Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Perry


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Mark J. Perry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been around since 2009 with only primary sources for citations. Recently has become a WP:COATRACK for poorly sourced (The Daily Caller) accusations of being a men's rights activist. v/r - TP 23:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. A GS h-index of 15 is enough to pass WP:Prof in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC).
 * WP:Prof is for a presumption of notability. If the only sources to support an article are primary sources, for a BLP, then we shouldn't have one.--v/r - TP 00:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several hundred secondary sources in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Feel free to include some of those several hundred secondary sources because right now we have 2 primary sources and a coatracked secondary source. I hate to also invoke WP:BLP here, but 1/3 of his life is not about this lounge.--v/r - TP 16:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If a couple of them could be added to the article I will change my vote to keep. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Unquestionably notable under WP:PROF. It has been explained many times the h index by itself is meaningless. First of all, the value depends on the density of publication in the field; Economists can only be compared with other economists. Second,   h=15 could mean citations of 15 papers with 15 cites each, or 14 papers with 200 cites  and one with 15. The first is not notable in most fields; the second is, in any field. In  this particular case, it's 335, 287, 114, 97, 97, 78, 68 ..... this is notable in any field, unless the two highest cites are from student work where his name was added or papers with hundreds of authors, such as are sometimes found in medicine and in physics. Neither is the case here. And, TParis, Meeting WP PRoF is sufficient for notability ; it is not a presumption, like some other SNGs, its an alternative, and it says so specifically
 * This guideline is ... explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.... if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. (WP:PROF,lede paragraph ) Thousands of AfDs have been decided in this manner. It a firm guideline, and much clearer to interpret than the GNG.
 * Of the various criteria under WP:PROF, the key one is usually being an authority in the subject. In fields dependent on journal articles, like economics is nowadays, this is shown by the citations to articles in major journals. That's how academics do it. That's how WP does it. It's one of our few guidelines that exactly match the real-wiorld consensus. The article of course needs to be rewritten to emphasise the actual notability . It should not give undue comment to his more recent remark. (if that were all there was, it would fail BLP1E) DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Xxanthippe.--v/r - TP 16:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * {{{U|TParis}}, I do not know why you are ignoring the guideline that WP:PROF just requires sources to verify the criteria given there. The sources for that are the papers and the citation record. I've added them.  DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For a better reason than you're ignoring that WP:BLPs require secondary sources and they cannot have WP:UNDUE negative weight to a person's life. If there are no secondary sources, then there is no article.--v/r - TP 20:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although he's not among the top 25% of economists in Michigan, I think his Google scholar citation counts of 335, 287, 114, ... are good enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Could someone perhaps fix the first paragraph being almost entirely a copyright violation of the about me section of his blog? 71.11.1.204 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * done. I reworded and reorganized things a little in the way I always do.  DGG ( talk ) 14:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Article does not assert notability, but WP's general principle of notability. Only secondary source is a news story about one incident.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * that is relevant to WP:GNG' it is not relevant to WP:PROF.  DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Re-opening AfD per user request; valid arguments for re-opening presented. I will abstain from further action on this AfD. -- Dane 2007  talk 03:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep good citation record proved by rs and WP:PROF is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 03:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep because he meets WP:PROF as explained quite clearly by DGG. The GNG does not apply to professors. We do not need personality profiles in general circulation magazines and newspapers, although they can be referenced if they exist. The determining factor in this case is how often his academic articles are cited by other scholars. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If any one of the keep !voters could be so kind as to also fulfill WP:V sourcing requirements as well as removing or otherwise dealing with the WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK instead of ignoring those concerns, that'd be great. WP:PROF may be an alternate to GNG but it's not an alternate to WP:V.  Articles require secondary sources.  Period dot.  BLP's doubly so.--v/r - TP 07:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: comfortably meets WP:PROF. Per DGG, this should be sufficient. Vanamonde (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He has received some coverage in the Lansing State Journal (or his lawsuit has, at any rate), which I have added to the article. It isn't much, but it adds a secondary source to each of the three points therein: his academic position, his activities as a columnist, and his lawsuit. Vanamonde (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my point. Including the lawsuit in an otherwise unreferenced article is a WP:COATRACK.  The majority of his life is not this lawsuit.  It's like everyone here is having a massive brain fart and is forgetting that BLP's must be referenced and must balance out negative information based on the weight it has according to the sources and according to this person's life.  If this person is a prominent professor that passes WP:PROF, then why is the article now 1/3 about this lawsuit?  Are you telling me that this lawsuit is as important to his life as his entire career?--v/r - TP 16:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * we need to do our best to follow WP:DUE, but I am not going to vote to delete an article just because coverage in reliable sources does not match my subjective conception of what the sections of the article should look like. This is not even a case where an individual is notable purely for something negative. He sued his employer, and became known for it; and we report it here, as we should. Not to mention that other parts of the article also now have secondary sources, added by myself and Jonpatterns; but my point is that "secondary sources do not cover what I want them to cover" is not an argument to delete in my book unless we're discussing a person known only for a single scandal or something. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * When it comes to articles of this type, WP:BLP is the priority and it requires secondary sources. I'm happy that this article meets PROF, but we absolutely do not keep articles where the majority of the sources are negative and BLP1E simply because something unrelated to the reporting makes them notable.  BLP is the priority.  If you remove the WP:COATRACK, which I am convinced none of you have bothered reading (including the ordinarily BLP champion, DGG), then there are no secondary sources.  This is outrageous that all of you want to keep an article which is effectively slander just because of some trivial policy which doesn't have a basis in WP:V.  What makes any of you think that WP:PROF supersedes WP:V and WP:BLP?  All WP:PROF mentions superseding is WP:N.  Fine, notability is there.  Sourcing is not, though, and we don't keep unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs.--v/r - TP 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which part of the article do you consider slander? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The coatrack that existed before. 1/3 of the article was about the lawsuit and linking him to the MRA (without a source).  Now that it's been sourced better, I feel better about the article existing.--v/r - TP 22:22, 18 August 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.