Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kardashian Index


 * 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. When this page was last relisted there was a call for a closer examination of the sources cited in this discussion. The examination and comments made by Bondegezou most convinced me to close as delete. J04n(talk page) 00:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Kardashian Index

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one person's WP:FRINGE proposal, no indication of take-up in the academic community, surely much WP:TOOSOON. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. One uncited primary source, even in a reputable journal, is insufficient for notability and not enough material to provide the basis for an article. Especially when the final section heading of the source indicates that even its author didn't intend it seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it is newly coined so will not have many references . And there is more than one reference - this also counts (but that reference in The Scientist, that is enough to establish notability). As for seriousness - there is a long tradition in presenting serious points through amusing formulae or propositions. Ask any scientist. This one is more serious than Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and far less annoying.  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 PAGE''' ]] ) 21:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete If "it is newly coined so [it] will not have many references" then it is WP:TOOSOON for a wikipedia article. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * I am striking out my "it is newly coined so will not have many references" comment because it is not correct. I should not have accepted at face value the assertions of the first two editors that there were not many sources. There are LOADS of sources out there. However, I'm not quite sure what more references are needed, or why? We already have references explaining what it is and who coined it. Do we need references showing its increasing and ongoing notability and popularity? Things like from July 29th,  from 1st August,  from August 4th,  from August 6th,  from August 7th,  from August 8th, from August 14th,  from 28 August,  from 17th September, etc. And here is it being mentioned in the Smithonian magazine, and USA Today , Huffington Post, and Yahoo News  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You get 19000 hits. I get exactly three. As I said above, no evidence of take-up in the academic community. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think most of the above links are? They show it is being widely talked about in the academic community (as well as in the wider world). What more do you want to see to satisfy "take-up in the academic community" - serious peer reviews in academic journals by noted mathematicians, every scientist including their Kardashian Index in their resume!! It's just a humorous science metric that is commenting on fame and the requirement to publish or not. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep there appears to be substantial coverage on the web. Whether it is serious or not is immaterial. WP:FRINGE does not apply as it does not contradict established science.--Mrjulesd (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I orgininally closed this as delete but closer examination suggests I was probably too swayed by the numbers rather then the arguments. I am therefore relisting as we clearly do need to discuss these sources more. Spartaz Humbug! 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me summarize the delete arguments, and their weaknesses. The proposer used the reasoning WP:Fringe to justify the AfD. However, as was pointed out later in the discussion, Fringe does not apply in this case because the subject did not in any way contradict established science - so an argument to delete based on those grounds can be dismissed. The second advocate for deletion stated that there was only one source. However, twelve more sources were identified during the discussion (including undoubtedly usable ones like Smithonian Magazine and USA Today) negating that editor’s opinion. Many of those sources also indicate the subject is being talked about within the academic community - thus answering the proposers second point, the "no indication of take-up in the academic community". The third advocate for deletion merely said that he agreed with the deletion reasoning of that previous editor and that of the proposer, so added nothing new to the discussion. The fourth proposer for deletion also brought no argument of his own to the discussion, merely quoting my own words, words which I later withdrew as being incorrect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

PAGE ]] ) 16:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC) PAGE ]] ) 23:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And those sources indicate that the paper was satire and a joke, and we don't need an article on every joke published in a journal (otherwise we'd need an article on Chicken Chicken Chicken: Chicken Chicken). --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Comment. Saying "other articles don't exist" makes for a very poor argument for delete. See . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not actually a joke, it is actually scientific in nature. It is a metric that could actually have some meaning. But the idea is probably humorous to some extent. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From the Smithsonian article: "This 'joke' article is only funny if you are a senior tenured professor with lots of papers and yet have a low follower count on social media" and "Anthropologist Kate Clancy made a similar point, noting that the joke, which skewered people with less power in the scientific community, just wasn’t funny" and "The paper, meant to be satirical, was titled “The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists.”" --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * I would still contend that it is different in nature to most jokes and satire. However you look at it, it is a measure that could actually have some relevance outside of humour. People could actually use it to assess popularity versus actual achievement. That is why there is so much interest. --Mrjulesd (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahecht, is your reason for delete that academic papers cannot be humorous or satirical, or that you don't think Wikipedia should have articles about such subjects? I doubt if either are legitimate reasons to delete. But at least you have conclusively put to rest the "no evidence of take-up in the academic community" assertion by indicating that only a "senior tenured professor" can really fully appreciate it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – more than enough citations in Google Scholar, as shown here to establish “Notability”.  ShoesssS Talk 11:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The Google Scholar number of hits drops to a small handful when you bind the phrase in quotes. A single paper and a few casual mentions of it do not meet notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: still, there are two eminent sources listed, |"Genome Biology" and |"Nature", plus | sciencemag.org. To get any sort of mention in these sort of publications suggests notability. And the one at Genome Biology is presented as serious research. And also there is a huge number of sources in |the popular media --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON. It's a funny paper (which is perhaps not quite the same as a joke paper), which got a couple of high profile mentions when it came out and amused a lot of people on social media. It could go on to have some real value: it is, indeed, a metric that can be applied. However, I don't believe that has been demonstrated. WP:NTEMP makes clear that Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability". If this index goes on to have an enduring value, then I have no objection to the article being re-created, but for now, I would follow the advice of WP:NOTNP and WP:RECENT and ignore the concept, and delete the article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:TOOSOON? There is a mass of sources on the web. We shouldn't risk WP:TOOLATE. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've yet to see a single valid argument for delete. They all seem to contain misunderstandings about Wikipedia policies, the "toosoon" one being an example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "mass of sources on the web" are all about the original article. We do not have articles about every research paper that receives some coverage. I've had research papers that got coverage in newspapers: I do not think they warrant articles. I would like to see some enduring value shown. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is comfortable with being a "lagging indicator" of notability. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK, but that is not really a WP:TOOSOON argument is it? The essays says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." But there has been a lot of sources recently. What you're wondering about is if coverage will continue.
 * Maybe you're right, and it will be soon forgotten. But also maybe you're wrong, and interest continues for a few years? I think at this stage it is difficult to say how much interest will be shown in the future. In the meantime, maybe somebody will want to look up WP to find out about it? Should we wait a few years to find out? I suppose I'm appealing to WP:COMMONSENSE. Also, research papers in eminent publications generally indicate notability. If you've had research papers in the past that have reached that level of interest, then I feel at least the subjects should be represented, and articles updated to reflect your discoveries. --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: WP:TOOSOON is not the right reference. I refer you to other arguments above for alternatives. The subjects of research papers that attract interest should, indeed, be covered: the subjects of this Kardashian Index article are Twitter, citation indices and a Kardashian, all of which have articles about them. But the "Kardashian index" itself is a one-joke idea that has never been used in practical situations. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So which article would you place this in? You said "But the "Kardashian index" itself is a one-joke idea that has never been used in practical situations." isn't that a little presumptuous? But I think the real interest of it is looking at how celebrity can compare with achievement. It's along the same lines as the Peter Principle, it makes a pertinent point in a humorous fashion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am being presumptuous, but in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTNEWS is clear that Wikipedia considers "the enduring notability of persons and events". Show me evidence that this Kardashian Index has enduring notability, that it is ever used in a practical situation, then I will support keeping it. But, as I said before, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability: we are meant to wait for (enduring) notability to be shown before having an article. (As has clearly been shown in the case of Peter Principle.) As for what article would I place this in, one could cover it adequately, I believe, with a single sentence in Bibliometrics or H-index or somewhere like that, or one could have a science section under Twitter usage. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I simple don't believe it to be a news story. And if Wikipedia was always "a lagging indicator of notability", no current ideas or events would be included, which is not the case. Nobody can see into the future, but I think it fulfills the requirements for notability now. And I don't think you have come up with a suitable article to include this in instead.
 * I think that maybe the main problem with this article is the title: the Kardashian Index. I have my suspicions that Wikipedia users do not like to be reminded of the Kardashians! --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To date, we've had the original article, and then we've had other sources saying, "Look at this amusing article." That, it seems to me, comes under WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." I've not seen presented here a single serious use of the Kardashian Index. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been looking through the sources presented more carefully. Mrjulesd above suggests that the original paper is presented as serious research. I note that the person who wrote the original paper has explicitly said, "It is a joke!" (quoted in the Nature article). Most of User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's initial list of references above are blogs and probably do not count as reliable sources. One, this one, is about a different use of the term and nothing to do with this Kardashian Index. As noted, a Google Scholar search using bounded quotes produces only 5 hits: the original article, news pieces in Nature and Science, and two false hits that contain no reference to this index. The Nature article is a short news piece about "papers and issues gaining traction on social media" and it covers both this paper and another. The Science article is also a news piece. The USA Today coverage is a short news piece in the celebrity section. Most of the interesting news and blog coverage is less about the Index as some usable thing and more about the subsequent Twitter debate, the #AlternateScienceMetrics hashtag and underlying issues in science around who publishes. I would summarise that as: a satirical, joke article that spawned some interesting social media debate and got a bit of news coverage. Whether that justifies a Wikipedia article... I don't think so, but I respect the views of those who think it does. If the article is kept, it should focus on the resultant debate rather than merely explain the (satirical) maths. However, I think it is important to make clear that the coverage does not support the idea that this is a serious index: Murjulesd's suggestion that, "It is a metric that could actually have some meaning." does not appear to me to be supported by anything presented yet. Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that assessment Bondegezou. Well I think it would be hard to argue that it was a totally serious concept, the name alone gives that away. There is undoubtedly a large element of humour attached. But I've said before, there is a serious side to it: are many popular scientists unjustly lauded, while others more deserving scientists receive scant praise? I think that is the point it is trying to make. Whether anybody will actually calculate a Kardashian Index or not is hard to say, but my argument is that this actually unimportant; the real point of it is to examine celebrity status, by comparing achievements against popularity. I think many powerful arguments are given through humour, off the top of my head Russell's teapot come to mind. He didn't expect anyone to actually look for a teapot, but it was the serious message behind a seemingly humorous assertion that was the point.
 * Anyway I probably won't take part any more in more debating on this topic, I think I've probably said all I've wanted to. People joining in should probably read some of the comments made before forming an opinion. "If the article is kept, it should focus on the resultant debate rather than merely explain the (satirical) maths." maybe I will do that if the article is kept. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak neutral &mdash; Yes, weak neutral, whatever that means. :P I say this because there are many valid points raised above on both sides... well, except the scientific use clearly fails WP:N (the scholar hits are simply not actually there in number). That said, the news of it being science might pass WP:N, but, then again, the news of it being science might fail WP:NOT... but then again, a scientific concept wouldn't exactly be "news" in the sense that NOT#NEWS is usually applied. I noticed things like, which don't just parrot the news, but also then say "oh, here's a top list we made." There's clearly buzz on blogs of actual scientists (which can semi-sorta be considered reliable as field-specific expert analysis), but realistically blogs as a general whole aren't considered actually truly reliable sources.  As a whole, it doesn't seem to garner the actual widespread coverage we typically have for WP:N, but then again, it's probably predominantly interesting to the scientists themselves and not the public at large. Hmm.  -- slakr  \ talk / 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, the issue with the "mass of sources on the Internet" is that they pretty much all amount to "hey, look at this amusing paper!" Perhaps if this metric is put into actual use in the real world it could become notable, but we're plainly not there yet.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 4 October 2014 (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.