Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Lipton

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 keep. – bradv🍁 01:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lipton (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)

WP:BIO – not notable – subject has very limited coverage in reliable secondary sources, which has caused a history of problems with this article, with a variety of non-reliable sources being used to add positive and negative comment and then removed. As it is, the bulk of this article is based on the subject’s own CV. Mauls (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His first book has 1,104 citations listed on Google Scholar, there are at least 5 articles with between 100 and 400 citations, and there are plenty of book/articles in the 40–100-citation ballpark. Mauls, you're right that the article is in poor shape—and that his output may be problematic—but surely he is (for better or worse) influential? Wordreader's 2019 talk-page post makes this point, both pointing to critiques, and noting that "There are so many articles and podcasts both by Lipton himself and about Lipton by new-agers, that critique is drowned out." --Usernameunique (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement to be 'Wikipedia notable' for a biographical article is for sufficient articles in reliable secondary sources. Those appear to be sorely lacking. If his own work is so notable, why is it not being mentioned in reputable secondary sources? Lipton appears to be only notable in a very niche sense - it is not only critiques that are missing, it is also positive secondary-source sources. Mauls (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's one avenue to Wikipedia notability, but others include "is widely cited by peers or successors." I would think some 2,000 citations would do that trick. And it's not like secondary sources don't exist; a brief search shows that they do (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for mentions in reliable secondary sources is the 'general notability guideline' for any article (WP:GNG). The reason this is the base notability criteria is to avoid very poor quality articles (like this one) languishing in a limbo where there is insufficient reliable information to make them meaningful.

As you are refering to a Google Scholar count (and as the article is based Bruce Lipton being an academic), it would seem that WP:ACADEMIC is the correct criteria to use. It should be noted that MOS stays that a count of citations in Google Scholar is not taken as evidence of notability: Google Scholar "includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material". It is therefore necessary to go deeper and actually show the impact that the work has caused. Mauls (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was clear in my last comment, I was referring to the notability standards for authors, not for academics. Of course, He may meet both, but clearly, he is an author and "is widely cited by peers or successors." And as noted above, there are plenty of secondary sources to boot. This may be a "very poor quality article" as you say, but "even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." --Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The caution on Google Scholar still stands - that figure is not evidence of being "widely cited by peers or successors". Secondary sources do not count if they are merely a "trivial mention" - I still fail to see any evidence of there being numerous secondary sources that are about Bruce Lipton in any real way, rather than mentioning him or his work in passing. Mauls (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to quote the that piece on poor writing in full: "if the source material exists even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." We are clearly lacking source material to use to build a biographical article. The poor quality article is the outcome, the symptom – and I do not cite it as the reason for deletion – the lack of secondary sources is the cause, and the reason this article will be permanently poor. Mauls (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides ignoring the secondary sources highlighted above, that analysis conflates the notability standards for authors and academics. The former asks only about breadth of influence ("is widely cited"); the latter asks about depth of influence ("has had a significant impact"). One would have to dive into the various citing works to measure Lipton's impact, but the breadth of his influence is readily apparent. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - he's certainly well-known if "fringey". Bearian (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He is inherently fringy, and we do not have the level of reliable sourcing discussing him in detail we demand to create an article on a fringe figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No GS profile, so a bit difficult to identify all publications. However some thousand GS citations suggests WP:Prof#C1 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep. He appears to be a fringe practitioner, but a somewhat notable one, and the sources in our article (SF Chronicle, Frontiers, and SBM) are mainstream enough to provide a neutral point of view on his fringe beliefs as well as to demonstrate the level of their notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shady figure that makes money from conferences where he talks fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.61.182.38 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2020 (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.