Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Steinmetz

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Steinmetz[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject of the article fails WP:BIO. Very little is written about this brain scientist and gun-rights advocate in reliable sources. The only information that could be properly sourced was removed from the article due to WP:BLPCRIME. The rest of the information in the article appears to be original or known only to the author (fails WP:V). Brad v 00:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He might pass WP:PROF. See this Google Scholar page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added "Find sources" for alternate versions of his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I may be relatively new here, with limited experience (please excuse me for that), but one may imagine an objective observer seeing some form of overzealous deletion going on here.Tqiwiki (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As for so-called "puffery" used as an excuse for the removal of basic, neutral, and modest citations of the subject of the article appearing in major publications HERE, the citations are actually important and meaningful, and directly related to the subject's work and the point of the subject's article being on Wikipedia in the first place. One may also imagine an objective observer seeing the forced removals as essentially ripping the guts out of the article, potentially paving the way for the article's deletion. This calls for some form of intervention for the overall good of Wikipedia and its readership, be it the will of the community seeing this article as deserving of deletion or deserving of preservation and improvement over time.Tqiwiki (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some may be here on Wikipedia maintaining an essentially objective and positive attitude, adding articles and working on articles for the good of the overall flow of information at Wikipedia, one of the world's top encyclopedias. Likewise, some may be here, maybe on a case-by-case basis, for some other agenda, the consequences of their actions somehow limiting the flow of information, imposing subjective judgments represented as mere technicalities, to just make some articles go away.Tqiwiki (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His google scholar page shows only one very highly cited paper. [1] Maybe WP:TOOSOON? I'm not sure what numbers should be used for numbers of moderately cited papers, hence won't vote one way or the other unless someone can show me more information concerning what is moderate or high numbers of citations. Ross-c (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His academic work, based on citation count, does not look sufficient to pass NPROF and I can not find anything beyond bare mentions in media nor do I see anything which would fulfill the other NPROF requirements. For instance the sources I removed were nothing but one line mentions. They were useless for anything beyond saying his name had been mentioned in the newspaper - and that was all they were used for. I found one other where he evidently testified before a city council on allowing people to shoot guns loaded with rat shot inside the city limits but nothing that would be useful re the general notability guidelines.
He does have some significant coverage re his criminal charges but he was acquitted so WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E also are against having an article although the case itself may be significant enough for its own article. Jbh ^Talk 12:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being the originally person who accepted this draft, I agree with Jbhunley on this one. I originally accepted the draft thinking that the subject passed WP:NPROF, but I have been only able to find one source (independent of the subject's own website) that even mentions his neuroscience work and several that mention his run-ins with the law. Even then, as JBH mentioned, he was acquitted (Redacted), so he probably wouldn't pass WP:BLPCRIME either. Bkissin (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (Redacted actual charges per BLP since the specifics are not really relavent to the discussion. Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Some notability as a director at Barrow Neurological Institute - which might pass PROF(5), and his h-index is at 14 - with his two top-cited articles listing himself as first author and in good venues (765 citations for piece Nature, 128 for piece in Journal of computational neuroscience),[2] and has received some media attention.[3] Beyond that, his gun protest in 2014 was a highly notable national event. It is incorrect to classify this protest action as a crime, though he was indeed charged and made a ~~plea deal~~ pre-indictment resolution (without a conviction).[4][5] This protest received very wide and continuing attention - [6][7][8][9], and was a novel intersection of American gun rights and airport security. The subsequent bitcoin case (which AFAICT is primarily a criminal case and not a political stmt) did receive coverage, and while the subject was not convicted he did agree to a deal in which nnounced on Wednesday, prosecutors have reached a deal to forfeit about $225,000 in bitcoins from a second man accused in the case: Peter Steinmetz, the Tempe brain scientist who made the news in July 2014 after being arrested for an incident in which he brought a loaded AR-15 .... Some coverage of this, including some rather interesting legal aspects here - [10][11][12][13]. This is not a BLP1E situation, and the subject is quite WELLKNOWN -- both for his previous high profile research position and for his decision to engage in a a high profile guns rights protest.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC) per comment on my TP, corrected term for this type of deal.Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above...Also, for what it's worth, it looks like the page started as a resume (see Wikipedia:Self-promotion).--RAF910 (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as passing neither general notability nor the professor test. This is a completely unsourced BLP, and thus subject to speedy deletion. There's nothing available other than a few news stories about a protest, not about the person. Having one well-cited paper goes nowhere near passing the threshold of notability for academics. We are a not-for-profit encyclopedia, not a resume service. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography so fails the GNG and doesn't meet any other notability standards.Sandals1 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2018 (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.