Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Thornton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly there is no wide consensus to delete this article. I would suggest that solving the underlying dispute through respectful dialogue and potentially mediation would be a better use of the participants time than taking articles to AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Thornton[edit]

Mark Thornton (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)

Fails to meet all of the general criteria for notability outlined at WP:GNG and the specific criteria of WP:Academic. There is one independent, mainstream RS that discusses his views and research at length (Agence France-Press), but this is a news article (not academic), and only one such article is insufficient. Virtually all of the citations come from fringe libertarian sources (E.G. the Mises Institute, Independent Institute, and Cato Institute) with whom he is associated. (Cato arguably is mainstream, but is still not independent of Thornton, which is required for its discussion of him to be considered for notability.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Thornton doesn't meet the tests for a notable academic. Publishers don't pass muster and his work has not been cited or discussed by mainstream or unaffiliated sources. SPECIFICO talk 05:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously the article needs beefing up. I just added here - Talk:Mark_Thornton - a number of links to refs I found in a short search including a new Thornton book and a chapter in another new book; substantive mentions in Washington Times, NPR interview, Irish Times, “Regulation” journal (Cato Institute), Intnl Herald Tribune, Associated press, Christian Science Monitor; his articles in “Public Choice” journal, Social Science Quarterly, Journal of Drug Issues, "Public Choice” journal, etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "skyscraper theory" is a pop-curiosity observation, a casual observation which is not stated in terms which are predictive or could be considered a testable academic theory. It's punditry at best. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I will try to add material if article kept and we can debate notability etc. of material at that time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the citation issue, I note that his book The economics of prohibition has apparently been cited 172 times, including in the Columbian Law Review and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.-ManicSpider (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know citations can be used at AfDs though haven't mentioned lately just because I was unclear if they also can be used in an article. Thanks for reminding me to use such numbers at AfDs anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, please focus on content, not contributors. What benefit is there to disparaging my motives? Steeletrap (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly acceptable to note that an idea expressed by an editor is problematic for various reasons, including the editor's tunnel vision view that one can never use sources they personally consider fringe or ther peculiar view that just because an Institute published a few articles by an individual that all their writers and editors are henceforth incapable of writing or publishing anything about them that is not filled with idolatry. Also, why would Wikipedia have an essay like Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion if not to clue people in to possible motives for deleting an article? If you think such essays are a problem, AfD them and see what the community thinks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thornton's book Prohibition has been cited many times including articles in Columbia Law Review[1], Administrative Science Quarterly[2], American Law and Economics Review, Economic Policy[3], Journal of Economic Psychology[4], and by authors published by Woodrow Wilson Center Press[5], Routledge[6], NYU Press[7], and Psychology Press [8]. The book is important enough to bring Thornton into notability. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thornton is too minor for there to be enough independent sources to turn this article into more than the stub. He's not particularly notable in his primary field. MilesMoney (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (OP) - For academics, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is required for notablity. While we have found a number of RS that mention Thornton's work in a cursory fashion, we haven't provided any evidence that his work was anything other than a blip on the radar; i.e., that it "significantly" impacted mainstrem economics. Steeletrap (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Thornton does not appear to be notable; Steeletrap puts it better than I ever could. "Prohibition" may have more notability, but Thornton does not inherit that notability. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is generally agreed that his work is notable, this establishes his notability. This is where his work is covered. It's a strange argument that his work is notable and influential but that he himself isn't. Say what? He is notable for his work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Agreed. I think the not inherited comment is a misapplication. Someone who is associated with a notable institution may not inherit the notability. But Thornton's work on the Prohibition is more than an association. He's produced a work that has lots of usefulness as per the number of citations. Another factor, related to his field and associates, is WP:OBSCURE. The Sekai Mumei Senshi no Haka is a rather obscure monument, of interest to, shall we say, a "fringe group" of {{WikiProject Death}} enthusiasts. But it has sufficient notability, as does Thornton. – S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Srich32977: - Please address the quality, not the quantity of citations. On what basis do you assert that it's a noteworthy contribution? SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED says:

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.

Looks relevant to me. "Prohibition" may well be notable, but that does not make its writer notable. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are arguing to move the article to The Economics of Prohibition? Interesting alternative. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirectted to book title to the author's page. THornton didn't give birth to the book and it's not his subordinate, he's the book's author. The article covers him and his work, which we have concluded is notable. No need to split hairs. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Candle, I think you are jumping the gun with that redirect. I don't see how that is consistent with the current state of this thread. Please consider undoing that until we have discussed the matter more fully and explicitly. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really now. Where do you think the redirect should point? It has to point somewhere, now that it is created. Candleabracadabra is not an administrator who would be able to delete it.
It is perfectly legitimate to continue to develop an article while it is being discussed for deletion. Candleabracadabra has done nothing wrong. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he did anything "wrong" -- I said that we've not yet reached consensus, for example as to the notability of the book. Please read my words again. You are an experienced hand on WP. You know better than to misrepresent my words, and you should strike yourself through. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Candleabracadabra, which part of the notability guideline says that sources discussing one topic actually count towards the notability of a different, related topic? As far as I can tell, the GNG says no such thing. Can you explain? bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bobbrayner. Per WP:PROF criterias, academics are considered notable if their work has had significant impact, they have received a prestigious award or similar. There are many prominent academics that are not well covered in sources qua persons. Iselilja (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria in WP:PROF do you feel are satisfied by Thornton? bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t said anything about Thornton; just replying to your comment and pointing out that per WP:PROF an academic will be notable if his work is notable/influential. You indicated yourself above, that "Prohibition" might be notable. If it really is notable in a qualified way, it would indicate that Thornton was too; but you may have used the word "notable" about the book in a weaker sense. Iselilja (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD of Mark Thornton. Mark Thornton does not meet the criteria in either the WP:GNG or WP:PROF; so how on earth is it helpful to speculate that notability could be inherited in some way, when the actual rules say no such thing in Thornton's case? bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I have shown Thornton to be notable per WP:GNG, the PROF requirement is filled by Thornton having held the O.P. Alford III chair at Auburn University.[9] This is from the Econ Journal Watch website which is run by academics. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of Bink User:Binksternet, you can't keep making egregious mistakes and expect to maintain credibility. The "chair" you speak of is, according to the C.V. of another professor to have been awarded it, Thornton's own CV, is a cash prize from the Mises Institute that had nothing to do with Auburn University. (A Google search confirms that no such "chair" exists only at LvMI and not Auburn.) The website you used -- in a fashion contrary to policy, since it's not an RS -- was mistaken, but you should have known an adjunct professor was not likely to actually hold a chair. Steeletrap (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?? Link goes to William N. Butos. (Not an egregious error, but can you supply another one?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my (insubstantial) error. The difference (why it is not "egregious") is that the error doesn't affect my actual point, which is that the chair has nothing to do with Auburn University. Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further analysis, it appears that the chair has been described in a highly misleading fashion in articles written by Thornton. For instance, here he is characterized as "the O.P. Alford III Chair of the Ludwig von Mises Institute at Auburn University." This technically true but substantively deceptive characterization (LvMI rented space on Auburn U's campus, but the 'chair' was endowed by LvMI and had nothing whatsoever to do with Auburn U) could easily hoodwink the less astute observer (and appears to have fooled a couple web pages). Steeletrap (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Heartland article was written in 1999, around the time LvMI moved to its own facility. So, really, use of that article is a verifiability issue. (As for renting space on Auburn U, that sounds like OR.) The focus on in this discussion should be on notability. – S. Rich (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe what you're saying? The article is an RS journal article written personally by Thornton; it clearly states that the chair is from the Mises Institute, and (just as clearly) states that LvMI is "at" Auburn. No OR is needed, unless you consider reading and understanding the objective meaning of terms (such as "at") original research. Steeletrap (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources which bring notability.
  • Book Review: 'The Economics of Prohibition', in the Michigan Journal of Economics, written by Katherine Grace Carman who is now a RAND economist
  • Legalising Drugs: Debates and Dilemmas by Philip Bean, Emeritus Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Loughborough. The academic book is published by Policy Press. Bean devotes multiple paragraphs to Thornton's ideas, on pages 18–20 and 95–97. Thornton is cited on pages 6, 23, 38, 101, 124 and 135. The Thornton work which Bean refers to is not The Economics of Prohibition but "Perfect Drug Legalisation", a chapter found within the 1998 Jefferson M. Fish book How to Legalise Drugs ISBN 0765701510.
  • The above material should end the discussion here, bringing the matter to a 'keep' conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, Michigan Journal of Economics is an undergraduate publication - you're citing a paper by a college junior. What's more the reviewer says Thornton fails to provide adequate treatment of the economic issues he purports to address. Could you please take the extra step next time and CLICK after you google? Notability is not established, and it is necessary for us to address the many concerns enumerated by editors on this page. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone citing Thornton does not have to praise him for the cite to have importance here at this AFD discussion. You picked on the K.G. Carman paper because it had some apparent flaw you could pry on, but I notice that you have not picked on the Philip Bean book, which seals Thornton's notability. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, you surprise me. You're a technician. I'd expect you to know that it takes only a single flaw to invalidate the chain. I started at the top of your list and stopped once it was clear to me that you'd not checked before posting. Not a "pick" in sight. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no "chain" here; each source stands alone. Yopienso (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "chain" relates to the credibility of Bink's words here. Maybe "train" is better than "chain" == Bink is an engineer. Anyway, when I start at the top of the list and it's nonsense, why am I motivated to continue down the path? If the editor who puts this stuff up hasn't checked it, why on God's Green Earth would anyone else waste their time checking it for him. I hope that's more clear. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you still don't have anything bad to say about Philip Bean then I think we're done here. The Bean book settles the matter. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, just found his 11 page Curriculum Vitae/Resume circa 2010 which provides lots more information that can be sourced and of course generally is itself a good source, if no extraordinary and unbelievable claims are made. Also found an interview in the Harvard students politics publication.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The man is obviously notable as a libertarian economist and author. See Binksternet's 8 refs from 17:39, 19 December 2013 and the Philip Bean book. Yopienso (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Carolmooredc and Srich32977, above. Sources are abundant and the subject's work has been cited often by others. Just the coverage by NPR and Barron's should be enough to kick the legs out from under this already-shaky AfD. Roccodrift (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't intend to !vote here, as I don't have time to go through all the links posted here. However, I read the discussion and I have to say that some of the arguments given here are completely misunderstanding WP:ACADEMIC. Whether or not a reference is positive about an author or his book has no bearing on notability. Something can be notable for being wrong, for example. One book devoting some paragraphs to another book/author does not seal notability. Academics cite each other all the time, that is nothing special. Only if there was, for example, a whole book about someone's ideas, that would really seal notability. A handful of citations does not meet ACADEMIC#1 either. We generally require at least hundreds of citations and a sizable h-index before mere citations are taken to establish notability. In a high-citation density field like economics, I would expect at least a thousand citations (or several articles/books with more than 100 citations each) and an h-index of at least 15. Of course, WP:GNG trumps all, so if someone can find a few in-depth sources on a person (not an interview on a student blog), that would clinch the deal, too. Hope this helps your discussion a bit. --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments. I do believe the threshold is lower than "a thousand citations," since WP doesn't cover only well-known personalities or Nobel Prize winners. The sad fact, when it comes to BLPs in climatology, is that inclusion depends on who a small group of editors like. Tim Ball, for example, was deleted, even though Mike Mann saw him significant enough to bring suit against him, while William Connolley has an article for no apparent reason. Yopienso (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking. Comparing "over 1000 citations" with "well-known personalities or Nobel Prize winners" is ridiculous. Let me be frank: when I evaluate someone for a professor position, someone with less than a 1000 citations may be competitive for an assistant professorship, exceptionally associate, but certainly not "full" (except for small, less prestigious universities). Personally, I don't think that in an area like this, nobody under 2000 citations should be regarded as notable, but that is not the consensus generally and people usually think that 1000 citations is enough. Search for some Nobel Prize winners on Google Scholar and you'll see that they usually have several papers that individually have been cited more than 1000 times. So 1000 citations certainly includes a bit more than "well-known personalities or Nobel Prize winners"... --Randykitty (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert - since I'm going out of order with the post below]: Randykitty, it sounds like you hire and fire professors. If that's true, please step away from your "job" and look at this from the standpoint of a general interest encycolopedia not a "Whos Whos" or whatever. If that's not your job, you might make your point a little clearer. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I need to "step back from my job"? because that means I know what I am talking about? --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Randykitty, I'm not joking. At my institution, few professors have that many citations. This visiting professor in an endowed chair, following a Nobel laureate who does have thousands of citations, has 1267 citations since 1999.
I am striking my additional comments, however, as not germane; I'd been watching a discussion on Michael E. Mann and somehow inserted climate scientists into an article on an economist. Yopienso (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Step back from your job" means that if the criteria for hiring a professor are far more stringent than those of notability on Wikipedia, you go by Wikipedia standards, not your job standards. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You mean that someone who wouldn't be hired at a low level professorship is still notable and we should create an article for each and every professor. --Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but hundreds of bios already exist of individuals who are not full profs, or whose academic notability is not as high as other notability. I'm not a deletionist myself, though I will mention possibility of deletion to encourage beefing up articles that need it. I mean if some prof has a bio with hardly any refs, and a listing of journal articles whose import most readers would not know, why should theirs be kept when a prof with lots of outside refs to their ideas/work be automatically knocked off because anonymous editors who claim that they know who is important and who isn't make such claims? (I'm talking about achievements, not obscure comments nitpicked by partisans and used as an excuse to keep the article.) It just seems very silly to me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolmooredc:, you are denying that we should adhere to WP policy, and you claim WP:OTHERSTUFF as your rationale. This pig won't quack. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strawmen don't quack either. I don't claim Amazon bios as currently written should be used in Wikipedia and I don't claim we shouldn't adhere to policy, just note individuals should not let their own professional opinions on what is notable carry more weight than Wikipedia policy. Please read more carefully. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that intellectual diversity is another issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources that incrementally add to Thornton's notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt to bolster Thornton's credibility is frankly incompetent. The first of the links Bink provides is already in the article and was acknowledged by me in the first paragraph to the AfD (did Bink even look up to see what AFP stood for?). The fourth and fifth link are totally unreliable sources, the third one is highly questionable, and the second is a popular media article that has nothing to do with establishing notability for an academic.
Bink: Did you actually read any of the articles or was this the product of another hasty Googling? I don't think you did read it; what are we going to do with you, Mister? Steeletrap (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: - What is the content you propose to verify with each source, and why do you believe that the chosen reference is RS for that content. I've taken a quick look and I don't see anything there. The Agence France is already in the article and is really neither RS nor noteworthy. It's simply an interview, primary source. I don't see that your list gives us any RS material with which to improve the article. Things are looking very discouraging indeed. SPECIFICO talk 05:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steeletrap, I listed the AFP article here because Specifico had just deleted it from the biography. I think it shows Thornton's media visibility. Specifico, the Thornton biography put together by the Center for Media and Democracy is from an award-winning group of investigative journalists, so its reliability is good. It also shows that this group of journalists considers Thornton worthy of attention, to the point of writing a biography. You may be writing that "things are looking discouraging" but I doubt you believe it; you have not been trying to keep the article but instead have been working very hard to get it deleted. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bink: I think the fact that you were unable to find any more than that one no-byline filler piece on American prohibition, written by an alien stringer, proves conclusively that Thornton has zero mainstream news recognition on this subject. Such notability is rarely a close call or a stretch. As to academic notability, others have, applied the objective tools and standards discussed elsewhere in this AfD. Here's Thornton's "media visibility" per your friends at Google: [10] I'd guess that many of the editors on this thread have more press clippings than Thornton. We all get these press calls from time to time. Please review the AfD and notability criteria and try to address the specific requirements for content which would be needed to rescue this article for WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, you still cannot counter Philip Bean's enthusiasm for Thornton. You have said here that you have not examined all the references I have brought forward. When you can do that, feel free to contribute. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Bink Man's Burden SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR: This discussion seemed to be taking a personal turn, so I looked at the editors' talk pages and found this is merely an extension of ongoing strife. User talk:Steeletrap's page has the greatest number of negative comments on one page. Yopienso (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions for official details. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Thornton&oldid=1171586551"