Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Barkley, Ph.D.


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE, noting that the copyvio issue really takes precedence here but that the bulk of the deleters don't actually rely upon it. -Splash talk 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Russell Barkley, Ph.D.
A vanity page created by. Non notable, self-promotion Ragib 02:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I am withdrawing my initial nomination, and have created a non-copyvio version of the biography at Russell Barkley, Ph.D./Temp, with proper references. Thanks. --Ragib 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: NN/Vanity, as per WP:CSD A7. --Ragib 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: After listing here, I found out that the initial article is a copyvio from here. --Ragib 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, I change my vote to  weak delete Keep. However, the copyvio issue stands. --Ragib 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC) (changed my vote again following further check --Ragib 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

color="#0000FF">The KMan ''']]talk 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the subject is notable, but all the content appears to be a potential copyright violation.&#160;— [[User:TheKMan|'''<font
 * Comment -- the copy-vio tag now denies access to the text :: it is therefore impossible at this time for any serious consideration to be given to the worth of whatever text was there. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out the history of the page and hit "Compare selected versions" to see the diff. --Ragib 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats actually my view on this process anyhow: the copyvio outweighs the afd. The article would have to be rewritten to avoid the stain of copyvio, and for all we know might indeed assert notability per WP:BIO.  Once the copyvio is over, this afd can take place if any article still exists. --Syrthiss 17:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:VAIN - an article on Russell Barkley in extremely glowing terms by User:barkleyr - could there possibly be any relationship between the creating user and the subject, one wonders? And would anyone like to guess which "internationally recognized authority on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" this user has now added to the external links and references section of the article on ADHD? If it gets kept please remember to include a link to sick bag until it gets rewritten with a scythe. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this, and all, vanity bios. Ifnord 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Nuke as Ifnord says. Why are people stupid enough to use their name as their username and then write an article about their pathetic existences? Dan 19:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if it was written in neutral terms by a third party and with references, we might well vote keep, but since I for one can't be bothered to do his janitorial work for him I say nuke what is here and wait for a better one to be created. It is not, as has been said before, as if we need to kep an article's seat warm for it. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. rodii 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 23:36, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity"...no offense, Barkley.
 * Comment As both the author and subject of this biographical sketch, there was no intent to deceive anyone in its submission, as one commentator insinuates above.  This is the sketch that appears on my own website and in my books.  And it is hardly "stupid" to submit such a sketch by oneself provided the statements are factual and verifiable.  Isn't that the transparency you want in such matters?  Should one use a disguised name as the comment above suggests?  That would be the height of stupidity and also unethical would it not?  It may be on WebMD because I wrote it and they asked my permission to use it with reference to articles I assisted them with about ADHD any myself.  All statements in the biographical sketch are statements of fact and readily verifiable.  Submission of a curriculum vitae can be provided to provide verification, unless you are implying that I have fabricated my vita.  Remove the entry if you wish, but entering my name into Google results in more than 80,000 hits.  Should not Wikipedia have at least some entry?  Kindly tell me, despite all hyperbole, what statements in the sketch are not statements of fact.  My education?  My professional positions?  My 200 pubications?  My more than 20 books?  My professional awards?  My TV and other appearances?  Your snide comments aside, make your case with specifics.  Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkleyr (talk • contribs)
 * Prof. Barkley (assuming it is you), after doing a google search, I have no doubt on your notability (I changed my position after initially thinking the article as a hoax). An article on you is definitely possible. However, the article you created was directly copied from WebMD, and there was no clear proof of the copyright permission from WebMD. The page where it was taken from shows a copyright notice from WebMD and that all rights are reserved. It is not possible for wikipedia to use such copyrighted material, without WebMDs permission to release it under GFDL. As for your question of creating the entry, it is common for people to become suspicious when someone creates an entry for them. Wikipedias official guidelines discourage people from writing about themselves. See Autobiography. Also, I'm quoting from Biographies_of_living_persons:
 * You should not write about yourself, since objectivity on the subject is hard — but you can assist by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors. The appropriate place for such communication is the talk page of the article concerned. Although you might want to draw attention to any concerns by leaving a brief note on the talk pages of particular editors, lengthy discussions anywhere else than the article talk page will likely go un-noticed.
 * Also, Autobiography states that
 * Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged. If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation both of significance and of verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. ''


 * If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles).


 * Similar principles apply to articles about works that you are primarily responsible for &mdash; the company you run, the website you started, the book you wrote; any possible conflict of interest. Use common sense.


 * Note that anything you submit can be edited by others. Several autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic.


 * So, you are welcome to correct the articles facts, but getting involved in writing about yourself is not considered a good thing. I have looked into your research and other notable activities, and definitely someone will write about you (I'd love to start writing one). Your edits in ADHD related articles are also very welcome, considering your experience. So, don't let the AfD become a big issue, this is about the original article, not about you as a person. The original article was a copyvio, so a non-copyvio article will definitely be created. Thanks. --Ragib 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply Thanks, Ragib.  I am the Russell Barkley in the bio. that was submitted.  Your information is helpful in understanding this decision.  I had not read the specific requirements under Autobiography and therefore would have understood this issue better.  I appreciate your thoughtful and courteous response and the details on which it is based rather than the earlier sarcasm that seemed to permeate other comments.  And I would not want copyright to be violated even though I am the author of the WebMD bio. sketch as well.  Let's just withdraw the submission.  By the way, self-promotion was not the issue (I am nearly retired now so that is of less consequence to me).  Instead, I had read of the misrepresented bio sketch at Wikipedia for Siegenthaler and how it had been altered erroneously about him by others (as a joke, no less).  I have my own critics, as you are no doubt aware if you searched the web about me, including Scientologists so the bio I submitted was more as a pre-emptive effort to place correct information before the public.   I will continue to update your ADHD entries as time permits in hopes of giving them more accuracy and balance.  The initial entry I read was a bit lopsided around supporting nutritional solutions for ADHD, which are not well-supported, and was rather naive about the recent findings concerning neuro-imaging and genetics.  Thanks again for your reply.  Russ Barkley, Ph.D.
 * keep. all it needs is a fix in the title and a major copyedit. google shows that russell barkley is a controversial figure in the world of ADHD. he's been interviewed by Frontline and he's written books on the subject. i see no reason why an article shouldn't exist about him. Kingturtle 06:16, 8 January 2006 (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.