Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Smith (psychologist)


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Edward Smith (psychologist)
Since Novemeber of last year on Talk:Edward Smith (psychologist) we have been trying to figure out if this person actually exists, what his academic credentials really are, etc. Is he a hoax? Is this vanity? I suspect he is a non-notable with a diploma mill doctorate. Ifnord 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep While the tone of the article is a bit off, I think the guy is real and probably notable. I think he is on faculty at Georgia Southern University (scroll down), with a PhD (and MS) from University of Kentucky (see ).  My only concern is it is a different Edward Smith, but Edward WL Smith's interests seem to overlap with the description from the wikipedia article.--Hansnesse 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete. Do deletion discussions ever get anywhere?  Evidentally. I am changing my opinion.  While there seem to be notable Edward Smiths in the world, the article increasingly seems unverifiable, beyond what an assumption of good faith carrys me.  --Hansnesse 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if he is the same guy, what makes him more notable than any other professor? I was going to quote some policy but looking at Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics/Precedents I don't see a real consensus. Ifnord 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps we should delay deletion until a consensus emerges? I think it is certainly the case that a claim of notability is made in the article.  According to the article, Edward Smith created a new field of psychology (so-called "abstract spatial psychology").  I know nothing of the field, but this is certainly a claim of notability (whether true or not, I can not judge).  I think we should avoid the "let's delete it until we know more" approach.  This article is about a real person with verifiable contributions to the academic literature.  Lacking a criteria of notability for those contributions, it seems premature to delete. To delete until a consensus on deletion emerges is to de facto enforce a policy for which there is no agreement.  The article can always be deleted later, but not so easily is it recreated.  --Hansnesse 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can assume that when consensus is reached it will look something like, "Is this professor notable amongst other professors?" I do not believe this article meets that. Ifnord 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my view, as I note on the Academic notability talk page, that full professor rank is a priori sufficient notability for inclusion, so I do not agree with that assertion.  Moreover, the article asserts significant notability by any reasonable standard.  Do we have evidence to the contrary?--Hansnesse 01:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes there is a debate. But meanwhile this is non notable. Obina 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - If we can't tell if this is Edward Smith the psychologist, or some other psychologist named Edward Smith, then he is not sufficiently notable. Tom Harrison Talk 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this an argument that the writing is poor, not that the person is nonnotable.--Hansnesse 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Forcefulness divided by seepingness equals sharpness seems at best original research.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Google searches on "justice maximism" and "abstract spatial psychology" find no evidence of their use by any credible source, and there's particularly no evidence of their use by the psychologist Edward WL Smith (like in this interview or this biography). In addition, the ultimate source appears to be uncredited documents  at a homeboy web address  www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/*. Tearlach 03:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment American Psychologist (1998 Apr Vol 53(4) 368-370) has a note about an "Edward Smith" recieving an award "For his outstanding and diverse contributions to the study of cognition, including word perception, semantic memory, concept use, and reasoning." As I noted, I don't think the article is well written.  I don't know if this is the same Edward Smith as in the article.  I don't even know (and in fact, I suspect not) that he is the same as Edward W.L. Smith, since the citations in the American Psychologist article are to an E.E. Smith.  A poorly written article, however, is no reason to delete.  I think rewrite is needed, maybe a quality or dispute tag, but not deletion.  --Hansnesse 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For me, notability and quality aren't issues: it's the complete unreliability of the article as an information source. We don't know who it's about, and the content originates in documents of equally unknown authorship on mailing lists and personal websites. See Reliable sources on that point. Tearlach 05:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. What Tearlach said. JoaoRicardotalk 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have verified the scientific findings of Edward Smith (such as the correlations of abstract spatial psychology) via observation and experimentation. I too am bothered by the fact that Edward Smith's exact identity and educational certificates are uncertain, and that his work has not been published in any major scientific journal, but the fact remains that his contributions are major and scientifically verifiable, not even mentioning the catalog of correctable omnipresent human flaws, which is not even a scientific thesis, but simply a readily-observable large contribution to society. I know, I know, we would all like to believe that all people that make major contributions to society, especially in scientific advancement, must meet those social prerequisites. We would also like to believe that everything that is abstract and/or humbling is b---s---. I too feel the temptation to suppress this article for those reasons, and to word that reasoning as you have -but come on, we're supposed to be responsible adults here, not like children in an unsupervised candy shop. I know it's hard though, despite being comical when viewed from the outside or in retrospect. Besides, wikipedia also has an NPOV policy. We shouldn't be selectively deleting information just because it goes against beliefs that we hold dear. IrreversibleKnowledge 04:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not deleting the article because it goes against our beliefs. In fact, I don't even remember what Edward Smith is supposed to have said now. Our concern here is notability, not importance. Different things. JoaoRicardotalk 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on, Joao, don't misrepresent what I said. I don't like to admit it either. To reiterate, for the sake of clarity, I am not referring so much to the specific findings of Edward Smith as going against our beliefs, but more so, the way that we want to delete this article because the fact that he has made major contributions is evidence against our belief that 'in order for a person to make large contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, they must have certain social prerequisites, namely having been published in major scientific journal(s), having gone through the official educational system, and/or having a certain identity'. IrreversibleKnowledge 13:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am quite confused. Can you enlighten us as to whom the article refers to?  If this is an unpublished Edward Smith, he is clearly not notable. If you know what material the Edward Smith of the article has produced (in a professional publication sense), by all means, please note it.  I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a person's work which has never seen the rigors of professional scrutiny.  Moreover, I do not think "scientifically verifiable," in the sense that such discoveries could be independenly reproduced by readers, is a good standard for Wikipedia (to say nothing of trying to "verify" the material based on such a short discussion, no lab report, etc.).  Such a standard would invite all manner of crackpot.  If you have information about who is Edward Smith, please let us know.  I maintain my position to keep the article, as I noted above, as long as the aricle refers to someone with academic credentials. --Hansnesse 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Edward Smith's academic credentials are and aren't, so if you intend to delete all articles about people that lack credentials, then you may as well delete this article. However, that is not an honest policy, as we both know. I can see clearly from your sentences that you strongly adhere to the belief that 'in order for a person to make large contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, they must have certain social prerequisites, namely having been published in major scientific journal(s), having gone through the official educational system, and/or having a certain identity, and anyone that lacks those social prerequisites that claims to have made such contributions is a crackpot'. I too am tempted to believe that. I know the feeling. It is a pleasurable crude forceful feeling of disrupting fine subtlety, in this case, the value of people that lack those social prerequisites, as such people are perceived as having the abstract property of subtlety, just as children and animals are. This is precisely one of the things that Edward Smith has discovered, so you have inadvertantly supported his findings with your very reply. However, I am responsible enough to resist that temptation so as not to make this encyclopedia biased. Anyway, it is clear that we will not resolve this dispute with personal discussion, and this dispute involves more general policy principles, so this is a matter for an RfC. IrreversibleKnowledge 21:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't intend to misrepresent what you said. But I'm affraid you don't understand the situation here. You claimed that you had reproduced and validated Smith's experiments, but this is not the point. His experiments may have arrived at true conclusions, but they are not notable yet. JoaoRicardotalk 20:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * and this dispute involves more general policy principles, so this is a matter for an RfC
 * Bring one if you want, but it'll probably go straight in the bin because it's based on a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. The article is up for deletion purely on its lack of merits as an information source: anonymous unattributed material fails Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliable sources (because anyone can put up a web page claiming anything) - and your defence of it, on grounds of personal knowledge, is a classic example of original research. Tearlach 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've read his works with interest. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Original research again. How does your interest demonstrate notability, verifiability, or reliability of source? Tearlach 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maru- You can verify the correlations of abstract spatial psychology yourself if you want by following the methods outlined at the bottom of the page http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/ctlg.html, though it takes time to gather the necessary data. IrreversibleKnowledge 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. Doesn't appear to be any of the "Edward Smith"s I can find through Google, and the article itself reads like the work of a crackpot. --Carnildo 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Carnildo, I too am tempted to believe that any possible scientific fact that is abstract is bunk, and that a person that believes such possible facts is a crackpot. It is a pleasurable crude forceful feeling of disrupting fine subtle truth, as abstract concepts are perceived as having the abstract property of subtley. Just as with the case with Hansnesse above, this is precisely one of the things that Edward Smith has discovered, so you have inadvertantly supported his findings with your very reply. I however, am responsible enough to resist that temptation so as to make an unbiased encyclopedia, and I ask that you at least try to do so as well. IrreversibleKnowledge 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Del on Carnildo's reasoning, and the facts that the new psych field he invented Googles at "8 of about 19", and the major document w/ "Correctable Omnipresent Human Flaws" in its title Googles "25 of about 67", counting WP-derived material in both cases. --Jerzy•t 03:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep: Per recommendation of IrreversibleKnowledge.  Ombudsman 03:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I note, with interest, that the user IrreversibleKnowledge is a recent create and has only made edits to this AfD and a RfC regarding the article's subject. I don't know if anyone is missing any socks lately, but... Ifnord 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if only verifiable source is his personal webpage...then this is a no brainer. Sethie 18:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Original keep vote changed after skimming the sources, I have no idea who this Smith is but he doesn't seem like an actual psychologist and there is no biographical information about him in the article. If scientific, or at least coherent sources, can be found then keeping this as an article specifically about his alleged new "psychology" might make sense. The sources were at best unfocused. zen master T 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not who or what he is. The issue is that we have no way to verify who or what he is other then his own web page!Sethie 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I changed my vote to delete after overcoming my anti-deletionist instinct. The issue as I see it is there is 0 biographical information about him in the article, merging the content to an article about this alleged new "psychology" may be appropriate if coherent sources can be found. zen master T 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, as above, there is that crude forceful desire to disrupt the truth of fine subtlety, as abstract concepts are perceived as having the abstract property of subtlety. I too am tempted by that feeling to believe that abstract concepts are incoherent or bunk or blather or some other belittling description. Just as with Hansnesse and Carnildo above, this is precisely one of the things that Edward Smith has discovered, so you have inadvertantly supported his findings with your very reply. I however, am responsible enough to resist that temptation so as to make an unbiased encyclopedia, and, as with the others, I ask that you at least try to do so as well. IrreversibleKnowledge 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me because I interpret your posts to be nothing but incoherent rambling combining various disparate words and concepts together apparently for some psychological or provoking effect, similar to the writting style of Edward Smith's "sources". Is creating a non-sensical web page about an at best mispresented "psychology" a way of buttressing the pro-deletionist position within wikipedia? If this subject is in any way serious it needs to find an actual coherent method of presentation. Good luck with whatever you are doing here. zen master T 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So you have decided to proudly indulge your crude forceful emotion of discreditting instead of levelling any honest arguments. That is a gross violation of the policy Civility . If you want to support the deletion of this article, then that's your right, but you may not libel myself and an outside party on behalf of your position. IrreversibleKnowledge 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, NN, WP:NOR, WP:V.... lots of problems here. Fun read though, very Cubicist, including the Cosmology at http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/csm.html . If there was as much background as we have on Gene Ray, I'd say keep, but we don't have that info. Ronabop 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have followed your link to the cubicism / time cube page. Cubicism isn't even a real belief; it is a hoax that was created for the sake of creating an extremely ridiculous belief. So basicly you are discreditting Edward Smith's analytical works by comparing them to a belief of pure absurdity, in gross violation of the policy Civility, due to your lack of any honest argument against them. I too am tempted by a crude forceful emotion to disrupt the fine subtle truth of abstract concepts by comparing them with pseudoscience. I however, am responsible enough to resist that temptation for the purpose of creating an unbiased encyclopedia. IrreversibleKnowledge 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I made no claims whatsoever as to the validity of Gene Ray's research, or Edward Smith's research, only noting that they were similar in the way that they read (and note that I said it was a "[f]un read"). I did not denigrate either source, I merely noted similarities. If Edward Smith and Gene Ray were equally sourced, and cited, and discussed, and verifiable, then I would put them on the same level of notability, regardless of whether or not some other people viewed their works as... how did you put it?  "[P]ure absurdity", "pseudoscience" or an "extremely ridiculous belief", to use your own words. Lets be civil Civility to both Ray, and Smith.  Ronabop 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So now you are falsely portraying me as being uncivil toward the very person that I am defending, and you have also falsely portrayed me as being uncivil toward some remote person, when you are well aware of the fact that I would not have described time cubism in that way unless I believed that that description was the consensus to begin with (and therefore not meant as uncivil persuassion). About 99.9 percent of people, including yourself I'm sure, would agree with me about time cubism. Besides, Gene Ray wouldn't mind, because his belief is a hoax. Lying, and especially lying about the policy violations of others, is a gross violation of the policy Civility . Don't do it. This is your second violation, Ronabop. I have already warned you not to violate the civility policy. IrreversibleKnowledge 14:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per RfC discussion InvictaHOG 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Eusebeus 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article makes extravagant claims for an author who appears to have only two published articles.  "Abstract spatial psychology" is a non-noteworthy field.  Basic biographical information is lacking.  The page's advocates are unable or unwilling to raise it to encyclopedic standards. Durova 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is interesting to note that this is for the most part a rehash of an old debate: Votes_for_deletion/Justice_maximism and User_talk:EdwardSmith. All of the 'research' relating to this page is unreferenced and seems fairly non-notable. I also object to the title of the page as "Edward Smith (psychologist)". He may be doing some research in psychology, but I don't think he meets any usual definition of 'psychologist'.
 * Some of this stuff really does seem like original (and slightly kooky) original research. For example, there is no reference for the following "As a result, after humans defecate, feces is caught in the hairs unless it is thoroughly washed out, such that it increases the amount of volatile moderately toxic chemicals in the air, and increases the spread

of disease-causing intestinal bacteria." . Limegreen 21:52, 10 January 2006 (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.