Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Schwartz


 * 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. Even if WP:PROF may not be completely met, there is still some WP:N here so I am closing this as a keep (and edit, sure). Tone 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary Schwartz

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Gary Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF and there is no evidence of notability under WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is debate from talk page:


 * 1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No.


 * 2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

No AFAIK.


 * 3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

No; unless being the director of the VERITAS project at University of Arizona counts. I would say no.


 * 4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No.


 * 5 The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

No; he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. None of these are a named/personal chair appointment. No indication of "Distinguished Professor" appointment.


 * 6 The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Depends, if his position as director of VERITAS counts for this category than yes, if not than no.


 * 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No.


 * 8 The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

No.


 * 9 The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

No.

So basically Schwartz's notability hinges on the importance of his directorship of VERITAS at U of Arizona. I am not informed enough on that program to comment. Discuss.Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After consulting the University of Arizona website:


 * 3: No.
 * 6: No.

VERITAS directorship is not a highest level position as it is a project within Psychology department. Based on this Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF, proposing deletion pursuant to this.Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing deletion of this article on the grounds that Schwartz fails to meet the WP:PROF criteria as per my previous analysis.Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Here's the standard short bio for Schwartz:

 GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D  ., Director of the VERITAS Research Program, is a professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health and its Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science. After receiving his doctorate from Harvard University, he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. Dr. Schwartz has published more than four hundred scientific papers, edited eleven academic books, is the author of  The Afterlife Experiments, The G.O.D. Experiments, and  The Truth About Medium, and is the co-author of The Living Energy Universe.


 * Sounds very notable to me. His center might seem "fringe" but it is the University of Arizona, after all, and couldn't be that disreputable. But even if you decide he fails on the WP:PROF guidelines, I think he would still make it just on the general WP:N guidelines--he's apparently quite well known. So I'll be bold and remove the tag, to make it clear there is no consensus for deletion.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * None of that matters for the criteria of WP:PROF. Not every professor is notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm putting the prod tag back.  IF you disagree please address the points in the analysis above.Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe he meets WP:N either.Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and just to clarify, the fringe status of his work is not the reason I doubt he meets WP:PROF. The reason why I doubt his notability is because his directorship of VERITAS is the directorship of a research project within a department and the WP:PROF guidelines specify that a professor is notable if he holds, and I quote:


 * a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level,
 * a position as an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
 * a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
 * a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.


 * And directorship of VERITAS does not meet those criteria.Simonm223 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for sake of comparisson Anthon.Eff I know you are active on the Ian Stevenson page. Now Stevenson is widely considered a fringe professor for... research... not much different from that of Schwartz.  However Stevenson is notable.  Why?  Because he was the head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia; that meets the WP:PROF criteria of:


 * a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.


 * Do you see what I am saying?


 * You apparently didn't read your own template. It says that if it is removed, don't replace it. So don't. Your next step, if you wish to pursue this, would be WP:AFD. You can try your line of reasoning there.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternate: Even if he is a professional, he doesn't need to make it solely on those criteria. Did he get reliable source coverage for his work or other things he did ? Even work that is questionable relevance to field could get substantial RS coverage- did he discover cold fusion- this wouldn't win him any awards or even make useful advances in the firld but would get lots of coverage and attract a rather diverse audience of gawkers. Also, this whole notion of "highly selective" etc is very subjective. If a national Creationism society gave one award a year, and got a national publication that isn't dedicated to Creationism but has a religious interest and reports factual matters faithfully, would that make the person notable? I can't remember seeing an IEEE fellow mentioned on CNN or VH1 so I'm not sure what the criteria would be here. Essentially you need to demonstrate that a large group of relevant people already have noted the topic as being of interest but when you start talking about "relevant people" you run into subjective issues. Certainly the term "Scholarly" suggests more an interest in rigour and merit than popularity but a scholar of the Bible can be just as much a scholar as any other, certainly a poet or artist. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject may not directly meet the guidelines at WP:PROF, however, it seems that there is enough coverage to keep this one around per WP:GNG. The LA Times calls him "a famous tester of mediums" and an article in Metro.co.uk reports: "Schwartz is the only scientist from a recognised university to investigate whether mediumship exists." And for doing work that some may state is not notable, the skeptic community seems to invest a fair bit of energy debunking it:. It has also been discussed on CNN: and. He has been interviewed on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and in USA Today. His work was featured in an HBO documentary and his research subject for 4 years is the basis for NBC's Medium (TV series). (For what little it is worth, here is also a very brief mention of him in Time (magazine) from 1974:.) Location (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup . Committee for Skeptical Inquiry hosts at least two articles devoted in large part to Schwartz (search). James Randi informally described him as the current darling of the media, indicating that there should be additional sourcing available. Said sourcing desperately needs to be used, as currently over half of the references are to Schwartz's book, and several others are to material unrelated to his notability. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment We can hardly speak to sources not included in the article. My statement that Schwartz does not meet WP:GNG are largely based on the self-referential nature of the references in the article.  Almost everything links back to his own book; I see no indication of significant third party coverage.  Although I respect Randi, he is not an expert on the media.Simonm223 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. First of all, it is perfectly acceptable in an Afd to discuss sources that should be included in the article but currently are not. WP:BEFORE states in bold: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Secondly, significant third party coverage is not required for an article to conform to WP:V. WP:SECONDARY states: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." and "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." Finally, James Randi is probably the best known skeptic and debunker of paranormal and supernatural claims and as such is an exquisite example of a reliable secondary source for this article. Location (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the notability tag has been on this article since January. That is ample time for RSes to be added to the article.  They have not been.Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. So did you nominate this article because the subject is not notable or because it is missing appropriate sources? Location (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The absence of reliable sources points to the failure of the article to meet WP:GNG. The two avenues for notability for this article are WP:GNG and WP:PROF.  As I have demonstrated it does not meet WP:PROF this makes the presence or absence of RS pivotal to notability.Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am confused since you almost seemed to imply from the "ample time" comment that it's too late to add the sources. Now that the sources by Randi and others have been pointed out, are you stating that they are not reliable? Location (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Randi is a reliable source for his own opinion of Schwartz and not much else; invective such as "media darling" is empty rhetoric without any real worth unless it can be backed up.Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just finished reviewing the sources, excluding ones that Schwartz was author of. With one exception (Geraldo) they are articles from skeptical publications critiquing his research methodology.  Although some are certainly reliable sources I doubt they constitute enough second party discussion to constitue notability under WP:GNG.Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Of course the vast majority of sources that discuss Schwartz are going to be either from paranormal skeptics or paranormal believers discussing his research and methodology because it is his work with parapsychology that has made him notable. Location (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment And I understand your point however 8 media items over the course of as many years hardly represents a heated debate. And that is how many non-primary RSes there are in this article, including Randi.Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability meets guidelines and any faults with the sources in the article can be addressed by editing and the addition of more reliable sources that haven't yet been included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article is being used as a soapbox for the subject's views and activities. Prune severely to biography and links to subject's web site. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Edit & Keep. He has some notability as a "paranormal researcher", media figure, and author, and one could say he's a slightly more successful version of Professor Paranormal. Such personalities often present themselves as notable scientific academics, so strip away all the puffery and excess detail to avoid having this BIO be a WP:COATRACK pushing the supposed achievements of psychics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit & Keep.With apologies to Simonm223, who argues his case well, I must agree with LuckyLouie. If the outcome of this discussion happens to be "Edit & Keep", it should be stipulated that this indicates a consensus to trim the article severely, and edit warriors who then try to preserve it in its present state should be sanctioned quickly instead of a whole new cycle of RfCs etc. having to be started. Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2009 (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.