Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Paul Wesley


 * 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 delete. Arguments under PROF appear to be on the marginal side and then we have the issue that the consensus here is that this clearly does not met the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 13:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

James Paul Wesley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vanity bio of a deceased professor obviously created by a relative with close to none independent sources. Please notice a bunch of self-published books (by a family member publisher). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the editor is a bit heavy handed in his use of his editorial rights, the page meets all wikipedia guidelines. The publisher is different from the author. I truly doesn't matter whether its a family member or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainTCook (talk • contribs) 03:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in wikipedia it does matter. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah but it doesn't matter too much. Claudebone (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah back, vanity considerations and WP:COI matter much. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. What matters is the academic rigour of the work not who wrote it.  Claudebone (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have no idea what is this about. I am talking about books by James Paul Wesley published by a vanity publisher rather than by an established publisher. Vanity publishing is a one huge red flag when establishing notability. If you find these books published by an academic publisher then we can start talking academic rigour. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That was my point but it's hardly my fault you lack the basic mental acumen to be able to comprehend it. Claudebone (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tentatively say (and respectfully advise the original author) wrong venue. Note the respectful advice - I respectfully suggest tat some people are not being particularly respectful.  I actually think the author here has sufficient material to submit something worthwhile to a peer-reviewed history of science journal (although it's a bit late for an obituary).  They've done a pretty thorough job, with good quality sources.  A lot of time has gone into this research and it would be a shame to destroy it.  Note that I would accept the existence of a Wikipedia article if a scholarly article had been published, though the content in Wikipedia would have to be fairly basic.  My suggestion is therefore for the author to find the right venue. For example here - note that most editors should help you even if they reject the paper (make clear to them that you are an inexperienced with academic publishing if you are inexperienced).  Perhaps additionally publish (maybe self-publish) a short e-book to compliment the paper, and include a few family memories and photos to personalise it.  Interview his colleagues to see what they thought of him.  Print some copies and donate them to his university's library so his legacy is established, and to his friends and colleagues.  That sounds great - it sounds better than Wikipedia. Claudebone (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * self-published e-books and a memoir from relatives will not make it notable for wikipedia purposes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that depends on how widely it has been published, and in particular whether (or not) a reputable publisher has printed the book with a decent print run so that it becomes a reasonably widely available. Claudebone (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Please learn how wikipedia works. Start with WP:RS and WP:GNG, paying attention to the words "independent of the subject". Staszek Lem (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. You should firstly learn to be polite and secondly you should learn how the historical method works and in particular note how there's not a dichotomy between "reliable sources" and "unreliable sources", and "independent" and "non-independent" sources. All sources have varying degrees of reliability (noting ins perfect).  Though I assume that fact is lost on many of the morons who edit Wikipedia and start pointing to the poorly written guidelines whenever this uncomfortable fact is brought up. Claudebone (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like rules written by us morons, you would probably want to join the high-brow Citizendium project. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article presents no evidence of influential publications or other accomplishments or honors that would take him above the level of the average professor, and is not sourced by in-depth reliably-published and independent publications about the subject. Additionally, searching Google scholar for publications by the subject did not find publications with notably high citation counts. As such, he does not appear to pass our guidelines for notability of academics, nor our general notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. I respectfully disagree, i think there might be a mistake when interpreting notability and believing it is equal to popularity; notability refers to notable (in other words "usable" and "useful") and i think is work appears to be just that, original, novel and maybe an outlier of the mainstream or established physics high community but certainly not an average professor; in the wiki policy it states that professor and academics usually qualify as notable! so please read the wiki policy CaptainTCook (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC) CaptainTCook
 * On Wikipedia, "notable" has a specific technical meaning that is different from useful and is closer to famous: to be notable, one must have been noted, by multiple independent reliable sources (another techical term but basically means published under some amount of editorial oversight). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as WP:NACADEMIC. I found only one third-party reference, and it is in the Natural Philosopher's database which is a personal project of two people. However, I did find about ten of his articles cited in G-Scholar with cites ranging from about 35-75. That's not huge, but given the time frame I find it mildly acceptable. However, this article needs to be greatly reduced. All of his writings need to be removed from the references and instead treated as a bibliography. The article should not include a full bibliography of his works but only selected works (which can be chosen from those most cited). The long quotes from the self-published works also need to go. And the whole family history part has to go since that's not what makes him notable. This was clearly the project of a relative or family member and is more like a memorial than a WP article. My gut feeling is that he was a bit of a crank, but that doens't keep him out of WP as long as he meets other criteria. LaMona (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did the unthinkable and reduced the publications to a few key ones, took out the long quotes, removed his own publications from the reference list. This is just the beginning, but it makes the article much more in line with WP style and policies. Oh, I also removed the references to his father's books, since those aren't relevant on this page. There's still the whole family history that should be cut, but I'm a fanatic for bibliographical details so that's where I concentrated. LaMona (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "only one third-party reference" - and you say it is notable? You must be kidding. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll ping User:Randykitty for his opinion on whether we should consider GScholar cites sufficient here. Randy, if you reply here, do ping me back. I'll make up my mind after considering your views. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep' with thanks to User:LaMona. Wesley's alleged intellectual range is so diffuse, that the notability claim looked improbable to me: 4 wives, couldn't hold a job, too many fields of expertise, he sounds eerily John Forbes Nash, Jr.-like. One absurd sentence that caught my eye was the claim that this theoretical physicist had a fellowship at the Center Advanced Study Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford University. Anyone who can claim that is notable, but you have to be  a social scientist, not a physicist.  I figured this would prove that somebody was making stuff up, or that he was actually at the Institute for Advanced Study, but sloppiness on that level would call the whole article into doubt.  So I poked around, and to my amazement, in 1962, he published:   Wesley, James Paul. 1962. “Frequency of Wars and Geographical Opportunity”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 6 (4). Sage Publications, Inc.: 387–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/172617.  written at: Center Advanced Study Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University.  Moreover, as J.P. Wesley, his papers are cited.  It suffices.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep = easily passes WP:PROF. It also appears to have been fixed per WP:HEY, although your opinion may differ. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly meets criteria #5 of WP:PROF as he served as a professor at the University of Missouri for 10 years.  Ya  sh  !   11:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. That interpretation is very far from the plain meaning of WP:PROF which specifically asks for a posting to a position at a step higher than full professor (i.e. a named chair, distinguished professor title, etc). There is no evidence that the subject ever held such a title. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the oversight and thank you for the clarification. I have struck my !vote.  Ya  sh  !   07:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The work as a theoretical physicist is fringe, with a few papers in a speculative journal, a number of  self-published books (published by an apparent member of the family, which amounts to the same thing; the comment above ,"someone other than the author" misses the point entirely);   There are a few orthodox  papers in geophysics, for which Google Scholar shows citations of 79, 32, 29, not enough for notability in this field.  There is a elementary book, Ecophysics; the application of physics to ecology from a decent technical publisher for which Worldcat shows 297 holdings, but that alone wouldn't be enough for notability as WP:PROF or WP:Author.  There is one social science paper: Wesley, James Paul. 1962. “Frequency of Wars and Geographical Opportunity”. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 6 (4). Sage Publications, Inc.: 387–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/172617 which ha been cited 62 times.  (From reading the citations, it seems he took an unsual position here also) nFellow  not notable by itself: it's a postdoc, not a permanent appointment . I cannot verify that the position at Missouri was a full professorship; the term is sometimes used more loosely, and I have learned to be skeptical when it is used in association with fringe figures unless a formal position is explicitly stated and verified in a third party source.  . If it was, while essentially all full professorship at major research universities  have been found notable here, this would be one of the exceptions.
 * The article further shows signs of promotionalism. An apology for his political view preventing his continued employment, excessive space on family and personal life. If accepted it's going to need some trimming, an indication of the nature of the publisher, and verification of every position.  DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note User:DGG. I just want to point out that although fellowships at Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, are post-doctoral, they are offered to senior academics, people who are tenured at major universities and, the offers are a big deal, and you only get offered one if you are already at the level of eminence in your field that you could have a page here.  It's like Institute for Advanced Study, except for social sciences and the weather is better.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, I was unable to turn up any info on the publisher with the same last name. It was nom who suggested it was a relative. Do you have a reason to believe the two are related? There are other oddities, such as that the books are published in Germany, which makes little sense if the author was aiming at a US market. But I can't verify the relationship between the author and the publisher, so I'm just thinking of that as "very small and probably not important publishing house." Note that the article was much more promotional before I took an ax-sized swing at it. It is definitely promotional - but that can be fixed with some more editing. LaMona (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "I cannot find any publisher by that name either, except for books by James PaulWesley; the address give in google Books for them is Weiherdammstrasse 24, 7712 Blumberg, West Germany, Blumberg and therefore conclude it must be a relative or pseudonym or otherwise related. Since continental  Europe has maintained until very recently the tradition that doctoral dissertation must be actually printed, there are a number of small printers there capable of dealing with technical manuscripts; this is not the case in the US, where in the days that physical typesetting was needed, only a very few of the largest firms could deal with mathematical texts. The only logical conclusion is that they are privately printed for the author. They certainly are not published by any well-known publisher, and that will have to be inducated in the article if it is kept. Probably the best phrase to avoid OR  will be "a publisher who has printed nothing except these books byJP Wesley". DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Risks of nuclear radiation underestimated?: American physicist's theory Our Scientific Correspondent The Guardian (1959-2003); Mar 2, 1960; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer pg. 4 He is identified as "a physicist on the staff of the University of California's radiation laboratory" The study argued that natural background radiation could produce fatal congenital malformations; I make no judgment on the science. It is hard to figure out the notability of minor figures form the pre-internet age.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ran "John Paul Wesley" in a Proquest archice search. Fount this   Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 * one paper noticed by the Guardian--among the 100s ofpapers publiched in that debate-- does not make for notability  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Publication of papers and texts is a routine aspect of academic research.  Even after reading the arguments given above, I'm still not seeing how the subject had any impact on his field beyond that of the average researcher.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:19, 31 January 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.