Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Cofnas


 * 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. Numerous issues with establishing the notability of this individual were not adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 07:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Cofnas
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject falls well below WP's threshold of academic notability; mainly known for single event (controversy over Philosophical Psychology article); the other ostensibly notable event (debate with MacDonald) is not discussed in any secondary source other than the website undark.org; subject's book being reviewed once does not render him "known for" it; article appears to be largely promotional (formerly listed personal website / twitter account / degree not yet conferred). Generalrelative (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Per Sesquivalent's suggestion below, I am offering my closing comments here.


 * In reply to Mr Butterbur's points:


 * 1) In the instances Mr Butterbur cites, Quillette is acting as a primary source by reporting on its own activities. To be considered WP:SECONDARY (and thus confer notability) a source should be "at least one step removed from an event". And per WP:GUNREL, WP should never use a Generally Unreliable source like Quillette for such information on a living person. I will also note that the policy text which Mr Butterbur quotes is not actually from the policy in question. WP:GUNREL itself is crystal clear. Quillette cannot be used to establish notability.


 * 2) The Cofnas/MacDonald debate was not covered by the Genetic Literacy Project. Parts of it were published there. As mentioned in my reply below to Lmtrilling, a primary source from a party to the debate cannot be used to establish notability (per WP:BASIC). Whether GLP itself is reliable is a separate question. But as mentioned on that article's Talk page regarding this AfD by "merely publishing two pieces by Nathan Cofnas and a rebuttal does not constitute significant coverage of Nathan Cofnas".


 * 3) While I have no grounds to suspect Tablet of being unreliable, it does seem pretty obscure (same goes for Undark.org by the way). But more to the point, the interview Mr Butterbur cites only mentions Cofnas in passing. This does not seem to me to qualify as "significant coverage" per WP:BASIC nor "beyond the context of a single event" per WP:NOTNEWS.


 * In reply to IP 2604…: No, Pinker criticizing Dutton's argument does not equate to supporting Cofnas's paper. Undark.org, the source for that statement, doesn't even suggest that Pinker has read Cofnas's paper.


 * So, in sum: Subject clearly fails WP:PROF, has only received coverage in multiple reliable sources in connection with one event (WP:BLP1E), and is therefore not notable.


 * Finally, as a procedural point per WP:DISCUSSAFD, I'll just note that of all the Keep votes, only two are from editors with any track record prior to this AfD (the article's creator, Ali Pirhayati, and to a far lesser extent Mr Butterbur). Lmtrilling was created the day they began contributing to this discussion, and both GCicero187's and IP 2604…'s contributions to this AfD are their only edits to date. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Furthermore, the person's book has been withdrawn by the author himself, as stated on his personal website . "In 2012 the Ulster Institute published a book I wrote when I was an undergraduate. A couple months later I asked them to withdraw it from publication. They agreed to do so, and gave up their claims to the copyright. That is my connection to the Ulster Institute." FlybellFly (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not even close to being a notable academic or writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage by reliable independent sources. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Yes but with regard to one event. See WP:BLP1E. Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It may also be worth noting that none of these sources describe Cofnas in any more detail than that he is a "Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at the University of Oxford" or something precisely equivalent. They all focus squarely on the controversy at hand and its immediate effects. And neither the controversy nor its effects (i.e. someone who is himself non-notable resigning from an editorial board) have the kind of significance that would satisfy an exception to WP:BLP1E. Generalrelative (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually think there's a better argument to be made for Cees van Leeuwen passing WP:PROF than for Cofnas doing so. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The list of people with better arguments for WP:PROF is vast. Generalrelative (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Far from meeting WP:PROF, and only independently covered in connection with flashes-in-the-pan. It is very rare that we devote biographies to academics who have essentially written two things, and this does not seem to warrant an exception to that general standard. (We don't base academic notability judgments upon download counts.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Cofnas is notable as a commentator in two areas: Jewish conspiracy theories and the race-and-intelligence debate. The two papers/controversies discussed in the article have both received significant (and ongoing) coverage in multiple, reliable independent sources. This satisfies the criteria for notability. Lmtrilling (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC) — Lmtrilling (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply: This is incorrect. The debate over Jewish conspiracy theories has not been discussed in any [edit: multiple] reliable sources. See Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for consensus that Quillette "is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight." Undark.org is, as far as I can tell, too obscure to have ever warranted consideration. Generalrelative (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, I see nothing to indicate that either of these controversies is receiving "ongoing" coverage (outside of this AfD of course). Generalrelative (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. It mentions JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) as a reliable source but not Nature or Science, which are arguably even more authoritative sources. According to Wikipedia, Undark Magazine "is published under the auspices of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...Many large national and international publications, including Scientific American,[7] The Atlantic,[8] Smithsonian,[9] NPR,[10] and Outside [11] have republishing relationships with Undark". Clearly, Undark is a reliable source. The guidelines say that Quillette is "generally unreliable for facts" and "Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight". That suggests that extra caution should be used when relying on Quillette as a source, but it doesn't mean it's never reliable and can never be cited (it's neither "deprecated" nor "blacklisted"). In this case, Quillette is reporting an uncontroversial matter of fact. Lmtrilling (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thanks You appear to be correct with regard to Undark.org. With regard to Quillette on the other hand, the issue is not only whether the facts are true but also whether they should be considered significant. Generalrelative (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note too this policy at WP:GUNREL: "Generally unreliable" sources (such as Quillette) "should never be used for information about a living person." That sounds pretty black and white to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: cc Generalrelative The Quillette reference isn't to support information about a living person (Cofnas), but to support the fact that Jordan Peterson faced a "backlash from the anti-Semitic mob" after he promoted the paper. Quillette isn't a blacklisted source, and there is no reason to think it is unreliable with respect to this specific, politically neutral claim. Unless there is a reason for deleting the statement about Peterson, it should be restored. Lmtrilling (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: I can't wrap my head around your reasoning here. Jordan Peterson is a living person. Whether "backlash from the anti-Semitic mob" is a transparently politically neutral claim is a separate question which WP:GUNREL saves us from having to litigate. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Question for Without implying bad faith, I'd like to ask if you have a personal connection to the subject of this article. I see that you created your Wikipedia account within the past 24 hours. Please understand that I recognize this could be a coincidence, or you may have been a longtime IP contributor, and that I'm willing to take your word for it. Generalrelative (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply to Generalrelative I don't see what basis you have for asking this. I started making contributions to bios of people I'm familiar with, and I saw this one was nominated for deletion, so I'm commenting. But I don't understand your position. You previously wrote that "The debate over Jewish conspiracy theories has not been discussed in any reliable sources". Now you agree that (at least) Undark is a reliable source, but you didn't moderate your position at all, and you're suggesting a very questionable interpretation of Wikipedia policy to justify taking out a reference to a notable fact. You also didn't mention the reference to the Genetic Literacy Project, which is definitely a reliable source that's independent from the subject, so should count toward notability. I agree with most of your edits to the article, but you seem to have a strong nonneutral point of view. Lmtrilling (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply Regardless of whether I have a basis for asking the question, I'll note that you haven't answered it. Generalrelative (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to the Genetic Literacy Project I thank you for drawing my attention to a WP article suffering from severe WP:BALANCE (and possible WP:COI) issues. See the extensive evidence for bias here: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project See also: https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/ And of course the fact that they would publish MacDonald, a well known promoter of anti-Semitic pseudoscience, is a clue that they are emphatically not what they claim to be. In reply to your points: 1) a primary source from a party to the debate (i.e. MacDonald's response) is emphatically neither independent nor reliable, regardless of the reliability of the Genetic Literacy Project. 2) With regard to WP:GUNREL, I can't imagine how the words "should never be used for information about a living person" leave any room for interpretation. 3) I did strike out the word "any" above and replaced it with the word "multiple" once you pointed me to evidence for Undark.org's reliability, and I thank you again for that. I do concede that the controversy over Cofnas' debate with MacDonald was covered in one reliable source. It's a sad irony that that article, meant to decry the promotion of racial pseudoscience, may have in fact served to raise its profile further on Wikipedia. 4) With regard to the previous point and also to your allegation that I display a POV: I think it's likely that proponents of fringe views use in-house "debates" such as the Cofnas-MacDonald exchange as a strategy to drum up publicity, and indeed, to gain visibility on Wikipedia. But of course in this discussion all I can consider is the verifiable evidence, which I've tried to present as clearly as possible. Generalrelative (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Cofnas is notable for the debate with MacDonald and the controversy with Philosophical Psychology, both of which received coverage in multiple reliable sources. The original version of the article incorrectly said that Cofnas was also known for a retracted book, but this has been fixed. Mr Butterbur (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply What is the second reliable source on the debate with MacDonald? I acknowledge Undark.org but as mentioned above, Quillette "should never be used for information about a living person" per WP:GUNREL.
 * Reply I’m not sure I agree with how you interpret the prohibition against using Quillette for "information about a living person". Sources like Quillette shouldn't be used for "quotations and any material" about a living person that's "challenged or likely to be challenged". As far as I'm aware, this doesn't mean they can't be used as a source for the fact that some event happened (assuming it isn't something that would be challenged). Quillette is cited in this way in other Wikipedia biographies of living persons. For example, Debra W. Soh’s bio cites two Quillette articles, while the bios for Jonathan Kay and Coleman Hughes both include references to Quillette to establish their positions there. The Wikipedia community seems to accept that references to Quillette can be appropriate in biographies of living persons as a source for information that wouldn't be challenged. The Cofnas/MacDonald debate was also covered in the Genetic Literacy Project, which should be considered a "reliable source". GLP has been criticized, but every mainstream outlet has been criticized by someone. Its founder, Jon Entine, is a respected science journalist associated with the University of California, Davis.  says the fact that GLP published an article by MacDonald implies that it's not a reliable source, but MacDonald published a letter in the Wall Street Journal in 2018, and he has published in other outlets that are considered reliable. A Google search shows that Cofnas's debate was also mentioned two and a half weeks ago in Tablet, which is another reliable source. Mr Butterbur (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Procedural Comment.  AfDs are not a forum for the nominator to WALLOFTEXT, SEALION and BLUDGEON into submission everyone who disagrees, particularly on articles that directly (e.g. race and intelligence) or indirectly (this one) are related to divisive controversies.  This should be written into WP policy for AfDs, RfCs and other !vote processes. If the question isn't clear or the discussion doesn't always go the way you want, stay mostly out of it anyway. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarifications and additional reasons by nominator can always be added as replies to their own material at top of post. Problem is not posting it after the nom, but shouting down others. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply to Fair enough! While I don't see my behavior as WALLOFTEXTing, SEALIONing or BLUDGEONing, upon reflection I can see how some reasonable observers might. I'll hang back and possibly reply to any outstanding comments beneath my original post before this thing closes. Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. As I wrote above, I think all such concerns can be satisfied by just moving post-nom comments under the original post, maybe shortening them to the extent reasonable. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The argument that Cofnas is a notable academic is very weak. The only evidence given for his notability is two articles he wrote that attracted attention in large part because of their low quality. The first was (according to Steven Pinker) a poorly argued a partial [added later] critique of MacDonald, and the second was a defense of fringe views on race. The resignation of the editor of Philosophical Psychology resulted from a dispute with other editors about whether or not to publish a submission strongly criticizing the journal for publishing Cofnas' low-quality and inflammatory article. So Cofnas was only indirectly involved in that. It is unclear if the resignation of the editor is noteworthy or is just a transient event, but in either case his resignation does not establish Cofnas' enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS. NightHeron (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply Steven Pinker said MacDonald's and Dutton's arguments criticizing Cofnas were "extraordinarily weak". In other words, Pinker supported Cofnas's paper. The controversy surrounding the paper in Philosophical Psychology received coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. The resignation of the editor was part of that story. 2604:2000:F607:4800:A094:A540:AA42:80FB (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction; I've struck that from my comment. Reading the source, I see that Pinker is not quoted as saying anything about Cofnas. I also see that Cofnas' disagreement with MacDonald seems to be only about anti-semitism rather than about white supremacy. In any case, a grad student writing a partial rebuttal of an extreme fringe author such as MacDonald is not strong evidence of enduring notability. NightHeron (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Some of the editors voting for deletion are making factually incorrect statements. Cofnas is notable for his involvement in two controversies concerning MacDonald's theory of Judaism and race and intelligence. 2604:2000:F607:4800:A094:A540:AA42:80FB (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — 2604:2000:F607:4800:A094:A540:AA42:80FB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Subject is notable for the controversy over the Philosophical Psychology paper and the debate with Kevin MacDonald. Nominator says that the debate with MacDonald "is not discussed in any secondary source other than the website undark.org," but as other editors above have pointed out, this is not true. Nominator says that the "article appears to be largely promotional" because it "formerly listed personal website," but linking to a subject's official website does not necessarily mean an article is "promotional," and in any case it is not relevant to the question of subject's notability. GCicero187 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — GCicero187 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PROF. Part of the issue is WP:INHERIT. The controversy with MacDonald is more of a flash in the pan event, and it's tied more to MacDonald's WP:NFRINGE for anti-semitism. For the second controversy section, researchers generally don't gain notability for having a paper criticized, and I'm having trouble finding even a good under minimum WP:1E. I'm finding a lack of general sources about Cofnas we'd normally have for an academic to establish notability too.
 * On that note, GLP (Genetic Literacy Project) has come up above. In GMO subjects, they're typically an accurate source good for addressing pseudoscience, but only used in the WP:PARITY sense and not for notability discussion on Wikipedia. It sounds like they've gotten in the weeds into race topics originally publishing Confas' critique on MacDonald allowing MacDonald to respond, then having Confas give a final response. At the end of the day, what GLP has to say on the controversies related to Confas (or that they just hosted articles) wouldn't have any bearing on this AfD similar to if it was a GMO subject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2020 (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.