Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Sebo

Add links
Source: 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sebo

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

Jeff Sebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the page does not seem to meet the criteria laid out at WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BIO. I see brief mentions of Dr. Sebo in an NYT opinion article and Vox as well as two book reviews in obscure journals 1 2 but no "significant coverage," no "highly prestigious" awards, no "named chair" or distinguished professor" position, and so on. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree about the award thing I don't think that is relevant but I agree that the article does not have much on it right now but there is a peer-reviewed literature that mentions Sebo's contributions to animal research of course most people are not educated in this subject so it may be harder to expand his article. For example this [1] in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics mentions Sebo. And there is a review for a book Sebo co-authored Chimpanzee Rights in the Quarterly Review of Biology [2]. I think this is a case of expanding and fix up rather than delete. I have tried to read Sebo's material and I have to say the majority of people will not understand what this guy is talking about in his papers. If his article is to be expanded then yes we do need someone educated in this field. There are probably only a few specialists in the world who can read his material. But there is a mini-biography on Routledge for Sebo [3], that could be used as a reference. There are several book reviews for Sebo in academic journals. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your viewpoint here, Psychologist Guy, and I don't disagree that the sources you mention are interesting and valid. But they still do not appear to constitute "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" or the other criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, right? As in, even if we consider all of Sebo's papers and papers that cite or mention Sebo's work, that still doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I don't usually look at the WP:NACADEMIC criteria because I usually edit historical individuals not associated with modern academia so you are probably right. I usually look at WP:Bio, the most important for me is WP:BASIC which is adding multiple reliable sources which is enough to establish notability and pass a biography article. I would agree that Sebo fails the academic criteria you linked to but it also says "Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability." Sebo fails the academic criteria list but I think he passes the criteria for a basic biography because there are a few book reviews. Sebo has co-authored articles with David DeGrazia. Like Sebo's article, his is also probably not passing the academic criteria but there are book reviews in academic journals to pass the bio criteria, to establish notability. On WP:BASIC it says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other". There are a lot of Wikipedia articles for modern animal rights researchers like DeGrazia or Sebo which don't have any awards or named chair. I don't think we should submit all these to deletion because they fail WP:NACADEMIC because they do pass WP:Bio. I don't think I am wrong about this but if I am then other users should weigh in and clarify this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for discussing your reasoning. I still don't think it passes WP:BIO, but I can see your point of view. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:NAUTHOR looks more plausible than WP:NPROF, but I still haven't seen a tenable case for WP:NAUTHOR. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you say this when I explain below how Sebo meets the letter of that guideline. Can I ask what makes my explanation "untenable"? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion here is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So there are requirements of (a) played a major role or sole author, (b) significant or well-known work, (c) subject of independent and notable work or multiple independent reviews. I think Sebo meets (a) for the books being considered other than Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief, so that's not an issue, nor is (c) since some of these reviews seem independent. But I don't think there has been evidence of (b) because these reviews are not in major journals, newspapers, etc. Essays in Philosophy, Philosophy in Review, and Nestle's blog don't seem to remotely establish "significant or well-known" within philosophy or another sizeable domain. Maybe these books are notable within the narrow field of bioethics, but virtually all academic work would be notable if "significant or well-known" WP guidelines referred to such narrow subfields. If Sebo is notable for these reasons, then I think that would be an unreasonable low bar for the notability of book-writing academics. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. It seems that our disagreement is this: I take it that the book being notable (i.e., meeting the GNG) is enough for it to be a "significant" work, but you take this "significance" bar to be somewhat higher. Is that fair? If so, I think that's a reasonable difference of interpretation. Incidentally, I actually do think that multiple high-quality reviews (even if they're not in field-defining journals) for a published book is probably enough to make an academic notable. This means that many academics are notable, but certainly not all: not all academics publish books, and not all books receive multiple reviews. I do not think it's a bad result that our guidelines (as I read them) mean that many (not all) professional academics are notable, just as I don't think it's a bad result that our guidelines (as I read them) mean that many (not all) professional athletes are notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite the disagreement because I don't think the book is notable (through GNG or otherwise). If I thought the book were notable, then I would be more amenable to Sebo's notability, though I would wonder whether they are notable outside the book. My understanding is that on WP if something is notable only in relation to another notable thing, then you should just have one article on the latter. But still, I don't think that reviews in Essays in Philosophy, Philosophy in Review, and Nestle's blog establish notability for a book or an other. I think your <small> comment is our disagreement. I don't think WP should lend academics notability so easily, especially given how such a policy would be biased in favor of academics who write books compared to academics who have just as much significance through papers. Jmill1806 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken on the inheritance of notability -- I am just noting what the author guideline says. I am surprised to hear you say that you do not consider the book notable. The general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I struggle to see how a couple of book reviews in legitimate academic journals would not count as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. But I'm not going to argue the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of this AFD, I think that's an interesting topic. Please feel free to notify me if you want to discuss it somewhere more generalized, such as the WP:NACADEMIC page. I think it could be a useful guideline to have laid out, one way or another, because this is such a common sticking point for NACADEMIC. Thanks for the discussion. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for the ping, Russ Woodroofe. Food, Animals and the Environment: An Ethical Approach was reviewed by Trevor Hedburg in Essays in Philosophy and by Kyle Johannsen in Philosophy in Review. It was also blogged about by Marion Nestle, who is a major figure in food studies, while Sebo was interviewed about the arguments in the book in The Age, which is a respected newspaper with a wide reach. This means that the book is notable (multiple independent reviews in reliable sources), which in turn means that Sebo is notable, as he "has ... played a major role in co-creating a significant ... work [that has] been the primary subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", as required by WP:NAUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief has probably also been fairly widely reviewed (though I haven't looked), but Sebo was only one of many authors, so I can see editors objecting to using that to establish his notability according to the author guideline. Why Animals Matter for Climate Change, which is sole-authored, will almost certainly be widely reviewed (it's coming out with OUP), so if this article (incorrectly, in my view) ends up being deleted, it can be recreated then. (Sebo also lists some useful coverage of his work on his website which could help to establish notability or be useful for expanding the article.) And I would like to add, before anyone accuses me of anything, that I know Sebo. We both work in the same subfield of philosophy, so it's basically inevitable. I don't think that invalidates anything I've said. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    J Milburn, If it's just Food, Animals in the Environment that's notable, we should create an article on the book and redirect this article to it. In my experience, more than one notable book is generally required for an WP:NAUTHOR pass. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you mean by that being the case in your experience -- that's not, as far as I can see, what the guideline says. Sebo is surely more notable than the book, and surely has some notability (even if not "enough" for an article -- as some apparently hold) independently of the book. If someone creates an article about the book, so be it, but I would consider redirecting Sebo's article to an article about the book to be a poor result. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, if an author is notable for only one book, then it falls under WP:BLP1E. If Sebo is only notable for a single book, then redirection is the right result. (WP:TOOSOON is also relevant here.) I do think that there's a case for notability via the NYTimes opinion piece (that is, it's publication indicates that the NYTimes considered his other book to be notable, and considered him as a significant contributor). I'm still considering whether that case convinces me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that BLP1E applies in this case. It isn't the case that "reliable sources cover [Sebo] only in the context of a single event", nor is it the case that Sebo "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Both of these need to be the case for BLP1E to apply. I understand the "TOOSOON" argument (though I do not believe it is currently "too soon" for Sebo to have an article), and (if the page is deleted) will try to remember to undelete it if/when Sebo's work gets a bit more coverage. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this specific point should be highlighted, because it clearly shows that this article cannot be a case of WP:BLP1E: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to…biographies of low-profile individuals." Wikipedia's definition of WP:LOWPROFILE includes five characteristics of high-profile figures, the first four of which apply to Sebo. While the question of whether Sebo qualifies for notability under WP:NAUTHOR seems to be a legitimate question here, we should all agree that by Wikipedia's criteria, the Sebo article is definitely not a case of WP:BLP1E. — Eric Herboso 16:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the NYTimes publishing Sebo's opinion piece indicates they consider it to be notable or considered Sebo significant. NYTimes publishes lots of articles from everyday journalists or opinion contributors with something interesting to say, even if they are hardly known in the public arena. RS coverage is used to determine WP notability. Opinion writing at RS newspapers, which is not itself an RS on WP, does not seem like a notability-generating activity to me, and I've never seen it used on WP. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmill1806: I agree that it doesn't contribute so strongly, and certainly doesn't suffice on its own. In this specific circumstance, I'm viewing the opinion piece that refers strongly to a book that the subject has coauthored as indicating that he contributed significantly to the book. I further find that its publication indicates a level of interest from the NYTimes comparable to (probably a bit weaker than) an independent review of the book. At least from my point of view, it helps bolster the other reviews for a WP:NAUTHOR case. The situation where a major outlet like the NYTimes publishes an opinion piece from the author of a book in place of a review is fairly unusual, and I don't think I've seen it arise before. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a review of Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief in the Quarterly Review of Biology,[4] also in a local library blog-type piece.[5] He wrote an opinion column in the NYTimes that is basically about this book.[6] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe subject of this article is regularly quoted in the mainstream media about animal issues, and he also is regularly appearing as an opinion writer in major newspapers. I have been adding some citations to improve this article as the citations need much improvement. This article is about a notable academic and should be kept. BrikDuk (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any WP guidelines suggesting that "regularly appearing as an opinion writer in major newspapers" constitutes notability in any way. The quotes are minimal and infrequent. They do not constitute significant coverage per WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC, right? Jmill1806 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jmill1806 is correct to say that writing opinion pieces and being quoted is, without more, not enough for WP:NPROF#C7. That requires that the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. We would need substantial evidence of his being sought after by media, which is not clearly available AFAICS. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PROF, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:MILL. We almost never keep an assistant professor. Many professors get stuck at the lower levels of academia, myself and family members included (my domestic partner, FWIW, was an assistant clinical professor at NYU, too). I have written dozens of opinion pieces, and that does not make me notable. This person earned his doctorate less than ten years ago. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is saying "we should keep this article because Sebo is an assistant profesor". They are saying "Sebo is an assistant professor, and he meets xyz notability guideline". Someone being an assistant professor does not make them notable, but it doesn't preclude notability, either. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do a search for "currently an Assistant professor", there are 147 biographies on Wikipedia for assistant professors. Do a search for "currently assistant professor", there are 50 different biographies for assistant professors, that gives over 200. Do a search for "assistant professor" we get 16,136 hits. I went through some of these, I got tired at about 600. There's probably about 4000+ biographies for current assistant professors at Wikipedia. This does not include deceased. Some of these have been on Wikipedia for over 12 years. We almost never keep an assistant professor? I just literally read about 600+ Wikipedia articles for current assistant professors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy, while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it doesn't have so much bearing on this case. You're welcome to nominate non-notable assistant profs for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, or userify. His current title is actually clinical associate professor, per the NYU page. Academics on the clinical professor track are generally not eligible for tenure, and often have a more teaching-focused load. Despite this, he's having a successful start to his career, with some reviewed books. I take seriously the reviews for Food, Animals and the Environment: An Ethical Approach: although they are fewer in number than they might be, they help support a WP:NAUTHOR case. The case for Chimpanzee Rights: The Philosophers' Brief is weaker, with the best case for notability being the NYTimes opinion case essentially on the book; this book also has a large number of coauthors. Overall, I don't see this as quite adding up to WP:NAUTHOR. Looks WP:TOOSOON. I expect that he may become notable in another year or two, assuming that reviews appear for the new book, but that is engaging in WP:CRYSTAL. Since it appears that there are a couple of interested editors, userification could be a good option, for readvancement after at least 2-3 reviews of the new book come out. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The additional reviews found by David Eppstein are enough to convince me to strike my !vote. I think it's still pretty marginal, but there's probably enough there for a very weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sebo was mentioned in the New York Times wedding section in 2014, and as a hometown newspaper wedding announcement is routine coverage a New York Time announcement signifies certain level of notability and interest that seems to me relevant to the discussion happening here. [1] BrikDuk (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/fashion/weddings/maryse-mitchell-brody-and-jeffrey-sebo.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that Sebo does not qualify under WP:NPROF. He is also close to borderline on WP:NAUTHOR, due to only having one co-authored book that has generated a lot of nonspecialized media attention. But since he qualifies under WP:BASIC anyway, I don't think we need to debate either of these. Further, Sebo does not qualify for WP:BLP1E, which says "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to…biographies of low-profile individuals", as he meets the first four of five characteristics of high profile people as described in WP:LOWPROFILE. Sebo directs one of the first Animal Studies M.A. programs in the world, and his public philosophy activism results in significant media mentions — most of which aren't listed above, since the articles he writes and interviews he gives don't count as independent of the subject. Incidentally, the above list also only included traditional media mentions; I didn't bother looking up any of the numerous discussions of his work in philosophy magazines and books, since they were already mentioned by Josh Milburn in the original AfD before the relist.
I should also mention here that I didn’t participate in the original AfD because of a potential perceived COI due to serving on a board with Sebo. But since this has been relisted to generate additional discussion, I decided to add my thoughts. — Eric Herboso 10:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You neglect that WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage." The RSs in your list (National Review, Sydney Morning Herald, Vox, and La Nacion) are single quotes or barely more. I think the strongest case for notability is still WP:NAUTHOR, based on the book reviews in low-profile journals, which he doesn't quite meet. In both cases, he is an early career academic and it seems WP:TOOSOON. Jmill1806 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Low citation count = fails WP:PROF. One blog interview and some other niche mentions, fails GNG. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Not notable as an academic or activist at the current time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much more solid than most animal rights activists. Notable by the usual standards for academics in fields where books are important. 1 book from OUP, 2 from Routledge--which is not as great as OUP, but respectable.Book reviews should be added as available. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added five reviews of two books. By itself that would only be enough for a weak keep for me (per WP:AUTHOR), especially as one of the books has many authors, but with a higher-profile book forthcoming and all the other material discussed above I think a full keep is warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:14, 5 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Sebo&oldid=987255004"