Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volkmar Weiss: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Volkmar Weiss: Closed as keep (XFDcloser) |
|||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
===[[:Volkmar Weiss]]===▼
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''keep'''. Even though "Withdrawn by nominator", since there was a valid delete vote, had to be done through a regular closing process, and the consensus is clearly keep. <small>[[Wikipedia:NACD|(non-admin closure)]]</small> [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 23:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
▲===[[:Volkmar Weiss]]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Volkmar Weiss}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volkmar Weiss|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Volkmar Weiss}})
This figure does not appear to be notable per [[WP:PROF]]. The article describes him as a scientist but he does not appear to have ever held an academic position (his personal website [http://www.v-weiss.de/publ-e.html] describes him as a "psychohistorian" and his German-language Wiki [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkmar_Weiss] states that he worked as an administrator for the German Central Office for Genealogy from the time of his ''[[habilitation]]'' until his retirement in 2008). His publication record appears to fall far short of notability as well. Further, I have not found any English-language [[WP:RS]] secondary sources discussing him. His website lists a 2002 book review in ''Personality and Individual Differences'' but I cannot locate the review in that journal's archive (or anywhere through numerous Google searches). Even if it does exist, one such review would not establish notability. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 22:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
* '''Withdrawn by nominator'''. I won't stand in the way of what appears to be an emerging consensus for keeping this article. That doesn't mean I'm persuaded by all of the arguments below (I still think the subject clearly fails [[WP:PROF]], and I've found only one instance of targeted commentary in a scientific journal –– the Gisela Grupe article in Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie). However it seems that others are prepared to see the coverage in German-language newspapers as evidence for general notability and I'll be happy to defer to that. Thanks to everyone who's participated in this discussion. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|NightHeron}} The German-language Wiki states that he was ''Mitherausgeber'' (literally "co-editor", though apparently this can simply mean that he was a member of an editorial panel) of Mankind Quarterly until 2015. It may be worth emphasizing that criterion 8 of [[WP:PROF]] is only satisfied when the subject {{tq|has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area}}, which Mankind Quarterly is clearly not. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|Kusma}} Thanks very much for your detailed response to NightHeron's query below. I suppose Weiss's notability hinges on whether Die Welt/Welt am Sonntag and Die Tageszeitung are considered [[WP:RS]] in this context. I know they're both considered politically partisan (as you point out) so it's not clear to me that they count to establish [[WP:GNG]]. I suppose it's a judgment call, unless you're aware of any precedents or policy guidelines that would help us adjudicate? And once again: thanks. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
::Also: looking more into [[Telepolis]] leads me to believe that it is a highly unreliable source. A quick search shows that they've published [[9/11_Truth_movement|9/11 "truther"]] claims by conspiracy theorist [[Mathias Bröckers]] and fringe ideas about physics by [[Burkhard Heim]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 02:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|Randykitty}} It's not clear to me that Die Tageszeitung (reference 2) is [[WP:RS]], as mentioned in my reply to Kusma above. I did check all the references in Weiss's German-language article and found that of those 27, several of the clearly [[WP:RS]] ones do not actually refer to Weiss at all (references 8, 10, 11, 17). I'm not sure whether and to what extent policies like [[WP:SYNTH]] apply on the German-language Wikipdia, but this article seems to be quite full of it. Only references 18 and 25 appear to be clear cases of reliable, independent coverage of Weiss, and the latter appears to make only fleeting reference to him (it is a "brochure" or "pamphlet" –– ''Broschüre'' –– on a much wider topic). Seems to me that this subject still fails both [[WP:SIGCOV]] and [[WP:PROF]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete''' as OP.</s> [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors|list of Authors-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]</sup> 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany|list of Germany-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|<span style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;">'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]</sup> 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)</small>
Line 13 ⟶ 23:
'''Delete''' The BLP gives no significant evidence of notability. The closest is the statement that VW's arguments were used in a chapter of a book (''[[Germany Abolishes Itself]]'') that was very popular among German rightists. He seems to be mainly a minor promoter of fringe views, and the article lists the white supremacist journal ''Mankind Quarterly'' as his "Co-publisher" (perhaps a mistranslation from German). [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 23:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', notable case of right-wing fringe science promoter and previous head of the [[:de:Deutsche Zentralstelle für Genealogie]]. Co-founder of ''[[Die Wende]]'' era party [[German Social Union (East Germany)|German Social Union]]. Reasonable amount of [[WP:GNG]] sources in the German Wikipedia article. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 11:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:::This article was apparently brought over from the German Wikipedia but without RS establishing notability. Could you be more specific on which sources in German establish notability? Note that the article [[German Social Union (East Germany)|German Social Union]] doesn't mention him. [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 12:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
::::I'll try. [https://www.welt.de/print-wams/article609081/Deutschland-in-der-Intelligenzfalle.html Article about his book] in [[Welt am Sonntag]] and [https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Erbforscher-in-der-Intelligenzfalle-3443723.html another one] in [[Telepolis]]. From my own searches: Mentioned [https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article2107370/Der-Intelligenzquotient-der-Tuerken.html here] in right wing [[Die Welt]], discussed [https://taz.de/!564315/ here] in left-wing newspaper [[die tageszeitung]]. Weiss doesn't like Wikipedia very much: [https://www.achgut.com/artikel/wikipedia_die_im_dunkeln_sieht_man_nicht]. He has not only published questionable ideas about the genetics of intelligence, but also crank pseudoscience [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077903000262] in [[Mohamed El Naschie]]'s journal ''Chaos, Solitons & Fractals''. I can't find particularly good sources about the German Social Union (DSU) connection at the moment (can verify that Weiss was involved, but many articles/books that study the early DSU history typically use texts written by Volkmar Weiss as their main source). There's a lot to find from him via Google Scholar or Google Books, and his theses were discussed in a wide spectrum of German newspapers (not too hard to find), applauded by the hard right, condemned by the left. Notable enough, but I don't want to write about him. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 22:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - badly fails [[WP:SIGCOV]]. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 01:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 08:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div>
*<s>'''Delete''': fails NPROF [[User:The Ace in Spades|The Ace in Spades]] ([[User talk:The Ace in Spades|talk]]) 12:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)</s> <small>— [[User:The Ace in Spades|The Ace in Spades]] ([[User talk:The Ace in Spades|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Ace in Spades|contribs]]) is a confirmed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton|sock puppet]] of [[User:Waskerton|Waskerton]] ([[User talk:Waskerton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Waskerton|contribs]]). </small>
*'''Keep'''. Notable pseudoscientist. I went to the article on the German WP and already reference 2 is an [[WP:RS|independent reliable source]]. I didn't bother looking further, but there are 27 references in that article and while several are to publications by Weiss himself, several others appear to be independent RSs. Our article could be improved by using some of the stuff that our German colleagues have used. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 13:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': don't be silly. ''Die Welt''/''Welt am Sonntag'' and ''Die Tageszeitung'' absolutely are RS. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 17:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Since this article was started over a decade ago, there've been about 100 edits, and it still does not establish notability. The two editors who want to keep it have argued that, if additional material were brought over from the German article, that could establish notability. A hypothetical statement like that is hard to evaluate, especially by those of us who don't know German. If someone who wants this article kept could put in the edits they're referring to, then we could evaluate whether or not they establish notability. Of course, Wikipedia policy explicitly allows editing of the article during the deletion discussion.
: Also, for a productive discussion it would be helpful to avoid casting aspersions on other editors ("{{tq|don't be silly}}"). [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] ([[User talk:NightHeron|talk]]) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
:*Don't be silly. Nobody is casting aspersions on other editors, but doubting that ''Die Welt''/''Welt am Sonntag'' is somehow not a gold-plated RS is plain silly. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 21:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
::*I thank [[User:NightHeron|NightHeron]] for their comment. For the record, I'm okay with being called silly, though of course it doesn't ''add'' anything to the discussion. The issue is with the sources. The only specific guidance I've been able to find on [[Die Welt]] and [[Die Tageszeitung]] is the [[Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide|New page patrol source guide]], which lists both of them as having been subjected to "insufficient discussion". Those designations link to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Die_Welt|this RfC]], where [[User:Stephan_Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] states that {{tq|Die Welt is at the lower end of the German quality press, but yes, for factual reporting it's generally reliable.}} To back this up they cite this peer-reviewed article [https://www.beck-elibrary.de/10.15358/1613-0669-2011-2-22/die-journalistische-qualitaet-deutscher-tageszeitungen-ein-ranking-volume-8-2011-issue-2] and summarize it as follows: {{tq|it lists Die Welt as the lowest of the second rank papers, below Frankfurter Rundschau and above Die Tageszeitung. TAZ is alone on the third rank, and the 4th rank papers include Bild and Neues Deutschland, which I don't think anyone would include as "quality press".}} Not exactly "gold-plated RS" (and Die Tageszeitung / TAZ is further cast into doubt), but if these sources are considered reliable enough for the community here then I suppose that's that. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 23:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)'
:::*Since may name came up: I'm not a fan of [[Die Welt]], and [[Die Tageszeitung]] has a very strong and clear political positioning. But they both are part of the quality press. Not NYT quality, but easily on par with e.g. The Times under Murdoch, and unquestionably better than e.g. the New York Post. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 20:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
::::*Thanks for your insight. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per significant coverage in RSes as shown by {{u|Kusma}}, although I'm doubtful that his work at Deutsche Zentralstelle für Genealogie is a strong argument for notability in the absence of related sigcov in RSes. — [[User:Chalst|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Missvain|Missvain]] ([[User talk:Missvain|talk]]) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div>
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 18:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div>
* '''Keep'''. Enough academic and publishing qualifications for WP:PROF; the German Wikipedia article is strong; being a right-wing extremist scientist makes him notable in the notorious sense, but this is sufficient, he is noticed and commented upon. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' A disagreeable puffball and quack, but a notable one. In addition to the NP coverage discussed above, there's also material in [[Der Freitag]] and targeted commentary in scientific journals. All that stuff would have to be lifted over from the German version, but since this is the rare deWP article that actually has plenty of inline cites (woah...), it's perfectly doable. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''' as nomination was withdrawn. [[User:EdGl|<b style="color:green; font-family:Magneto">~EdGl</b>]] [[User talk:EdGl|<b style="color:purple; font-family:Magneto">''talk''</b>]] 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||