Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Warne


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Russell Warne

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A blogger and associate professor at Utah Valley University. I wasn't able to find much independent, secondary coverage (so fails WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR, and none of his professional accomplishments satisfy WP:PROF). This article was recently created and appears to be largely promotional. Note that, though there are quite a few references, the vast majority are primary sources / author bios, etc. After searching for a while, I was unable to find additional secondary sources beyond the four which were included in the article up until a few days ago (when two were removed).

The two sources that currently remain are this piece in New Scientist and this brief interview on the blog portion of Psychology Today  (note that Psychology Today is listed on WP:CITEWATCH, which directs us to the external site Quackwatch.org, where it is listed as "fundamentally flawed").

One that was removed appears to be a solid source, Research Digest, which discusses a paper co-authored by Warne (it was removed for not mentioning the fact it was used to cite, but could hypothetically be re-added):.

The other is a piece by disgraced former academic Noah Carl on The Critic. Whether this source is reliable and independent is questionable (I recently raised the question of whether it can be used to establish notability for Warne on RSN and there does not appear to be anyone arguing that it can). Carl and Warne are both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians who argue that there is a genetic basis for observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups (if you're skeptical that this view is fringe, see this recent RfC), but I am unaware of any specific evidence that they are personally close. It's also worth noting that Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes".

Happy to discuss these issues here, but by my reckoning only the New Scientist and Research Digest pieces are truly reliable and independent, and taken together they do not establish notability for this person per WP:GNG or any other criteria. Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, helpful Bot (and its creator)! I was expanding my statement above first, but I appreciate you doing that for me. Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete - I tagged the article for notability, but I was wondering if his assorted journal editorships might swing it, and if there were sources of notability tipping him over the line for WP:NPROF, but none of these are "the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." For WP:GNG, a quick WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage. I concur that a review from Noah Carl, a fringe pseudoscientist in The Critic, a questionably-notable magazine that's funded as culture war astroturf (the editor said explicitly in an interview that that's why the billionaire funded it!) is WP:UNDUE The only other review of his book was in Intelligence, which he's an editor at. He wrote a piece for Deseret News suggesting more COVID testing. If there's anything else about him that would pass a notability criterion, I'm willing to be convinced, but I couldn't find it - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per David Gerard. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep. Psychology Today interviewed him and there are some other Google news hits so he's covered by at least one secondary source and is prominent enough to be asked to provide his opinion by the media. Alaexis¿question? 21:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the RSes you found? 'Cos I didn't find any - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've provided the link to Psychology Today, I'm not aware of any concerns regarding its reliability. His research was reported on by the New Scientist and cited by the Center for American Progress . Alaexis¿question? 05:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Warne doesn't meet any of the 8 criteria in WP:PROF. His achievements seem more or less routine for an associate professor at a third-tier university and have not attracted significant coverage from reliable 3rd-party sources. NightHeron (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Being cited and even quoted occasionally is part of a typical academic's job, not a sign of exceptional achievement. The BPS Research Digest item is a blurb summarizing a then-unpublished preprint, not an instance of in-depth journalism that took the serious effort of getting outside evaluations from other researchers. (Rule of thumb: if it doesn't quote somebody "not involved in the study", it might as well be a press release.) It looks like the only viable reference is the New Scientist story, and one source isn't enough. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete. He may not technically meet the eight criteria. "Criterion 1: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" The APA's top articles "https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/12/top-journal-articles" are based on downloads, not citations- therefore may not be important "Criterion 1: Service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals" The journals he's on the board for may not be prestigious enough "Criterion 2: For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source." The international awards he has won are probably not prestigious enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaverett0 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, definitely fails WP:NACADEMIC - none of the sources (even the weaker or more dubious ones) remotely support the idea that he has had significant impact. --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2021 (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.