Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Cytowic


 * 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. Withdrawing... my bad. See... this is why it's good to list on AfD. :P  slakr  \ talk / 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Cytowic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability requirements for inclusion; Pulitzer prize nomination claims appears to be falsified. Publications are internal to his university, as is the alleged documentary; appears to have no significant field contributions per WP:BIO.

Also, self-promotional article (borderline G11) created using several socks, which also edited other pages on the subject to create backlinks to the biography. -- slakr \ talk / 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Comment Found mention of the subject on a site independent to it here. Most the first results to a web search give Cytowic's own site or links to his book The Man Who Tasted Shapes, which does not appear notable per WP:BK. Nosleep break my slumber 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although the article clearly has COI issues, I would argue that the subject is notable. He is the author of several books published by the MIT Press on synesthesia. As both his self-written bio article and the synesthesia article that I have substantially contributed to state, he played a critical role in helping to bring this neurological phenomenon back to popular awareness, and is widely recognized as one of the leaders in the field.  Thus, the subject of the article satisfies WP:Notability (academics) "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  As for the Pulitzer nomination, if you check carefully, the website only lists finalists and winners, not all nominees.  Thus, the failure to find the nomination listed on the website does not mean that he has falsified the fact that he was nominated; it merely means that he was not a finalist or winner, which is not claimed.  On the other hand, the article is still available online if you log in to the New York Times website here .  It is a major, nine page article, in a major newspaper magazine.  In all, multiple books published by reputable publishing house (MIT Press), a generally acknowledged foundational role in a scientific field, and other such things are all notable.  The COI issues should be dealt with separately. At a more general level, this is bad practice.  First, the editor was blocked for suspected sock-puppetry without any time for discussion, and then his bio article, to which he has been the main contributor, is nominated for deletion when he cannot even respond to the nom since he has an indef. block. Edhubbard (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should stand on its own merits, not the arguments of its creator, but it's a moot point since the block was reduced from indef to 72 hours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I  agree that the article should stand on its own merits.  This is why I've first and foremost focused on the substantive issue of notability.  I hadn't seen that the block was changed, but the main point for me is that main contributors would normally be expected to know the most about why they think the subject is notable, etc, etc, and as the main contributor is blocked we will not be getting many comments beyond mine for now.  When does the AFD close? Edhubbard (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * AfDs now run a full seven days. The sockpuppetry was blatant, and after being told about the COI guidelines, the editor proceeded to use a sockpuppet to create a second version of an article about one of his books (the first was deleted as copyvio). I believe WP:AGF has been stretched to reduce the block in this case, but had that not been done they were still able to ask for an unblock just as any other blocked editor could. What do you suggest should happen in cases where editors are legitimately blocked and unable to participate in deletion discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to allow blocked editors to edit specific pages, like project pages? I would guess that it might be, since I know that blocked editors can edit their own talk pages. In this case, it may be less of an issue, as it appears that the growing consensus is that this article should be kept, cleaned up, and edited by some non-involved editors, including your own vote to keep. Given that his block is now 72 hours, User:Cytowic will have a chance to help contribute to the discussion and to providing evidence, and so my complaint is somewhat (happily) moot. Additionally, I think that, had User:Cytowic really understood the rules and been trying to circumvent them, he simply would have signed up with a different username from the start, or simply not created an account to begin with. He edited his own bio page in plain sight, yes, but based on his comments on my talk page, I don't think he has entirely understood how wikipedia works.  I agree that WP:AGF has been generously applied here after the initial very quick block and initial AFD nomination, but perhaps a little more time before moving to these escalating to blocks and so on would have achieved similar outcomes.  Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, independent verification of the MIT Press books on the MIT Press website . The book that has had the most impact on the scientific community (as opposed to popular audience books) is Synesthesia A Union of the Senses.  Although this is an academic review for academics, Noam Sagiv (now at Brunel University) provides some context in which to evaluate Cytowic's role in the renaissance in synesthesia research in his review.


 * Strong Keep Highly notable as an author: His major books, published by first rate academic publishers like MIT Press,  are held in a great number of libraries:, Synesthesia a union of the senses  in over 1000 libraries according to WorldCat, and translated into German and Japanese, The man who tasted shapes  by almost as many & translated into German,  the more technical The neurological side of neuropsychology in over 300.  His 2009 book, Wednesday is indigo blue : discovering the brain of synesthesia  is likely to be just as important. Google News Archive shows reviews of the books in  dozens of reliable sources , including THES ,  NYTimes  , etc. etc.   Nominations like this can be avoided by following the practice recommended in WP:BEFORE, and by not making assumptions about editor behavior. Not everyone who writes their own bio articles is actually non-notable. Some are even famous. DGG (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs some cleanup, but the claims of notability and the sources provided more than justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stong keep - The subject is undoubtedly notable, the article just needs punching up. The COI issues aren't relevant in this instance. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - COI issues notwithstanding, meets notability guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (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.