Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. LaCour


 * 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 Speedy move to article title. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Michael J. LaCour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the author of a retracted paper he doesn't pass WP:PROF, as someone known only for this one event he doesn't pass WP:BIO1E, and as someone known mostly for an incident of academic dishonesty he doesn't pass WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete : a WP:PSEUDO-biography that falls in conflict with WP:BLP1E --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC) !vote switched to keep-under-new-title, see below. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per BLP1E. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E. The single controversial study is currently in the news, and may be discussed or not in relevant Wikipedia articles if appropriate per WP:DUEWEIGHT, but the author need not be red-linked, nor does he yet merit a pseudo-biography. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The LaCour page should stay up. LaCour received widespread news coverage for the original study, and then for the retraction. The two are separate events.173.69.37.234 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Does deletion help? People are interested to know about Michael LaCour (over 1000 page views in the first three days after its creation). Wikipedia can provide a useful biography. Potential, not just current state. -- Jtneill - Talk 08:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect incident has generated enough interest to pass WP:GNG. I would  suggest moving it to an article about the paper, rather than the author, unless coverage shifts focus from the incident to the man.  Incident is a big deal, coverage is ongoing, article needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect to an article on the article is a good idea, and fits in with WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Context is important: scientific fraud is part of the permanent record and, like other cases, has now been documented extensively. It is crucial to note that there is substantial precedent on keeping pages like this, e.g. Jan Hendrik Schön, Haruko Obokata, etc. Note that in some cases (like the former) there is a redirect, while in others (like the latter), we retained the article on the person. At any rate, it is clear that article must not be deleted. Agricola44 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Super speedy move - this article is not acceptable as a WP:BLP, wholly WP:UNDUE. This is what is called a "pseudobiography" - writing about a scandal and titling it with the person's name. The only thing about him is the first sentence. Move to When Contact Changes Minds. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * seconding User:Wikimandia proposal of a Super speedy move And I think the fact that this faked study is on the front page of this morning's NYTimes  has moved this past consideration of whether or not to keep the contents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this will be discussed for some time because of the various lapses that let it happen have to be addressed.  —Мандичка YO 😜 15:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, are we proposing moving it to When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality, or some shorter title?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think just the first four words, and probably capitalized (When Contact Changes Minds) because it's a title. Should we just be bold and do it, or ask an admin to review this AfD and consider speedy move? —Мандичка YO 😜 16:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, that given the intensity of news coverage, it is better for WP to have an article under the article name (searches on his name will redirect), and time, therefore, to Be Bold and Move it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precedent is again important here. We often use author name followed by "scandal", e.g. as in the Schön scandal from a few years back. Few people will be searching based on an esoteric, difficult-to-remember title. Many more will search using the author's last name. "LaCour Scandal" might be best. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC).
 * OK, I was bold and did it! Do you think the title is too long? It's best to avoid sensationalized titles like scandal. The journal retracted it, which is major, but it hasn't been proven that the author was a total fraud or he used his grant funds on strippers etc.   —Мандичка YO 😜 16:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think that strippers must be involved for something to be a scandal, then you don't understand the way science works. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC).
 * By the way I wouldn't be adverse to another title. It will be appropriate to have this one redirect. But the main thing now fleshing out the article because it's really stubby. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that the article has been moved, can we close the AfD? It was about the pseudo-biography of LaCour, not about the retracted publication, and so is now moot. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in new position, although I would argue change of title to just the first four words, rather than including the subtitle. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. It sounds like this AfD can be closed and discussion can move to the talk page. The title, as it stands, is way too long. Moreover, it does not serve any purpose, since users will not be searching in this context. Begging to correct Мандичка, it is a scandal, although we do not have to use that word specifically. (Must we then change Schön scandal?) Something like "LaCour Incident", "Retracted LaCour Study", or some such would be fine too. It should contain his name, since that's how most people will be searching. Otherwise, we'll have to set up lots of redirects. Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC).
 * Agree with Nom hat it's time to close this and continue talking about a name at new talk page. Perhaps: Retracted gay marriage study. More specific than "incident", plus I see more headlines, hear more conversations referring to it as the "gay marriage"  study than as the "LaCour study".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll close AfD. We can continue discussion about title on talk page. "Retracted LaCour study" isn't bad., even though it's a scandal, the guidelines for titling events (WP:NCEVENTS) recommends the titles be as neutral as possible, to avoid subjective words like scandal, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe etc. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:03, 1 June 2015 (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.