Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Krippner


 * 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   no consensus. The claims to notability for this topic are neither obviously decisive nor uncompelling, and there appears to be broad disagreement among participating editors here as to whether the topic ought to be retained. I don't believe this debate would benefit from further participation, so have declined to relist. Skomorokh, barbarian  16:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Non-notable academic (as per WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Few refs.  Refs fail WP:RS as all are from WP:FRINGE sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per thorough nomination, agreed, fails numerous guidelines -Drdisque (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this article it has been on wikipedia for 3 years and although Many may not agree with him he has obtained atention. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Understood but duration on wikipedia and attention are not criteria for WP:PROF. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't pass any relevant (or otherwise) notability criteria, lacks WP:RS. That it's been here 3 years means this should have been done 2.5 years ago at least. Verbal chat  19:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Krippner and WP:PROF If we look at WP:PROF we see only one area in which Krippner is borderline; item 5. Under this item if a person has held a named chair at a major educational institution they would be notable.  Now according to Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center Krippner holds a named chair.  Those in favour of his notability might point to that.  But, just a few points.


 * 1) Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center cites no in-line citation for this named chair.
 * 2)The source for the named chair is this - not a WP:RS.
 * 3) lists Krippner as executive faculty but does not list him as having a named chair.
 * 4)Saybrook Graduate School is a regionally accredited distance education facility. I think that claiming a named chair at this school stretches the definition of "  a major institution of higher education and research" to the breaking point.  I'm not knocking Saybrook, they appear to be a valid accredited school, but they aren't Oxford if you catch my drift.

Based on this I am satisfied that, after taking a sober second look this is not a notable professor. Simonm223 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites are 113, 80, 60,48, 49... with h index = 20. Looks like a clear keep unless there are issues not apparent to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment Considering that an h-index of 18 would indicate full professorship I don't see how that contributes to notability under WP:PROF not every professor is notable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of WP:GHITS is not an acceptable argument, google isn't an arbiter of truth or notability Verbal chat  19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * GS (we are not talking about WP:GHITS) is one objective measure of impact. What are WoS cites? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Inclined to delete, this looks a marginal call to me. There are surely many thousands of academics that would meet such a bar for notability. None of the sources seem very reliable, considering this is a WP:BLP. &mdash; BillC talk 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no doubt in my mind that he meets all criteria Artaxerex (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak delete. The citations aren't strong enough for me to use them in an argument for keeping, and I think Simonm223 clearly refutes the argument based on WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep he may not be a notable academic professor, im not going to address that, but he has published at least 5 books in his subject area from notable, trade book publishers, and i believe a search for book reviews in New Age, mind/body, alternative psychology magazines will show he is extremely notable in that field, as at very least a respected popularizer of the ideas he focuses on. unfortunately, it seems hard to find sufficient third party reviews for some authors, and i know that not all trade publishers books are notable, though i believe most of his are. I hope someone can find some reviews, and i will try as well. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * found a review in peer reviewed journal, Journal of Parapsychology, for a book not in article, so i added it. SUNY is a major academic publisher. honestly, why are we debating this mans notability? there are a lot of valid points here about specific criteria, but i really feel that if we look at the entire work and notability of this man, he passes easily.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The journal of parapsychology is not a WP:RS. Verbal chat  19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The deletion suggestion said that Krippner was not a notable author, although numerous publications are listed on the page itself. Also it said references are from 'fringe publications'.  'Fringe publications' is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Also, is wikipedia not allowing 'fringe' topics and people any longer?  Who gets to decide what is 'fringe'?  One man's fringe is another man's mainstream.  The fact that Krippner's page was suggested to be deleted is hard for me to understand.  Krippner is probably one of the most prolific transpersonal psychologist in terms of publications, look at his website and check out his CV if you disagree with me.  His number of publications in academic journals is enormous, if not super human (not exagerating, look at his bibliography, http://stanleykrippner.weebly.com/--complete-bibliography.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Just as an author of several books and contributor to several others via major presses such as Doubleday, Simon & Schuster, MacMillan, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam and Harper & Row, and an editor of several publications, Krippner merits an article. His work with the Kent State University Child Study Center and the Maimonides Medical Center Dream Research Laboratory, along with his decades of work with Saybrook, have established him as a major authority in the research of dream states and a growing voice in the research of entheogens and their use in tribal cultures. For these and the points mentioned above, I say keep. Rosencomet (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you do not agree with certain 'fringe' theories i do not feel it is appropriate to go around trying to delete articles that you deem to 'fringe'. This to me is wikipedia vandalism under the guise of 'law and order'.  The fact that Stanley Krippner's article is such a s STRONG KEEP leads me to believe that many with power and authority on wikipedia are using it to serve (perhaps unconscious) personal goals.  I just defies logic to me that there is apparently a group of editors on wikipedia that are out to purge the site of 'fringe' topics and people.  Wikipedia 3.0, fringe free?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC) — 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong keep. The number of published books by Krippner's is enough to merit an article, as is said above.  Also, Saybrook is not just an online university as implied above, the leading academics in the field of Transpersonal psychology are professors there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.205.146.11 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:PROF is treated above, and WP:AUTHOR is likewise not met. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I understand the author angle, the article is not written in that context. Rather, the article paints him quite clearly as an academic – necessitating WP:PROF as our yardstick. Corollary: if you want to eval him as an author, re-write the article as such. I'm afraid that as an academic, his impact does not seem to be very high. I used this WoS query: "Author (krippner s*) Refined by: Institutions=(SAYBROOK INST OR SAYBROOK GRAD SCH OR SAYBROOK GRAD SCH & RES CTR OR SAYBROOK INST GRAD SCH OR SAYBROOK INST GRAD SCH & RES CTR OR SAYBROOK INST PSYCHOL OR SAYBROOK UNIV) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI", finding 29 journal articles (plus other stuff like book reviews and abstracts) for an h-index of 6. His highest-impact article has 141 cites, but this paper has >30 authors with his name appearing about a quarter of the way through, so it would be difficult to assign a large portion of the credit to him personally. With an h of 6, the citation count obviously falls off extremely rapidly. I do not argue that his number of "publications" is large – I checked his CV, as suggested by the anon above, and there is indeed a lot listed there. The problem again is that his scholarship has clearly not had much of an impact in the WP:PROF sense. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
 * if the subject is notable as an author, not an academic, and a rewrite is needed, then its simply not a subject for deletion. we dont debate whether an article is well written or has the right focus here, only if the subject is notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Neither do we go on notability "fishing expeditions", trying out different criteria until we hopefully find one for which a subject passes. The article is plainly written in the context of the subject being an academic – the precise jurisdiction of WP:PROF. It's clear that there are pushes here for passing him under other criteria, yet with all the scrutiny the article is currently receiving, it has not evolved to include his alleged accomplishments or notable activities in these other areas. Perhaps you'll consider putting some of this material in so that we can have a better go at an objective assessment. I've read your entries below, which suggest you are aware of such material. Please WP:BEBOLD and put it in, otherwise it makes no sense to plead keep when there's nothing in the article that makes a valid claim of notability for him. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
 * I did start adding material, which was summarily removed twice, along with all his other works. as for my intent, I am not engaged in a fishing expedition. i have no particular interest in whether he qualifies as an academic, and dont have the skills to document that. i have been aware of this person all my adult life, and am familiar with his work as an author, so to me he meets that easily. i was surprised to see him here while scanning AFD's for interesting debates i felt i had something to add to, expressed my opinions, added material without success, and, i have no personal stake in the matter, unless mr krippner is using me with his psychic powers :)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentSimply can not understand how the above is not enough to merit an article on wikipedia. Obviously wikipedia has morphed into something that i thought that it was not.  I did some research on this and found that others out there disagree with the direction wikipedia has taken.  Just dont understand how there is not room on wikipedia for a Stanley Krippner article.  Amazing that 29 journal articles is not enough for an entry.  The fact that Stanley Krippner's article is up for deletion is just surreal.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Response. It's not amazing at all that "29 journal articles is not enough". The relevant fact is that this work has not had an impact according to the well-established guidelines of WP:PROF. You've only made a few edits on WP, almost all of which are related to this article, so you may not be aware of the enormous body of precedent that such arguments are based upon. I get that you really want there to be an article on this person, but he doesn't appear to satisfy WP:PROF and it is indeed naive to subsequently interpret this as some type of bias against him. Now, perhaps you might argue that he passes on some other condition, for example maybe as being "generally notable" (WP:GNG) because of his views, books and coverage in the pop media, etc. If you feel this to be the case, then WP:BEBOLD and please stop the "conspiracy theory" rhetoric. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Response. i've edited other topics on wikipedia but that old account went inactive.  I thought about making an account but am seriously wondering if i want to put up with the wiki-police and brow beating on such matters as whether a notable transpersonal psychologist is 'notable'.  it appears wiki has become s.thing i did not think it was...and i guess i just have to accept that.  I don't interpret this delete suggestion as a bias aginst krippner, but a bias against anything considered 'fringe' (the irony is that krippner is really not fringe at all, not sure why the UFO thing was added on his page).  I am aware of how passionate some people get aginst 'fringe' theories.  the larger 'conspiracy theory' that i'm maintaining is that wikipedia has been taken over by individuals who are focused on making wikipedia less inclusive, this to me is aginst what i thought wikipedia was all about.  like ive said before in this discussion, others on the web feel the same way and have similar frustrations as i in this regard.  also, im aware that my comments have offended people in this discussion and am sure that because of this his article will be deleted.  I failed to see the social mores of the wikipedia community and abide by them.  this whole 'not had an impact' is all subjective regardless of the 'WP guidelines'...people interpret things the way they want to see it.  life is sujbective and so is wikipedia.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC) --> — 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It looks like the destructive element of wikipedia will win this one...& it appears other tags have been put on this article. The fact that Stanley Krippner's article is up for so much discussion is just beyond my understanding.  It appears wikipedia has, changed.  I did some research on this and it appears others have similar frustrations.  In my opinion the users attempting to delete this article have an axe to grind.  For example, I find it very interesting that one user who initially tagged the article uses the 'fringe message board' on wikipedia.  Looks like they are trying to consciously or unconsciously purge all of wikipedia from 'fringe' subjects.  I just dont have the free time to fight that Stanley Krippner's article stays but it appears some on wikipedia do.  It is so silly and outrageous that it SHOULD stay, it is simply hard to argue otherwise.  I honestly feel that the people who are trying to delete this article are vandals and are vandalizing this article under the guise of 'law and order.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) --> — 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment it appears that 68.184.121.12 is a SPA. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Comment says the individual who tries to purge wikipedia of 'fringe' articles....whats that old saying...takes one to know one...?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) --> — 68.184.121.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment in the middle of this debate, the entire list of his printed works has been removed from the article, including books from major trade publishers, like harper and row. i would request that this material be added back, in fairness to the debate. This action makes me question the intent of those who would remove it at this time, which i do NOT want to do. i can understand self published works, personal websites, etc, but not this. i believe he is a major author, and i would request that someone who feels he is not show good reason to dismiss his books. I have found evidence that he is a major author in this field, and it was removed without debate from the article. If he fails notability, removal wont be necessary, but can we leave info that is at least debatable in the article until this debate is completed?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I restored the long list of works, some of which are from academic publishers like Plenum, Gordon & Breach, Brunner-Mazel and SUNY. Such information is very helpful in assessing notability.  A rule of thumb for academics' articles is all the books and the top few papers; harder to apply for him because he co-authored and (co) edited a lot.John Z (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a topic for the article talk page. If you feel there are any major works please justify on the article talk page. Verbal chat  07:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * this author is in multiple academic libraries, including, and and "song of the siren" was published in both hardcover[ISBN 0060647868] and trade paperback, which supports him being more than a one shot author. and i will add back the material. I dont believe its only a topic for the talk page, as people who weigh in at this afd may not browse the history since this afd began, and may not get all the relevant info. i will make a case at the articles talk page, in time, for each and every listing that i can find references for. how about if you give specific reasons for each deletion before mass deleting an entire section, and why not wait for the end of this afd?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the material back, and it was reverted. i have indicated on the talk page of the article which publications i consider notable, and will, as i said, try to find references when i have time and energy. in the meantime, i am going to stop any editing of the article or this page until i have some sense of whether this process is on track or becoming an edit war. i have no desire to engage in any sort of conflict, and i am afraid i have either inadvertently started one, or am unwillingly involved in one. if i am adding to a conflict, i apologize and will wait for others to weigh in. i have no idea how to ask for help on such a matter, and will not even attempt to do so, as i also know that soliciting help itself can be disruptive if not done properly, and i honestly dont know the correct procedures, if any. thanks for letting me add my say here. goodbye for now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the works Mercurywoodrose has marked with a + would be a good start for a bibliography. As I noted on the talk page, Manual of Style (lists of works) encourages completeness, not just major works, and wikipedia-notability of each individual work is not required.  Oh and Keep per above keeps, fwiw, don't have time to explain, found an RS article on him a few days ago, but wasn't sure it was right Krippner until today. Noticed the afd is getting long in the tooth.John Z (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's a well-established fringe author, which meets the notability requirement 1 and 3 from WP:AUTHOR. That his books and references to him are fringe diminishes the reliability of the work itself, not the notability of the person. The sources, while unreliable on science, are reliable for establishing that he has a substantial body of work (3) and that he is respected among his own fringe peers (1). The article itself, however, needs to be rewritten, but that's not a criteria for deletion. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:PROF per Simonm223, no verifiable substantiation (reviews in RS publications, etc) for assertions that he meets WP:AUTHOR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nealparr. Meets criteria 1 and 3.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Nealparr and Epeefleche - looks like he passes WP:AUTHOR to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He passed my search - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Any working professor is going to have published works. It is part of the job description. That is why we have WP:PROF.  He doesn't meet that standard. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stanley Krippner, however, is rather prolific in his field of fringe consciousness research and written a lot  (plenty of reliable verification of this). He meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria over WP:PROF (which would apply more to mainstream academics). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is what he has written notable as mainstream popular-press writing? Because if it's intended only for other consciousness researchers rather than a mainstream audience, I think we should apply WP:PROF. We shouldn't give fringe researchers relaxed standards merely because they're fringe. And quantity of writing (without consideration of the level of impact that writing has had) has never been part of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a reasoned argument. The criteria regarding impact for WP:AUTHOR is important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors and for WP:PROF is significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed. The field for Krippner is parapsychology. I would say, yes, he has made a significant impact in his field, among his peers, broadly construed. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It occured to me that since I edit a number of parapsychology articles, I may have more of a familiarity with Krippner than casual editors. In addition to his notability in parapsychology and related subjects (like transpersonal psychology), he's also notable in relation to drama between skepticism and parapsychology (played out in the popular press in the late 70s and throughout the 80s). He was president of the Parapsychological Association, for example, when Project Alpha occured, and appeared in the popular press in articles by the New York Times. He's referenced (sometimes as a target, of course) in a good deal of skeptical literature, for example The Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptical Inquirer. Notability isn't temporary, and like I said, Krippner has been quite prolific over the past decades. I understand that those not familiar with parapsychology related topics may not recognize the name, but familiarity of the subject to a great deal of editors isn't what the WP:N is based on. There's real, substantial material in regards to this man that more than meets WP:N requirements. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also to the WP:PROF argument, Stanley Krippner received the the American Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology. I'd say that meets criteria 1 and 2 from WP:PROF.-- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Krippner is also known for his work with dream research and shamanism. I also want to appoligize for SOME OF my earlier comments.  I think that they may have taken this AFD thing of course b/c of arroused passions.  so if i  am responsible, then please forgive me.  it was just so shocking to see such a notable transpersonal psychologist up for deletion...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.121.12 (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the only page in which strange things have gone on. There has been a recent failed attempt to AfD David E. Goldberg whose highest cited publication has 36 thousand cites according to Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Move to Close I've added the APA Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology to the article as well as several other awards Krippner has received, and cited this to the APA. Considering our own American_Psychological_Association says that this award is one of "the highest honors given by the APA, and among the highest honors that a psychologist or psychology researcher can receive", that clearly meets criteria 2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level from WP:PROF -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Gnews search has multiple newspapers quoting him as an authority repeatedly, meaning he meets WP:PROF criterion 7 (major impact outside academia in their academic specialty). These newspapers include the NYT, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, etc. I offer no opinion as to whether his biography should present him as a serious scientist or a proponent of fringe theories. Ray  Talk 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand the problem here; his h-index seems to be around 22, hundreds of Google books returns, 177 Google News returns. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:15, 15 October 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.