Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Franklin


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Karen Franklin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of meeting GNG or meeting WP:PROF despite searches, long-standing tags, or talkpage calls for evidence of notability. Barcaboy2 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete (from nominator). The page is really just a repeat of Franklin's websites about herself.  I searched, but couldn't find any evidence of notability (except for a single article which said things she's said were wrong).  There was discussion on the talkpage, but no one presented evidence of notability.  The page has been tagged, didn't yield any other sources either.  I prod'ed the article, and no sources came forth from that either.  After the 7-day period, however, BearIan deleted the PROD and said it should be brought here instead. Barcaboy2 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Franklin has written that", "She wrote that", "One of Franklin's arguments against..." almost all with refs to her writings, well the last one to a Blanchard. I tend to believe that Barcaboy2 is right. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Some of the calimed references to her work may actually be citing her work, but they do not ever name her as their source. She is not getting the notice to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Don't think the nominator or other evaluators did any serious homework here, although in their defense, the previous article (now fixed) was largely based on WP:PRIMARY sources such as KF's own website, plus linking to her specific papers, which is ill-advised in WP:BLP-type articles, discussing her work (sourcing it to Franklin's own research -- which is really WP:OR. Now the article is better. She was quoted in the NY Times, described in Psychology Today as an expert, was interviewed at length on All Things Considered, described as an award winning researcher in The Guardian, was interviewed on Frontline, to name a few sources. Plus she won three prestigious awards in her field. Strong keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am a bit concerned by Tomwsulcer’s comments above and changes to the Karen Franklin page.
 * First, I will thank him not to declare that I (and everyone but himself) failed to do anything. Whatever point can be made on its own merits without insulting everyone who disagrees.
 * Second, the changes Tomwsulcer made to the page seem to wildly misrepresent the content of the sources. For example, the source I myself added about Franklin (before realizing that that was all there was) said:
 * In The Errors of Karen Franklin's Pretextuality, published in the same journal, paraphilia expert James Cantor responded, “Franklin’s claims that hebephilia is not widely recognized—or not widely investigated, or not widely cited—are simply a series of easily revealed falsehoods about the state of the peer-reviewed literature.” He provided lists of counter-evidence to Franklin’s assertions, saying her article was “A series of easily falsified mischaracterizations of the content and status of the science of hebephilia, a series of vague insinuations unrelated to the findings, and a misrepresentation of the operation of the masked peer review system, serving to evoke rhetorical sympathy from any readers unaware of how such systems operate”. According to the journal’s editor, Franklin was invited to submit a rebuttal, but declined.
 * Tomwsulcer deleted that content and instead uses that source to say that Franklin “researches hebephilia” even though the source actually says she's entirely wrong about it. (!) Similarly, Tomwsulcer retained the very fancy sounding name of awards, but removed that they are from state/local organizations (not “national or international level” as required by the professor test) or activist organizations (not a “scholarly society or association” as required by the professor test). Etc.
 * So, I have to come back to re-asking the question that started me on all this on that article’s talkpage: What exactly passes the professor test? I agree entirely with including whatever relevant information on whatever relevant pages, but none of the sources containing quotes from Franklin are actually about Franklin...except for the sources that showed what Franklin has said was wrong! Barcaboy2 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well the earlier article was problematic, as you rightly noted, with "references" to KF's own website, to her publications, and other dubious additions. True, there was a dispute about hebephilia between Franklin and another expert, but from my experience, Wikipedia is often best served by not getting into debates about whether Franklin's or Cantor's view is correct (since we're unqualified really to do this) which is why I trimmed it; however, that said, if you would like to restore the reference about Franklin's thesis being questioned as being wrong, I think that would be fine provided we don't get entangled in choosing one or the other as per WP:NEUTRAL (since we really can't know this). I think the article is best being short, and sticking to the subject, which is KF -- who is she, is she notable, why, and so forth, which is why I made what I consider to be improvements as per WP:HEYMANN. About notability: when a nationally syndicated show such as the critically acclaimed Frontline selects Franklin as an expert on anti-gay hate crimes and posts an in-depth interview with Franklin here, this and other nontrivial in-depth sources, plus the awards, meet the general notability guideline. Franklin's notability is not bound by the more restrictive professor test, but even then, some of her research articles have been widely cited, such as this one and this one, so my sense is she passes the professor test too. The comment none of the sources containing quotes from Franklin are actually about Franklin (in post, above) I do not understand; all the references are about Franklin's work as an expert, forensic psychologist, which clearly meets the GNG. As everybody knows, we're not deleting a specific article, but the issue is whether the subject of the article is notable, and clearly in this case, it is, and it seemed to me that the previous "delete" votes were not based on any independent research, but were reactions to the earlier sloppy article, and it does not seem fair to me to delete a subject because of past problems with the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Before showing the mistakes in Tom's individual premises, I need to make sure I am correctly understanding his over-arching mistake:
 * (1) The Franklin page (as Tom has re-written it), consists of six sentences. Every single one of them refers to research or university teaching (“Franklin is an American researcher…”, “Her published research examined…”, “She researches issues such as…”, and so on).
 * (2) WP:PROF is for “someone engaged in scholarly research" and “being known for such engagement”.
 * But WP:PROF is not the relevant guideline, according to Tom?
 * I certainly appreciate that one can still be notable for non-academic achievements, but what non-academic achievement(s) are those? Every achievement cited is research-based, and none meets the threshold for research achievements.
 * If PROF were just a higher level of GNG, as Tom is interpreting it, then PROF would have no purpose at all: Everyone meeting PROF would already be meeting GNG. What am I missing? Barcaboy2 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Check out the guidelines:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

- Source: see nutshell WP:ACADEMIC


 * "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines."

- Source:see paragraph five of WP:ACADEMIC


 * Franklin meets the WP:GNG and WP:BIO so whether or not she meets WP:ACADEMIC is irrelevant, even though I think she meets that one in addition because her research is widely cited. That she is notable for research, as well as being an expert in the field of forensic psychology, does not bind her into an academic-only prof test that must be met, since she passes the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Really?  More with the condescension?  I did indeed ‘check out the guidelines’.  I’m simply pointing out that your interpretation of them is illogical.  (As I said, your interpretation of PROF would make PROF entirely unnecessary.)
 * 2. BIO and GNG would render Franklin notable “if he or she has received significant coverage”. However, the sources (other Franklin’s own websites) provide only very tangential mention.  For example, the NYTimes article was entirely about Matthew Sheppard and homophobia on college campuses.  The (only very passing) mention of Franklin was: “homophobia was not restricted to college towns in the Rocky Mountain West,” followed by four examples, one of which was a survey by Franklin, described in these 58 words:
 * In a separate study of nearly 500 community college students in the San Francisco area, 32 percent of male respondents said they had verbally threatened homosexuals and 18 percent said they had physically threatened or assaulted them. The study was conducted this year by Karen Franklin, a forensic psychologist who is a researcher at the University of Washington.
 * Not what one would meaningfully call “significant coverage” of Franklin herself. From GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail.”  The 12 words “a forensic psychologist who is a researcher at the University of Washington” can hardly be said to fit any reasonable interpretation of “in detail.”
 * Indeed, two of the other three surveys described in the NYTimes article were conducted by the college students themselves (never named), showing also that the relevant achievement (a survey no more complicated than what undergraduates could produce) is not evidence of being “influential in the world of ideas”. The NYTimes article would still have been entirely complete had it provided only three examples or if it opted not to name Franklin at all. Barcaboy2 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , if you put this article up for deletion, expect to be challenged. It is the adversarial process. It is how Wikipedia works. Others may criticize your choice and your take on the rules. Don't take it personally (eg "condescending"). Part of the rough-and-tumble here at Wikipedia. The encyclopedia improves when we all verbally wrestle about this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That the New York Times considers Franklin an expert on this topic helps confirm notability, but many other sources point to her expertise, such as this one, and when Frontline considers her enough of an expert that it devotes an entire interview broadcast nationally. What's interesting is not Franklin herself in the same way that Obama (for most of us) is not interesting in himself, but what is notable is her views, what she says, what she does, that sort of thing. Main thing: she's an expert on anti-gay violence and related subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete. GS h-index of 9 not yet up to scratch for WP:Prof in well cited area. Not widely cited. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment: Regarding whether or not hebephilia is widely recognized or is a psychopathological matter (issues addressed in the Hebephilia article), one source in which Cantor is credited states, "The term hebephilia has been proposed to denote the erotic preference for pubescent children (roughly, ages 11 or 12–14), but it has not become widely used" and "hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on pubescents, has not come into widespread use, even among professionals who work with sex offenders, and may have been confused with the term ephebophilia, which denotes men who prefer adolescents around 15–19 years of age... ...few would want to label erotic interest in late&mdash;or even mid&mdash;adolescents as a psychopathology, so the term hebephilia may have been ignored along with ephebophilia." So I take it that this is what Franklin means by stating "hebephilia is not widely recognized—or not widely investigated, or not widely cited." I've worked with James Cantor on Wikipedia, and, years ago, he provided me with the "hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on pubescents, has not come into widespread use" quote, so I don't entirely understand his rebuttal to Franklin on the widespread use matter, except that it seems that he feels that hebephilia has been recognized in medical literature for many years...usually without the term hebephilia being used. I'm not sure, going by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, about how to vote on whether or not to keep the Karen Franklin Wikipedia article. I rarely vote "delete" anyway. But I do know that Cantor and Franklin are not fond of each other's views and that Cantor has a WP:Conflict of interest regarding her, which is perhaps why he has not yet weighed in on this deletion debate, other than being busy with non-Wikipedia matters. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Flyer is correct: I am in a real-world conflict of interest on this one, so the decision would be better made without me. That said, I am a bit surprised that my response and correction of Franklin's factual errors are being proposed by Tomwsulcer as support for her notability.  I wrote the article because it was appropriate for me to defend myself against her claims, not because I thought her ideas were significant in and of themselves.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mr. Cantor, but indeed you felt Franklin's views were "significant in and of themselves" since you felt obliged to refute them in a journal article which names Franklin in the article title. If Franklin was not notable, or her views were unworthy, then you would have ignored them. You would have written nothing. Wikipedians such as myself are not qualified to establish whether your views or Franklin's are right. Still, your refutation of Franklin's views helps confirm notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. If anyone is interested, I am happy to address the errors in Sulcer's thinking (and psychic abilities) on my talkpage; but, as I said, the deletion discussion itself is better had without me.— James Cantor (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I removed the Prod because of my concerns that the article's deletion without debate would be highly controversial. Why would somebody write an article, which would only publicize the subject's views? In any case, this might be a TOOSOON situation. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is centered around academic accomplishments but the citation record is a bit slim for WP:PROF. We have no evidence of passing other criteria of WP:PROF, nor sufficiently in-depth mainstream media about the subject that would pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 31 July 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.