Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Alan Wallace


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

B. Alan Wallace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet GNG. The article had a large number of unsourced statements and long lists of articles, lectures and publications, but no supporting sources attesting to the notability of this person, and thus deleted per WP:BLP and WP:V. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, spectacularly fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the pre-cutdown version shows pretty clearly that this person does not meet any notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 18:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by unsourced and notability prior to the 'thus' part of your comments. This would be of interest here. It does though hark back to when the article was first placed, e.g. all work on the 'mindfulness introspective' properly progressed by definitions when Wallace took on his responsibilities early on for the improvement of dialectics from a central study centre in Switzerland onwards. There did not appear to be any discepancies of the nature you imply so why do you not cite precise examples as well to back your statements.This talk seems so highly esoteric it will not include any views but what Wallace calls 'static representations' that are a primary source in fact of confusion.--DynEqMin (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note and keep This article was reduced very substantially in size (by over 90%) before being listed here. I much prefer the "too long" version being what we see as a rule.  Notability  seems clearly present - many books of his have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal etc.    Scholar.google.com shows his works are widely cited (when I see a figure for well over 300 cites on one book,   and a half dozen more are fairly widely cited, the books are likely notable per se.)  Mentioned briefly in news articles on meditation  etc.  Basically he meets author notability by virtue of number of works cited by others.  And cutting to a single sentence is simply a poor way to prepare for any AfD. Collect (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even with that wall to wall of unsourced content, the author does not meet any notability criteria. Passing mentions non withstanding. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Um -- attacking me does not change the following:
 * Mental balance and well-being: building bridges between Buddhism and Western psychology. BA Wallace, SL Shapiro - American Psychologist, 2006 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Clinical psychology has focused primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disease, and only recently has scientific attention turned to understanding and cultivating positive mental health. The Buddhist tradition, on the other hand, has focused ...
 * Cited by 306 Related articles
 *  The Buddhist tradition of Samatha: Methods for refining and examining consciousness  BA Wallace - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999 - ingentaconnect.com [opening paragraph]: Buddhist inquiry into the natural world proceeds from a radically different point of departure than western science, and its methods differ correspondingly. Early pioneers of the scientific revolution, including Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo,  ...
 * Cited by 191 Related articles
 * [BOOK] Contemplative science: Where Buddhism and neuroscience converge BA Wallace - 2009 - books.google.com Science has long treated religion as a set of personal beliefs that have little to do with a rational understanding of the mind and the universe. However, B. Alan Wallace, a respected Buddhist scholar, proposes that the contemplative methodologies of Buddhism and of  ...
 * Cited by 183 Related articles
 * [BOOK] Choosing reality: A Buddhist view of physics and the mind BA Wallace - 2003 - books.google.com For centuries scientists and philosophers have pondered the relationship between scientific theory and reality. Analyzing two major positions, the author points out the many assumptions required to adopt the realist view, and nihilism implicit in the instrumentalist  ...
 * Cited by 118 Related articles
 * And so on. All from scholar.google.com.   [BOOK] The taboo of subjectivity: Toward a new science of consciousness  cited by 171,  [BOOK] The attention revolution: Unlocking the power of the focused mind  cited by 178,   BOOK] Buddhism and science: Breaking new ground  cited by 120, [BOOK] Hidden dimensions: The unification of physics and consciousness cited by 67,  Intersubjectivity in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism  cited by 58, [PDF] 2 The Spectrum of Buddhist Practice in the West cited by 49,   etc.   Sourced, please note. He is not Agatha Christie in popularity, but the only issue here is whether he meets notability within his field, and is well-cited within his field.  He is. Collect (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * His doctorate from Stanford was specifically deleted - I am barred from making any further edits at all on the article, but someone should wonder if removing something which is so easily shown at actually reduces his notability one iota. Collect (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a doctorate at Stanford, as described in a self published source an RS? Despite these google scholar hits, I see no good quality sources upon which an article on this person can be constructed. We need good quality secondary sources that attest to this person's notability. I could not find any, thus this AFD. (and btw, no one is attacking you) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that a source from Stanford ("Stanford.edu" is a teensy bit of a clue that the website is at Stanford) is a reliable source for Stanford?  Do you think he somehow conned a Stanford site to list him as having a PhD from Stanford in the field about which the entire page is centered?    "Philpapers.org"  then lists his dissertation - and is not an SPS by Wikipedia definition.   lists the paper as a PhD dissertation -- guess that is SPS?  American Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship Christopher Queen, Duncan Ryuken Williams; Routledge -- sorry I do not buy that Routledge is an SPS by the way.    yet another strong Stanford University direct source.  How many sources do you actually need?  And I assure you Stanford is not an SPS for the person . Collect (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red herring. A doctorate from Stanford is not in itself notable, neither is a dissertration. If this was a notable individual, his work and accomplishments will be reported on reliable and secondary sources, including his doctorate and dissertation. Otherwise by your criteria, every single PhD holder will have an article in WP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Moving target? You asserted that the PhD was from a "self-published source" - it wasn't.  Notability for academics is gauged frequently by whether their works are often cited by others.  His are.  Most PhD holders are not cited a great deal by others in their field.  He is.  Notability (academics)  has the criteria generally used.   1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Meets, per cites by by others.  Collect (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I was initially swayed by Collect's argument that the number of citations he had showed a significant impact on his field. I am less sure now. Citation numbers are relative and depend on the field of study. I looked at two of his co-authors Richard Davidson who has 10 publications with over 1000 cites and 61 which are over the 300 of the subject, and Emilio Ferrer [//scholar.google.com/citations?user=rRKu2JcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra] who only has 3 over 300. Looking further I fing Ned H. Kalin who is Chair of Psychiatry and Hedberg Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison he has one pub with 1310 cites listed and 6 over 300. From this, admitedly ad-hoc exploration I must conclude that a single publication with over 300 citations does not indicate a major contribution to the field. Other RS are needed for notability. That said I do not see any real issue with using a Stanford resource to support the date of his doctorate but that does nothing to contribute to his notability.  J bh  Talk  13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the following will evince notability: The Dalai Lama wrote "Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations With the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism." Translation by  B. Alan Wallace, Thupten Jinpa.  Afterword by Wallace.  Note that the Dalai Lama is generally considered notable per se.   Also note that in "Tibetan Buddhism in Diaspora: Cultural Re-signification in ..." isbn=1317572815; Ana Cristina O. Lopes. "-  there are multiple  multiple mentions of Wallace.
 * To me this all shows notability in the field of "Tibetan Buddhism" . And the aggregate number of cites are certainly enough if one looks at prior AfDs of academics. Collect (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity B. Alan Wallace; published by Columbia University Press.
 * "Contemplative Science" also published by CUP.
 * And so on.  A bunch of his books are published by CUP, which is a respected RS publisher.   This alas is a tad ludicrous - I had never heard of Wallace before, but it is crystal clear that he is an authority in his field, recognized as such. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note we do have a BLP on Richard Davidson who is, indeed, notable.  Collect (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Davidson's work has been covered by Scientific American] and [[The New York Times. That means we have secondary sources that attest for his notability. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Davidson was apparently given to claim that a major author was "red-linked." I showed that implication was inapt.  Wallace has several books published by Columbia University Press, a reputable university publisher.  Having multiple books published by a major academic publisher generally is allowed to show the person is notable in a field at AfD.   What more does one need? Collect (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete There are inadequate secondary  sources to establish notability.  Having his books cited does not establish notability unless they discuss him and his views.  I note that the article does not explain what Wallace's theories are, let alone provide a critical assessment, so it serves no function.  TFD (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * His "views" are not key - he is expositive of Tibetan Buddhism precepts, the precepts of the Dalai Lama, and the intersection of those precepts and science, among other religious/philosophical discussions.  The current article here is absolutely not great - but the issue here is whether the person, a known expert in the field, is "notable".  I had never heard of him until I started noticing in the sources just how well-regarded he seems to be within that specialized area. Collect (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

J bh Talk  19:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is sufficient biographical material in the many reviews of his books to support an article and he is considered notable enough that several of his books have been reviewed by multiple sources. For example: His is also quoted in in this Science article. There is a lot more material out there, I just got tired of cutting and pasting material into refcite templates. If more is needed for notability I will dig it up. He passes WP:GNG
 * delete Insufficient evidence of notability from independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm frankly shocked to see so many "delete's" here. This person is obviously notable - they have published multiple books with top-tier academic presses like Oxford  and Columbia, and those books have been reviewed in major academic journals. .  He also has an extensive biographical entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors Online. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR, especially #3, as the multiple book reviews show, arguably also #1, there's no absolute number required for citations. Kraxler (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Maduwanwela (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per info listed by Collect above. Clearly passes notability as an author and academic. That there are *more* notable people is irrelevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The multiple reliably published book reviews listed above by and  (which should be added to the article) show a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 7 September 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.