- The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closer didn't evaluate arguments, just counted votes. This was an article about a book about how a mother raised an autistic boy that was accepted to college at the age of 11. The book was reviewed by CBC Radio, Kirkus Reviews, The Spectator, The Times (of London), The Toronto Star, and The Washington Post, and the boy's story prominently mentioning the book was discussed by indepth stories by the BBC News, The Globe and Mail, and USA Today, some of the most respected sources of three countries. The policy and guideline arguments for keeping were the obvious, that the given reviews were from the gold standard of mainstream media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so the book clearly met Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (Books). Arguments for deletion were that the reviews - all the reviews - didn't investigate the book's content enough, so weren't actually reliable sources, and didn't actually take note of the book. The arguments for deletion didn't present any reliable sources for the reviews being incorrect, just the Wikipedians' opinions. So basically the argument for deletion was that we anonymous amateur Wikipedia editors were not only more expert at reviewing a book than the professional book reviewers (such as Maureen Corrigan) of the most respected newspapers and broadcast networks of three countries, but that these reviews were so flawed that they didn't even deserve mention of any kind, so therefore there were no reliable sources to write our article from. There were no policy or guideline reasons for this incredible proposal, just link-dropping WP:FRINGE, because the way the mother raised her kid isn't the way autism experts recommended ... but WP:FRINGE doesn't actually say anything about not mentioning the world's best book reviews because we consider them not thorough enough. Instead it specifically says "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." ... and this isn't even an article about the mom's theories of childraising, this is an article about her clearly notable book. The book could be a complete hoax, and still be notable as a book.
Examples of how irretrievably flawed the book reviews were, were that one said that the boy was studying quantum physics at a college that (according to the Wikipedian and a broken link) didn't offer quantum physics, and that a physicist said that a theory that the boy was working on could eventually gain him a Nobel prize, which the Wikipedian (no sources offered) thought must be incorrect. Another quoted the book cover that the boy had a higher IQ than Einstein which the Wikipedian questioned (again without sources). Even if the criticisms are correct, this is like the joke about the chicken who plays checkers, and his owner who says "Oh, he's not so special, I can beat him two times out of three!". The point isn't which branch of physics he studies or whether his theories are enough to gain a Nobel or whether Einstein's IQ was either relevant or ever measured, the point is that the mom raised an autistic boy who not only gets into college at all, but at the age of 11, and not only works on groundbreaking physics theories at all (whether or not they're correct, mind, plenty of physicists work on theories that turn out incorrect) but at the age of 13. Clearly some of the world's most important English language media found the book about this notable enough to write reviews and make shows about, and we're considering nitpicking details about the reviews sufficient to call the book not notable at all? That's nowhere in our policies and guidelines. The AFD closer looked at the fact that delete opinions and keep opinions both mentioned blue WP: links, without looking at what the links actually say or how they apply, then counted votes. Please overturn. --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Policy arguments were made and evaluated by the closing administrator. Also there was a supermajority of delete votes. The purpose of deletion review is not to hash out the arguments of the AfD a second time, which the above tl;dr clearly intends to do. In addition, the above misrepresents the arguments that were made in the AfD, thus prejudicing the process from the outset. For example, I asserted at the AfD that, contrary to a supposedly reliable source, IUPUI does not offer a "Masters degree in quantum physics". That's simply not a degree the institution offers, and it was an easy proxy for the reliability of a particular source. But that has been falsely presented in the above as asserting that the institution does not offer courses in quantum physics, which was a point that no one in that discussion made. The basic criterion here is that if a topic hasn't received coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. The reviews that were found failed that basic test, all including the same overblown hype that led to the deletion of the original Jacob Barnett article. Finally, the above tl;dr repeatedly disparages Wikipedians using their editorial insight. But indeed, the whole point is that without reliable sources we poor Wikipedians are unable to say anything about non-existent physical theories, children whose IQs are supposedly higher than Einstein, and, for that matter, WP:FRINGE self-help books on the treatment of autism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Nom claims that "Endorser didn't evaluate arguments" but in fact the endorser said "I find the delete arguments more persuasive" - an evaluation was made. The super-majority is a significant consensus signal on what is a subjective matter where both sides believe they are right, it's not merely "counting votes" which is more of an issue when closer in number and no other rationale given. Everything else by nom is rehashing the AfD debates, only point out the nom is focused on WP:NOTE and not other issues that came up. -- GreenC 16:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse There's been a great deal of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but there were arguments made both as to the value of the reviews used as sources, and the BLP problems presented by the subject. The closer evidently found them persuasive. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The original closing decision was sound, based on closer's understanding of the delete arguments that 1) the available "sources do not pass muster", and 2) the article was BLP evasion and an attempt to recreate a previously deleted article. Reasons offered here to overturn are rehashes of the AfD discussion. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There is no reason to suspect that any other decision will result. We have the ability to interpret by consensus WP rules with respect to any particular article, and we cannot avoid interpretation when there is disagreement, or when rules conflict. This discussion set a particular high standard for "Reliable". The community has implicitly used various standards for various types of articles as shown by the thousands of AfD decisions. Sometimes this is in practice inconsistent, but we consistently use higher standards for articles which involve matters like promotionalism or BLP, as here. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
- Endorse. Closer evaluated the discussion accurately. On the delete side there are BLP evasion concerns and a superior count. On the keep side refs that have been robustly rejected. Suggest early close. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The closer did a good job working through the AfD discussion and reached a conclusion that was justified. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (as an AfD participant). The first sentence of the DRV is wrong — unlike many, the close provided a detailed rationale that clearly evaluated the strengths of the arguments rather than just counting votes — and the rest appears to be relitigating the AfD rather than finding flaws with the close. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as delete. Closer took adequate account of the issues raised. Please stop persecuting Barnett by subjecting him to publicity that is only going to do him harm. The best thing for him is to be allowed to continue his studies free of external distraction. I wish him all good fortune in this. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment While I continue to find it astonishing that Wikipedia will have nothing to say about a book that was covered by so many sources, it seems to me that those who were upset by the extent of the coverage are here in sufficient strength to ensure that if their position is overturned, they will be able to re-write the article to reflect their take on its subject, like they did at Jacob Barnett. In such circumstances, despite the complete lack of media support for the deletionists' take, I do not see that any overturn ruling will be helpful. Viewfinder (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Not liking the subject of an article is the single most compelling reason for deleting it. Experienced editors wiil heed the advice in WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and will bite their tongues. In this AFD they were nearly all successful. Thincat (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse with some trepidation OK, first of all, the book is discussed in a lot of sources. That said, I have yet to see a decent book review. None of the reviews linked above really are that other than maybe The Toronto Star which at least actually discusses the book in the 3rd-to-last paragraph. So claims that the reviews aren't really book reviews aren't crazy. But the book clearly meets WP:N--there is no way to claim otherwise given all the sources. So in order to delete, we need either some on-point policy/guideline which overrides WP:N (like BLP1E, etc.) which I don't think exists for this case, or we need WP:IAR. My general sense of using IAR in a case like this is that it needs both a rational argument and a strong !vote count. We have the second one for sure. The rational argument is there too if you squint. I think the basis for the IAR is that we just can't write a reasonable/neutral article about the book with the sources we have. I think that's true, but not generally a reason to delete. But per WP:IAR sometimes we don't follow our own rules. I think the ideal thing would be to have a stub of an article that states the facts and very basics of the books with links to the sources. But that really isn't on the menu of options. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the !votes to delete as my sense (correct or not) is that some people just really have issues with the people involved. That's not an ideal audience for an AfD discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, largely per User:GreenC. We have a largely subjective question that was being considered, and a supermajority in favour of a particular outcome on that. The closing admin did a good job in sorting through all that verbiage and gving a concise assessment of the issues raised and how they came to their decision. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse, excellent and well thought out closure. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The closer exercised good judgment on a contentious topic. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. While there was a lot of back and forth, and strong policy arguments on both sides, the closer's ultimate verdict was reasonable and impartial. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (without a chance in hell of being on the prevailing side). Wikipedia documents subjects that have been covered by reliable sources, within prescribed limits. That Wikipedians do not believe the subject merited coverage in reliable sources is not among those limits. Cf. virtually every article with "Kardashian" in the title or lede. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The very first statement in the request ("Closer didn't evaluate arguments, just counted votes.") isn't even true, and this untruth is reiterated later in the request. I think that an apology to the closing admin is in order for that!
As for the rest? Pffft! Wikipedia is not obliged to bend over backwards, wikilawyering itself into a knot, all to justify an article that has been the subject of persistent low level attempts to spam it into the encyclopaedia in various forms. The whole thing reeks of vanity and possibly even the exploitation of a vulnerable individual and I entirely agree with Xxanthippe's comment above concerning the risk of harm. If the author wants publicity then they can pay for billboards. For now, we want no part of it. Maybe the subject (by unsubtle proxy) of this deleted article will become a notable scientist in the future. If that happens, we will no doubt have an article about him then and I'd certainly be interested to read it at that appropriate time. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
