• But why do you disagree? In Australia, adjunct lecturers are much more common; adjunct professorships are comparatively rare. RMIT University's own definition is that adjunct professors are persons "of eminence in a profession or industry." -- 202.124.74.80 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The significance of the title is explained here: [8]. That is why we are disagreeing with you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That document is WP:OR, and it isn't even clear if it was adopted by the institution it was originally prepared for. The author's own bio reveals the document was in fact not published. [[9]] The file is placed in a 'public' file repository on their server - common for even unpublished undergraduate theses. I can't find any independent references to that document. The writer [[10]]wouldn't meet Notability, nor would the document. Why are you relying on such a document to underpin an argument regarding the notability of adjunct professors? Surely you have better sources to back up that claim? It would take a lot more that this [[[11]]] frankly random document to convince me that adjunct professors were not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? The document comes with this statement in the summary: Commissioned by the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority, its purpose is to provide background on current conventions, policy and practice in Australian public universities to assist in the development of guidelines for non-self accrediting higher education providers. by an expert on policy development in the area of higher education practice. This gives it a very clear relevance. Also citing content policies about no original research has no bearing here as this is not an article, but a discussion. By the way, WP:OR applies to editors not sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, VRQA obviously paid for that report, but they don't appear to have endorsed it. It's not clear that the author of the report is a recognised expert anyway, in spite of what her personal web page says, and the report only applies to six Australian universities, of which RMIT University is not one. Also, RMIT University is a self accrediting higher education provider (i.e. the government trusts it). I fail to see the report's relevance. -- 202.124.72.61 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Reports get commissioned all the time. A 'commission' doesn't make a report relevant or notable. If the report was published, endorsed, referred to, cited, referenced in third party sources; then it might make it relevant, and possiblynotable - but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate this. Without such evidence, the report holds no authority and it is reasonable to assume that this report is not relevant to, and cannot back up the assertion that, adjunct professors are not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an unpublished report of a general nature means nothing; particularly when RMIT has a specific definition for how it uses the "adjunct professor" term. In Ashton's case the "adjunct professor" title is associated with government-funded research with RMIT in the food science area. However the FRACI (equivalent to FRSC in the UK) is more significant, clearly satisfying WP:PROF on its own. -- 202.124.72.61 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The RACI is nowhere near as prestigious as the Royal Society is, so a direct comparison is worthless, there are only just over a thousand Royal society fellows across all the sciences. The RACI is the professional body for chemistry in Australia closer to something like the Institute of Physics (F.Inst.P doesn't give notability). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how this argument takes up such space when it merely quibbles over preserving material prior to the AFD that was never advanced for notability, although some editors thought that it was being defended as some kind of PROF 5 argument. It's pretty clear that he's an adjunct professor and separately an associate adjunct professor, and that the value of these titles is hotly debated. But why such a debate to insult the man, when it has nothing to do with a notability argument? JJB 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Confirm Delete !vote. In addition to my earlier comments, which were based on the content of the article and the lack of good sources that could be found on its subject, JJB's problematic behavior here and on the article (WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:WIKIPUFFERY) makes it look very unlikely that we can maintain a properly sourced and properly neutral article. Essentially, anything that anyone else removes for being too weakly sourced, too picayune, or too remote from the subject gets put back redoubled. If there is a core of notability here (which I doubt, but if there is) then he is making it impossible for the rest of us to find it by insisting on padding the article with all this non-notable fluff. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Please see the talk section about cold-reverting by you and another editor that did not account for new material, where I declined to continue my adds, which included restoration of material others had advocated for. None of my three adds were solely putting back deleted material "redoubled". But if you're truly confirming your delete, why not wait until your confirmed belief is challenged by the article closer and react to any new consensus at that time? Your revert activity belies your !vote. JJB 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith. In fact, my activity editing the article was intended to try to improve it, to see whether it could be put into a shape that would be good enough to convince me to change my !vote. Instead, because of your reversions, it only got even worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Great: so, AGF, you resolve the apparent conflict by admitting you're not confirmed in your delete !vote. See also below JJB 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a BLP article and poorly sourced material should be removed even if it is going to be deleted; this is fairly standard procedure. Poorly sourced material isn't somehow acceptable just because an article is at AfD. One addition was a synthesis, the other was off topic, note that you re-inserted the material 3 times instead of stopping and discussing. This has no bearing on the AfD though so I fail to see why you are bringing it up here. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like my teaching you about BLP, but you mean poorly sourced contentious material. The material in question is not contentious: it said that Farrell and RMIT discuss professorship, and that Mauboussin and Baura critically cite Ashton. None of this is contentious material about Ashton or any other BLP, or if it were there would be a deletionist rampage against any citation whatsoever (even critical) as being contentious because the person's views are contentious. Further, my post of Farrell and RMIT was not a synthesis, it was a standard synthesis-avoiding two-sentence version where you can draw your own conclusion (although another editor's gloss of Farrell was a synthesis, as disproved by the IP, because she didn't survey RMIT). Nor was the insertion of consensus material from Kurt Wise off-topic as it all related to Ashton's editing of Wise's prose; my intent was that we discuss how to summarize this other local consensus rather than to have it cold-reverted. Nor did I reinsert any material three times, as each add was different, although all 3 brought Farrell back in because she had previously been held as a valid source and she had been cold-reverted twice by editors claiming a sole intent to revert other parts of my add than Farrell. This is not the same material 3 times, this is an attempt to clarify whether those editors favor Farrell or not, a question I raised at talk. Finally, while it's true that discussing my 3 different adds is not really appropriate for you to raise at AFD, if you were claiming to remove poorly sourced contentious material in your edit summary (rather than alleged synthesis), I would have given you a pass from your continued vitiation of your !delete !vote. So what I brought up, the fact that several editors' actions appear to be angling for NCDK rather than delete, is relevant to the debate. JJB 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note Note that there appears to be some of page coordination between JJB and other editors: [12]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Already mentioned when I discovered it. I'm amused that you find this to be coordination and that a plurality of other editors are involved; who's the third party you allege? JJB 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Confirm Delete !vote.. My initial delete vote was based on the lack of good sources for this article. This view was confirmed after reviewing JJB's shortlist. Put simply, none of the articles were reliable secondary sources which gave significant coverage to the subject. Some of the items on JJB's shortlist did not cover the subject at all! I agree with David Eppstein, that the problem here is our inability to identify any "core" of notability and the obfuscatory WP:WIKIPUFFERY of JJB which has wrapped this discussion in a haze confusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a shortlist, that was your dismissive name. For the rest, except the personal commentary, see below. JJB 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Final responsive analysis written and collapsed by JJB

Writing for the enemy opponent, I find that in order for deletion to pass, all sources must be discounted and thus all of the following claims must be upheld (retaining numbering from baseline above, and please forgive my omitting any). In almost every case, I find the counterclaim following it to be more reasonable. Claim: Commissioning, editing, and introducing 50 doctoral essays is not as notable as writing your own book. Therefore extended reliable independent coverage of Ashton's book such as Groves (33, 34) is "not about Ashton". No, coverage of a book confers notability on its editor, as WP:AUTHOR treats editors identical to authors without caveat. (JJB) Claim: "Citing" means "not mentioning": If Mauboussin (44) discusses and paraphrases a book for two pages and names the book's author in a footnote, that constitutes "no coverage at all" of the editor. If Baura (45) attributes two YEC views to Ashton in a one-page article clearly inspired by Ashton, ORU, BJU, and the textbook controversy, naming Ashton in a footnote is "a single relatively trivial citation" and doesn't count. No, citing is mentioning, or else citers would be plagiarists. Extended paraphrases from and extended responses to a book are coverage of the creative professionals (the editor and author). (JJB) Claim: Since reliable independent scholarly reviews by Dawkins and ASA (35, 43) are only one page, they are insignificant and not only don't count toward GNG, they don't count toward BASIC and its accumulative power because they are sneeringly called bombardment. No, WP:BASIC says explicitly that "multiple [insubstantial] independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and this is exactly the situation the guideline was intended to address; the bombardment essay is inapplicable because it's about intellectually dependent near-identical copies of the one-event news story, and coatracking. (Incidentally, I haven't called other editors out on 5 or more instances of coatracking cites that don't mention Ashton at all.) (JJB) Claim: Even though PROF 1 doesn't mention h-index, we should take the talk page for it that Ashton doesn't have near enough scholarly pubs (5-6, 15-22). This claim actually has merit, as there may be a partial nonpolicy unstated consensus; but for it to be valid it would need to be tested, which I am doing at WT:PROF. As it stands, the guideline calls for us to determine how extremely each source should be cited on its own merits, not with predetermined metrics. Therefore this point is debatable, not settled. (JJB) Claim: FRACI is not like FRSC (1, 3), even though they have similar Chartered Chemist rules; rather, we are to take an editors' OR for it that it is more like FInstP, and also that FInstP does not confer notability. No, based on the sources, including the IP's additional RACI source, this is a "position of eminence" with five election bases quoted above. Because this is the closest thing we have to automatic notability, the OR against it has been exceptionally heavy, coming from Phil ("no evidence that is selective enough"), Xx ("strange"), Hrafn ("no evidence that is highly selective"), Dominus ("little prestige, nothing substantial, not selective enough"), IRWolfie ("nowhere near as prestigious"). All these claims are OR, as the only sources we have to decide this question are mine and the IP's, and the only potential bar to notability that they hint at is very low: yes, he's not all the way to "Chartered Fellow", and the only difference between the two is that "Chartered" requires a formal experience documentation requirement and "Fellow" requires just "experience and status", which is not a big difference given Ashton's documented experience. So FRACI is an honor properly described by PROF 3. (JJB) Claim: "Most of the 'peers' purported are unreliable WP:FRINGE sources" (2, 12-13, 36, 38, 50-51, 58) and so we can exclude all of them, such as U of Newcastle, Alphacrucis, and U of Windsor (Whitney). No, the universities that use Ashton's materials (and there are more beyond these 3) are not fringe and this is admitted by the deletionist argument admitting "most", so even if we were to exclude the others it does not defeat peer notability. But excluding the others is also based only on talk-page exegesis of the guideline, which only says peers and says nothing about their scientific unreliability; per WP:RSOPINION they are allowed to speak about their minority views in minority articles. Accordingly, not only are the universities proof of peer notability, the RS opinions of fringe peers also contribute toward AUTHOR and BASIC notability. (JJB) Claim: 50 doctorates affirming 6-day creation is not significant or new (39-42, 46-48, 55-56); an editor's OR that that's a "ludicrous claim" suffices to rebut this. No, the sources provided on both sides of the debate clearly establish the novelty of the work, and trump the OR; in this case citing all the sources on this point would be too extended. (JJB) Claim: "The coverage of A Chocolate a Day appears to be for more light-hearted and superficial (again not "significant coverage") .... The reviews of A Chocolate a Day (i) do not appear to "address the subject directly in detail" & (ii) appear to lack sufficient expertise on the subject matter to qualify as "reliable"" (Hrafn). "All except [27] appear to be on chocolate, mostly of a very minor nature." (Xx). No, eighteen reviews in multiple independent periodicals (4, 11, 21-29, 57, 59-60, 62-65) are not all insignificant (Xx says in fact "mostly"), nor does it follow from their length that the book is insignificant. The guideline says multiple independent periodical reviews of books always count toward notability of the author. If reviews are short they still count because the guideline doesn't require them to be significant but the books to be significant. The books' significance is supported by the number of RS showing their wide review and publication, and trumps the (quoted) OR accumulatively (similarly to BASIC). You might cite Groves for a positive claim of insignificance for In Six Days, but by analyzing it carefully over 3 pages he belies its alleged insignificance. As to Hrafn (i) the WP:N quote is vitiated by its content, which is saying they must address the subject with enough detail to prevent OR and all these reviews satisfy that detail level (if N banned all trivial mentions, WP would look a lot different), and (ii) the expertise argument was dropped discreetly by Dominus after I pointed out his plain error. JJB 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC) IRWolfie says why he thinks the original phrasing of this to be a strawman at ANI. Accordingly I have refactored it with the only quotes I could find on this point. JJB 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Interestingly, seven of the reviews are about Seventh, Perils, and God Factor (57, 59-60, 62-65), and thus the notability they confer appears never to have been rebutted directly by anyone. JJB 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Claim: Four or more delete editors sincerely believe the article should be deleted at the same time as they are all working on improving the article, one of them massively, and two of them revert-warring with me over what version of the article should stand. No, this defeats the whole stated belief in the delete argument. Since they are joining the editing fray it indicates they have some interest in an NCDK close rather than truly believing in a delete close. If they were truly confirmed deleters, they would believe that consensus favors "delete" rather than there being no consensus (default keep), and they would have no reason to edit unless a finding of no consensus later overturned their belief. (I believe there is no consensus, so I have not belied my !vote like these editors have.) (JJB) Claim: The vast expanse of uncited sources that we've all seen in research has no bearing. We can safely assume that they are as trivial as those already dismissed. This claim too has merit, in that the burden of proof is on me for additional sources. But I don't know how much more I can link before closure. (Please keep in mind that adding completely new sources is not edit-warring by definition, but deleting them can add up to edit-warring.) I also reserve the right to continue productive discussion. JJB 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears JJB is creating strawman arguments by misrepresenting the delete arguments. He has also placed his comment in a collapsable box to try and stop others replying. This essentially appears to be disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's illogical to accuse a person of WP:TLDR first and then of disruption because he decided to collapse his text later. Writing for the enemy opponent is not strawman; in many cases I quoted the opposition; collapsed text does not stop replies from editors who have shown the WP experience these editors have. If you do not believe I have characterized the arguments, feel free to comment in any reasonably threaded way. JJB 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't decide to collapse the text later. you added it and collapsed it at the same time: [13]. Also calling me "the enemy" is battlefield mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Later" means later than the previous argument cited as TLDR. I see that WP:ENEMY has been retitled so I will refactor given that the phrase had previously been used widely without invoking battlefield mentality. JJB 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

People invoking TLDR means it was too long, not paste it again with strawman arguments and collapsed in a box. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate the strawman. JJB 18:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I appreciate IRWolfie citing one alleged strawman at ANI. This has been refactored and replied to more directly in the collapse box, which strengthens the overall conclusion of this discussion. If there are any other substantive responses I'm still here. Anyone can edit the collapse box, of course. JJB 19:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have brought this up at this ANI thread [[14]]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Assessment of JJB's spurious "Final responsive analysis":
  1. It misrepresents the facts.
  2. It misrepresents the relevant policy.
  3. It misrepresents his opponents arguments.

  It is in fact WP:Complete bollocks. It isn't worth the (tiny value of) the bandwidth it's written on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that "bollocks" is an obscenity and thus that it can be easily classified here? JJB 19:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It happens to be the title of an essay that perfectly expresses my impression of your baseless and tendentious "analysis". If it is considered an "obscenity", then I'm less worried about that than the obscene waste of our time that your endless spurious argumentation has become. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete -- the article itself makes it plain that he is not notable, and IRWolfie and Hrafn make excellent points about lack of notability in more precise terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Nomo. I recommend you review the last collapse box, in which those arguments are considered in the best light I can find. Some retention criteria have been insufficiently rebutted by these editors, and one (WP:AUTHOR #3) involves seven reliable independent sources that have not been rebutted at all. To delete, it is necessary to demonstrate that all retention criteria listed have been fully rebutted. JJB 20:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Dominus Vobisdu, IRWolfie and Hrafn. Large number of citations, but they appear to be trivial mentions or not actually about the subject of the article. If I've missed something in the mass of text above, feel free to link me one or two sources in specific and I'll take a look with an eye to changing my !vote. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

To uphold a delete, it is necessary to demonstrate that all 60-70 sources specifically fail to confer notability, and so looking only at two sources will not sustain a delete !vote. (There are also another 16 random sources at article talk for future reference.) But to get started, go to #Baseline, look at the stable basteline diff, and take one bullet point at a time until you're tired of it. It does require a slight technical knowledge that some editors have expressed to be a challenge: you open the baseline link in a second window and then look at the footnote numbers in the bullet point in the first window and search for them in the second window. I trust you can handle that. The first bullet point lists two 3-page independent RS reviews by Colin Groves of In Six Days, which are discounted on the novel argument that they are only about a book Ashton has edited. This argument is contrary to WP:AUTHOR, which treats authors identically to editors. After you patch up any flaws in that delete argument, you would need to go down the list. Seven of the 65 sources in that list have never been rebutted specifically. (The same instructions apply to Salim who expressed willingness to do this.) Thanks for your interest. JJB 21:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's the world on its head. One cannot "prove" mack of notability, you can only show notability. Which has never been done yet. In an AfD, the burden of proof is not on those doubting notability, but on those who want to show notability. Which, of course, is abundantly eady: just show one or two reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage and you're done. Bombarding us with dozens of trivial non-references and filibustering about every little detail is not changing anything to the fact that notability has not been shown. And given the amount of energy that you have put into this, I think that comes as close to "proving" the absence of notability as humanly possible. Can we now please close this abomination and get back to work? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - this guy seems pretty reasonably notable to me, though a little loopy due to some of his views. I would like to be reminded of the notability policy, which requires only that the subject be referenced in adequate, verifiable, reliable sources and not necessarily because the subject itself might seem less than spectacular due to his works, beliefs, views, etc. Dr. Ashton's work is reasonably well-respected in the Australian gastronomics field and according to he publisher's weekly citation (no 59) he has even received a Templeton Prize, which fits under the notability threshold for writers unless I am highly mistaken. Much respect, DrPhen (talk)`

Dr Phen, which section of the PW book review[15] shows that "Ashton's work is reasonably well-respected in the Australian gastronomics field"? Do we have a sourcee for Ashton being awarded a Templeton prize? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It says it in the article, doesn't it? I can't view the PW article myself but in the article it says that his work received a Templeton Prize and the citation is #59, leading to the Publishers Weekly article. The part about Ashton's work being well-respected is based on my interpretation of th sources, in which he appears to be a researcher in good standing in that field (as linked to in the very first elements of the article. I could be wrong, but if I am then that means that the article itself is filled with inaccuracies and mistaken citations, which is problematic, right??? Yours truly, DrPhen (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Templeton prize, the article says: 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Harvard- and Oxford-educated philosopher Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by Templeton Prize winner Charles Birch) - which means Ashton did not win it, however a Templeton prize-winner did contribute a small segment of Ashton's book. Regarding PW, it only states that Ashton is an Australian Chemist (which is true). It does not give any information about his personal or professional standing in that country. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He did not win a Templeton: [[16]]. However, I think this particular thread is a Red Herringisfutile:P (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I really have egg on my face this time! That sentence was wholly unambiguous; I can't see how I misread it to that extent. My apologies to all of you for the mix up, and many thanks for your patience in clearing up my misinterpretion. I'll definitely have to peruse (well, re-peruse) as many of the other sources as I can. Thanks again! DrPhen (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There has been a significant amount of editing and talk page discussion since this AfD was closed. StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2012 (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.