Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Cziko


 * 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. Consensus appears to be that Cziko's published works satisfy the requirements at WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 15:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Gary Cziko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability was questioned over two years ago, and since then no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability has been produced. In December 2015 I proposed deletion, but the proposal was contested by an editor who said "possibly notable" (my emphasis). I decided to wait to see whether evidence to support that suggestion could be found, but five months later there has been nothing new. At most one of the references could possibly be considered substantial coverage of a book by Cziko, and even that is not substantial coverage of Cziko himself. The other references are a listing in a library catalogue of a book by him, a page briefly mentioning him in one sentence and referencing a work of his, an online copy of a book by him, and a very brief profile page for him on the web site of the university where he works. Not a single one of those is substantial coverage of him in an independent source. My own searches have found various brief mentions, a few reviews of his books, and so on, but no substantial coverage of the man. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep By what critera and/or WP policy a noted professor emeritus at a major American university whose books are published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose presentations are given at other learning institutions around the world, and whose works and research are significant, interesting, and unusual ended up here eludes me, but would appreciate knowing as I might be missing something. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What criteria and/or WP policy lead to this nomination are explained above. If you can say specifically what about the explanation needs clarifying, I can try to help. I see no evidence anywhere that he is a professor emeritus: certainly the page you link to doesn't say so, it just says he is a professor. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology publishes many books by many academics, not all of whom satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Many academics sometimes give talks in places other than where they are based, not only those who satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You say that his research is "significant, interesting, and unusual", but you don't actually provide any explanation as to why or how his work satisfies the notability guideline: merely stating that it does without any explanation or justification will be likely to carry little weight. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi You state that "I see no evidence anywhere that he is a professor emeritus", yet a simple Google search shows many examples of this being true. As an academic myself for many decades, I can, also, absolutely assure you that the gauntlet that has to be endured before MIT publishes anything is in itself notable. As for my listing here his research that WP, not me, refers to as "significant, interesting, and unusual" is self evident in even the most minimal research into this persons life, research and academic articles. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: I see no indication of notability in the article or its references. Being a professor and writing a couple of books are not sufficient indications of notability. Aside from there being no indication he is a professor emeritus, being an "emeritus" professor does not indicate notability – it merely indicates retirement (see Emeritus, and also since his faculty profile page says he's in his 50s, he seems too young to be retired, so it's highly unlikely that he's a professor emeritus). What we would need are reliable sources saying his work is especially important and influential, major awards being given to him by some esteemed institutions, etc. We have none of that. The article fails WP:PROF. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: The article now seems to cite two different faculty profile pages – this one and this one, the latter of which confirms the emeritus status. (The two profiles have similar-looking URLs but rather different content.) Also, I noticed that on the page that says "Now in my 50s" also says "last updated 2006.03.27", so I suppose he his now in his 60s. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note (Attn: I've rewritten this entire article adding references/citations/sections and would appreciate your review of same. Please note too, and forgive, my failing to invoke certain references as I've recently failed at this before and is, most likely, due to my failing eyesight that isn't catching what exactly I'm doing wrong. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note There are, litterally, hundreds of academic and research papers written by this articles subject relating to the field of Perceptual control theory (and citied by to many to count other researchers) leaving me unsure how many of them to include, and in what context, and could use some guidance on. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What we need are citations to independent sources that are reliable that discuss Cziko and do so in substantial detail and indicate that he is notable in some clearly identified way. Please see WP:N and WP:PROF. Currently, the only source that I see that is cited in the article that is not obviously self-published by Cziko himself is a citation to http://www.pctweb.org. That also appears to be a self-published and unreliable source. It is not a formal publication or peer-reviewed journal from any identified institution. Indeed, that site does not even appear to identify who published its content. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note Hi Could you please expand on your allegation that this reference is a self-published source, and as you've noted in this article? The facts prove that this is one of the main academic websites relating to Perceptual Control Theory and states about itself that it is maintained by Dr. Warren Mansell, PhD, University of Oxford, and not this articles subject. I believe in any AfD the information presented should be as accuarately stated as possible. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I had not noticed that the web site does have an identification of who publishes it, the identification of the publisher confirms that it is the personal publication of an individual. It may not be published by Cziko himself, but it is published by an individual person and thus is the equivalent of a personal blog. As I said above, "It is not a formal publication or peer-reviewed journal from any identified institution." A more reliable source would be something like a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal or a well-regarded textbook. (Just to clarify, Mansell appears to be a Reader in Clinical Psychology at the University of Manchester, not the University of Oxford.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for that concise explanation, now it makes sense to me. I agree with you, too, that a more reliable source would be something like a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal, and if you'd be so kind, here are hundreds of them I'd most graciously appreciate your reviewing, and once finding those acceptable let me know so that I can include them in this article too. Also, please note that by the criteria being used to delete this article, the William T. Powers article (which has no references) should be deleted too. After which, and by logic since Powers was the scientist behind Perceptual Control Theory, that article should be deleted too. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the William T. Powers article is a bit weak in citations, so I added a refimprove tag to it. As the originator of the PCT concept, I might tend to presume that he is more notable than Cziko, but all articles should have adequate reliable sourcing. I took a quick look at the scholar.google.com link that you provided, but everything listed on its first page was written by Cziko himself, which is undesirable for sourcing purposes. I have limited time for work on this (as we all do, I suppose), so I may not sink a lot of further effort into it. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for adding the improve tag to William T. Powers, it was, indeed, needed. And yes, I agree that Powers is more notable (as he relates to PCT concept) than Cziko. However, with Cziko being mentored by Powers, and with Powers being deceased, I honestly don't believe that the PCT concept  (history/importance/etc.) can be fully understood (at least here on WP) without including Cziko. No matter how small, I've always taught (and been taught), every single piece to a research puzzle is important to fully understand it. And yes, many of the PCT research papers I directed you (and others) to are written by Cziko, but published in peer reviewed academic journals, and when you get to about page 9 you begin to see others where he's citied. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note I believe that the crux of this entire discussion revolves around the issue of if pctweb.org is a reliable source or not. This is crtical issue to resolve as it not only affects this article, but that of the developer of Perceptual Control Theory, William T. Powers, too. Now I know that WP:IRS(NS) is an unofficial guidance essay, however, in following its guidelines that say "statements and reports from reputable expert bodies", pct.org, indeed, meets that criteria as it is managed by Dr. Warren Mansell and all of whose content, therefore, I believe constitutes reliable statements and reports from expert bodies as this is the global site of PCT theory for other academics and researchers. I would greatly appreciate others thoughts on this issue. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My impression is that since Mansell's web site is self-published and since there is no indication that Mansell is a leading highly-renowned scholar (e.g., there is no Wikipedia article about him, and as a Reader, he is not even a tenured faculty member, much less someone with exceptional well-accepted credentials), his self-published web site should not be considered a reliable source for most purposes on Wikipedia. He does not fit the description of "reputable expert bodies". In my opinion, the best source that we currently cite in the article to establish notability for Cziko is the article by Terrence Deacon in American Scientist. However, that is about Cziko's book, not about Cziko, and writing a well-regarded introductory textbook does not seem like something that ordinarily justifies having an article about its author on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the overall article is still questionable including for the applicable notability, the article contains nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm going to be a little bold here, but someone, anyone, has REALLY got to explain why a teenage high school football player, Rashan Gary, and an NFL rookie who hasn't played a single professional game, Ezekiel Elliott, are not having their articles debated for deletion, but an over 60-year-old professor emeritus who is an acknowledged leader in a new and cutting edge field that is, and will continue to, change our ideas about human perception no one will even think about supporting. I will freely acknowledge that my local newspaper hasn't covered this person, but its sports page is the largest section of the paper so I don't expect it to. And if anyone wants to fully understand where we're at today, just read what Ben Rhodes (he's the guy that runs the White House and is President Obama's right-hand person) told the NYT times last week: "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing." With the WP criteria everyone loves to cite here, and elsewhere, I would think a new discussion should be undertaken not just to delete this article, but to change the name of Wikipedia too--how about Sportsapedia? Seriously though, and finally, when something is wrong it must be changed, and if this isn't wrong I don't know what is. Thanks for listening. Picomtn (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Liz  Read! Talk! 16:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Five publications with over 100 cites each on Google scholar is enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets the first criterion of WP:ACADEMIC #1. According to WorldCat, his top two books published by MIT are held by 400+ and 300+ libraries, and in Northern California where I live, they are the libraries of the very best universities such as Berkeley and other UC campuses, Stanford and so on. Google Scholar shows that his research has been widely cited by other academics for decades., please note that for influential and widely cited academics, there is no requirement that they be the subject of significant coverage about them in independent reliable sources. Professors are not pop stars, and GNG does not apply in such cases. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would quibble with this: the other works citing his are independent reliable sources. It is his works that we should look for coverage of, not his personal life. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are independent, reliable sources of the type but my point is that they do not (and do not need to) devote significant coverage to Cziko as a person. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was also under the impression that WP:ACADEMIC calls for significant coverage (in independent, reliable sources) of the academic as a person, but I haven't participated in many/any AFDs about professors (saw a notice about this one on WP:PSYCH and clicked the link out of curiosity). I'll take 's word for how the policy is usually interpreted, but I want to clarify first to make sure I understand... Criteria #1 states, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I would have assumed it meant there were independent reliable sources that said, more or less explicitly, this specific professor had an impact on the field. Cullen328, are you saying that "significant impact" for academics is usually defined as having their works held at a large number of libraries and by being widely cited by other scholars? PermStrump (talk)  23:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read the entire guideline,, you will see this statement: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." I believe that Cziko meets this standard. In my opinion, the fact that his books published by MIT are held by hundreds of libraries which are primarily university libraries is additional evidence that he is an influential and therefore notable academic. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen's and David Eppstein's arguments. Academics demonstrate notability through coverage of their work, not via celebrity pseudo-journalism bios. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent citation record passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2016 (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.