Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Tuschman


 * 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 Move to Our Political Nature. There is not the required consensus to delete the article outright, but among those who oppose deletion there is consensus to let the article be about the book, which is considered more notable than its author.  Sandstein  08:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Avi Tuschman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

single book, with excepts from reviews. That's not enough for notability as NAUTHOR.  DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree, 1 book isn't enough, especially when all the sources are reviews. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Admittedly, when I read the first 2 sentences, which semed to assert that Tuschman is an "evolutionary biologist" without an advanced degree who was born in "Stanford, California" (for the non Stanford-alums reading this, Stanford is in Palo Alto and although the university has a zipcode, the Standfod maternity hospital is in Palo Alto, as is the faculty housing.  So unless he was born in a dorm...). HOWEVER, the sources are there.  WP:AUTHOR stipulates "work must have been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This first-time author got reviews in major publications. There's a profile in the Palo Alto Weekly (it's not your typical "local" paper, this is Palo Alto).  more abstractly, the book generated discussion of the idea it proposed, again in serious places including NPR and the Georgetown Public Policy Review.  Also, he did get the Phd a few sentences in, and reviews ran in many of the Anglosphere's major publications, as did interviews   So, yeah, a first time author can certainly pass  WP:GNG  this one does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the Forbes article is a contributor blog without editorial control (i.e. not a WP:NEWSBLOG see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176). SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * point taken. But what I'm seeing is that he sparked conversation among serious people, like other Forbes "contributors" here's a whole Carrie Sheffield column on his book .  Salon.com published a chapter or two.  And, in general, the major outlets gave him serious coverage.  The Washington Post started assigning him reviews of other "big idea" books, a meaningful accolade. Taking this up one level, what is the point of deleting an article on a anthropologist/author who has made this kind of splash with a first book?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your !vote, but just thought I should point out that coverage from a Forbes contributor isn't that helpful for establishing notability. As for why this was nommed, see this thread at COIN. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, saw that. I understand the COI/paid editing problem. And while I have to look through the whole list, I think Tuschman's publisher should fire the guy, or get a refund because it is a truly lousy bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename to Our Political Nature. I don't think that WP:AUTHOR is met but WP:BKCRIT is per  and other sources. Doing this would concentrate the article on the book, rather than the author, for who the sourcing is substantially less strong. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support refactoring it to be about the book, as the book seems notable enough, the person not. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose renaming/moving to book title. The book certainly could support a stand-alone article. But sources for an article on Tuschman exist. They just need to be added to the article. Which should be 'kept. as I iVoted above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Hello. I have already introduced myself as a paid editor on the Talk page for this article. I am assisting Dr. Tuschman in this project. Here is what we have to say about this proposal to delete the article:

We are not asking at this time that any of the material below be added to or retained in the article; we realize that Wikipedia is a joint project for the use of the world at large and not a vanity-publishing house. The material below is only for the purpose of establishing WP:Notability and most of it, we realize, is not suitable for the article itself. We know that all editors will work together on the exact details of what this article will contain once the matter of WP:Deletion has been satisfactorily settled. We urge and expect careful consideration and dissection of the material we present below, as well as all other material on this page.

A. Dr. Tuschman is Notable because he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Definition of significant: "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."

Note the following:

Professor John R. Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, has stated that Dr. Tuschman "clearly does" make a "unique and important contribution" to the field of "psychological, biological, and evolutionary bases of political beliefs." Political Science Quarterly, pages 545-47. http://psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19304

Genetics and epigenetics professor Gil Atzmon of the University of Haifa has written that Tuchman’s book has "caused an uproar in the United States” and that it illustrated how significant was the role that genetics plays in determining political positions.

Above: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4570458,00.html

Columnist Cedric Muhammad, writing in Forbes:

“. . . it is the first book that I’ve read which credibly attempts to present a unified view of political science, anthropology, genetics, neuroscience and primatology, making a compelling case that we are hard-wired to be liberal or conservative by nature, environment and adaptation. . ."

Above: http://www.forbes.com/sites/cedricmuhammad/2013/10/29/michael-smerconish-and-pete-dominick-make-me-uncomfortable-what-centrist-independents-reveal-about-liberals-and-conservatives/3/

Above reprinted in Chicago Tribune at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-nsc-why-are-we-liberal-or-conservativeq-and-a-20131029,0,295802,full.story Link is broken.

Eva Saiz, in her article "En América Latina la clase media ha hecho que se encoja el espectro político," El País Internacional, October 5, 2013, states that Dr. Tuschman has added "a new perspective that unfailingly links our political orientation with our natural and biological predisposition" ("suma al debate una perspectiva que vincula de manera indefectible nuestra orientación política con nuestra predisposición natural y biológica . . . ")

Above: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/10/05/actualidad/1380978589_342496.html

Atal Singh, in "The Science of Political Orientation," Fair Observer, September 29, 2013, has called Dr. Tuschman's work "the first book to reveal the science underlying political orientation" and wrote that "Several renowned scholars are saying this is an important, groundbreaking book." Above: http://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/science-political-orientation”

Chris Mooney in Washington Monthly, April 28, 2014, wrote that Dr. Tuschman "has written a vast and often difficult book that attempts nothing less than a broad evolutionary explanation of the origins of left-right differences across countries and time—and does so by synthesizing such a huge body of anthropological and biological evidence that it’ll almost bury you.”

Mooney wrote that Dr. Tuschman has a "strong" or "highly developed" theory as to "why biopolitical diversity exists among humans. . . . If he’s right, a dramatic new window opens on who we are and why we behave as we do. . . . Tuschman’s book attempts a feat that those of us monitoring the emerging science of politics have long been waiting for. . . It may or may not stand the test of time, but it certainly forces the issue.

Above: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/on_political_books/the_origin_of_ideology049295.php?page=all

B. Dr. Tuschman has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity. Notability (academics)

Criterion 7 may be satisfied "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."

We do have a list of lay publications and video clips from news organizations wherein Dr. Tuschman has been interviewed regarding his expertise. You can see that list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Tuschman&oldid=659577688. We don't propose to restore that list, and we submit it to you only for the sake of establishing Dr. Tuschman's Notability for the sake of this discussion.

C. Common outcomes: Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

From above: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."

Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC) -


 * Delete per Joseph2302, maybe this author/politician will do more in the future but currently he just doesn't seem notable. VViking Talk Edits 14:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Joseph2302 and DGG has written one book with all sources only  reviews about a book fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG for now and maybe notable in the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Working with Tuschman, I have gotten the impression that the author did a really poor job representing the nature of the work that they would be doing, and I know that they will not be working with them in the future. Additionally, there has been an effort to try to clean up some of the fluff on the topic and go from there, but I am a bit more neutral on the subject due to talking with them for so long, and I do not want personal viewpoints to interfere with the article. I would support renaming it though, as I think the majority of the article (especially before the cleanup) was about the book, which makes it a bit lopsided in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to name of book Appears the author is known mostly for this book. The NYTs mentions him only because of this publication  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello, this is Avi Tuschman (talk), the subject of the article. I just introduced myself on the article's talk page. I'd like to present the case for keeping this article as is, although there is a lot of work that needs to be done to make it more complete and accurate, which I'm happy to help with at the right time. I'm new to Wikipedia, but it seems like the first issue is for a decision to be made here. I'll respect whatever decision is made, but just want to make sure that the correct information is available to the decision makers. First of all, it's not factually correct that reviews are the only sources about my book, Our Political Nature (Prometheus/Random House 2013). There's a long list of media coverage here, which carefully documents the most important media coverage the book has received in 19 countries. This coverage includes reviews, interviews, articles, discussions on television and radio of which I'm a part, reports on television of which I'm not a part, coverage in academic journals, books, etc. Please take a moment to review the sources, which include media like the New York Times, MSNBC, several academic publications (Stanford, Georgetown, George Mason, etc.), China's CCTV, Brazil's GloboTV, Brazil's VEJA (one of largest weekly magazines in the world), Israel's TheMarker (Haaretz), NPR, and numerous other reputable sources. In particular, I'd like to point out that Scientific American columnist and Science Author Michael Shermer wrote a page about Our Political Nature, as part of a review of the current science on human political orientation, in his new book, here. I'd also like to point out that a world expert on the subject, Professor John Hibbing, who has also published a book on the same subject, has written a formal assessment of Our Political Nature in a double-blind, peer-reviewed academic journal, here. The other most important source, which is written by a science writer who's an expert on the topic, is Chris Mooney's discussion of the book in Washington Monthly, here. These are by far the most qualified people to objectively assess the importance of the book. I don't know any of them personally, nor did I know that they were writing about the book. NEXT, These are the reasons why the title of this article should remain the same: (1) the article originally mentioned my career as a political advisor and our greatest accomplishment, which is getting nearly twenty former heads of state to collaborate on a policy agenda for the Western Hemisphere, which the UN Secretary General said had never happened before in history. This is one of the most solidly documented facts about my career on the Internet, and it's relevant to my experience in writing the book, because no other book on this topic has been written by either an evolutionary anthropologist or a political advisor (and there's no other book that links measurable personality traits to quantitative measurements of fitness -- and no other book that tells the natural history of human political orientation). Moreover, there are other important parts of my career left out here, and what is in the article now about my career is factually incorrect. (2) More importantly, I think it's very unfair that my other contributions and writings apart from the book have been deleted from the article. These are articles in publications like the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and Bloomberg (this last article was translated into Chinese, Greek, Arabic, and Russian). Here is the list of my other contributions that was deleted, which I would like tot see restored to the article soon, under an "Other Writings" section -- or an external links section at the very least: My other writings on human political orientation discuss why this phenomenon shifts over the lifespan, why gender inequality changes over the course of history, how economics and demographics affect political spectrums, how the heritability of political orientation has been determined, how birth order affects political attitudes, and how assortative mating in the US contributes to political polarization. I've also commented on evolutionary approaches to history. These are only some of the major articles I've written in notable publications in English. I have numerous other publications in other languages. These are only the reasons why I think this article should be kept and why the name should not be changed. If there's any way a decision here could be made relatively quickly, I'd greatly appreciate it because it's not very nice to have a deletion tag on one's article. There are also many other ways in which this article could be made more accurate and complete, all with citations to solid references, which I'd very much like to help with, but I'm just limiting my points here to the deletion issue at hand. Many thanks for your consideration -- Avi Tuschman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 20 May 2015


 * Avi, Welcome to Wikipedia. Surely you can understand that the volunteers who edit this encyclopedia resent having it used as a self-promotion venue. However, I suspect that what you fail to see is the insult that you offer to people who edit, revise and judge the notability of articles on a wide range of complex topics when you not only write, but then arrogantly defend the notability of a patently inferior article. Surely you would not submit an op-ed that was written like a journal article, or write a Presidential speech in the style of a paper to be read at an Anthropology conference.  Why, then, do you feel it is appropriate to come here and defend a badly written article?   If you want an article on Wikipedia, do us the courtesy of taking the trouble to learn how WP articles are written and create for yourself a good one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I continue to suspect that Tuschman and his book can support separate articles, but unless he shows that that a good article can be created out of reliable, published sources I will be forced to abandon that opinion. I am not sufficiently intrigued by his career to undertake the work of sifting through sources to determine that an article can be supported.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems that Tuschman is now trying to canvas people here, by telling them that an article on an amazing person is being deleted, see here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to name of book; rewrite to avoid promotional tone. I saw the book author's invitation to comment here in several WikiProjects I participate in. The book is obscure, and the author more obscure. DGG has already commented that authors don't gain derivative notability by publishing one book. An article about the book would probably survive AfD, but would require careful rewriting to ensure that the article reflects what the mainstream reviews say about the book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WeijiBaikeBianji Could you link to those invitations? Thanks. This smacks of Canvassing. Also, I highly doubt that the book itself meets the threshold for notability. But that's not the current discussion. LaMona (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * * The project talk page notices I saw were on WikiProject Anthropology,  WikiProject Psychology, and  WikiProject Evolutionary Biology, all project talk pages I have on my watchlist (and not on any other project talk pages, as far as I can tell from that user's contribution history). I am not a wikilawyer, so I express no opinion about whether or not this was improper canvassing. The text of all three notices was "This article is up for deletion, if people want to have a look here [with a wikilink to this AfD discussion]." I personally don't mind notices with that level of generality to project talk pages if an AfD discussion might be of general interest to project participants. I mentioned this just to explain how I happened to join the discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I already warned them about canvassing by the way, so if they're guilty of canvassing, this might be an ANI issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * delete per DGG - young scholar with one book. I will add that there have been two paid editors and an editor claiming to be Tuschman active at the article. I will be happy if we are able to delete this article and end all this pressure to violate WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG and Jytdog. One book, cited 8 times in G-scholar. I know we're supposed to be civil, but honestly, if this person is so smart you would think he could read and understand WP policies -- they aren't that difficult. That he then comes on and defends his own article is just ... too much for me. Is "neutral point of view" such a difficult concept for someone who writes about human behavior? LaMona (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Bobby Jindal was an evolutionary biologist too. Keep it. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment struck. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument- why is this person good enough? Being an evolutionary biologist isn't enough to show notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The very fact that the subject of the article makes a full-court press to try and keep it tells me that it is not notable. The guy wrote one book that got some flash-in-the pan coverage. One book does not make someone a notable academic, and this book is even further from that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. The author not only found it necessary to create his own article, he hired a couple "paid editor" mercenary hacks to assist him with the inevitable delete nomination! Wikipedia needs to discourage this behavior with extreme prejudice. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - close this sucker, admins. he doesn't meet WP:GNG despite all the discussion above, and wikipedia is not WP:LINKEDIN.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the clear consensus is to delete. If this person was notable, then they wouldn't have needed to hire 2 people, get involved themselves and then try to canvass more people to support them. Basically every editor who hasn't been paid or canvassed here says it should be deleted. Clearly he's got money to waste on trying to keep this vanity project, but that doesn't make him notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The sources talk about the book, not the author, and in my view it's just routine coverage, nothing that indicates any particular lasting importance. I think that we should Delete, the article, but I suppose I could live with it being Refactored into an article on the book itself.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep and rename to Our Political Nature. I have reframed the article to be about the book Our Political Nature instead of the author Avi Tuschman. The book passes Notability and Notability (books) owing to the reviews from The Washington Monthly, the Political Science Quarterly, The Economist, and Forbes. Cunard (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I ignored all the drama and decided not to hold the subject's very bad introduction to Wikipedia against the article. Subject meets notability as author, and there's sufficient coverage of him. The statement above that "he wouldn't have done XYZ on Wikipedia if he were actually notable!" is 1) not true 2) not in any way relative to WP:GNG and 3) childish. Come on guys, we can do better. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as Our Political Nature- the book seems to pass WP:NBOOK, although I believe that the person themself isn't notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Our Political Nature and keep- the book which passes WP:NBOOK guidelines due to in-depth reviews in The Economist, Political Science Quarterly, etc. Otherwise this is a Pseudo-biography that is really about one book, or in Wikipedia policy: Persons notable for one event. In time the author may merit an individual biographical article, but hopefully will refrain from measures to unduly polish his image. Tuschman should be aware of Wikipedia's stance on Autiobiographies, and take to heart An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable that I can tell under WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, and the heavy influence of "paid editors" and other promotional/WP:ADVERT sources suggests why the article exists when it shouldn't. Certainly reviews of a single book don't qualify. Beyond the obvious, there are good policy reasons why Wikipedia editors need to discourage this fluff. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.