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. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loren_Cordain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Loren Cordain

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines WP:NPROF or WP:GNG for academics. Reads like a self-promotion page and there are no good reputable sources about this individual. Lesslikely (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a Delete. Lesslikely (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Speedy Keep - With over 6,000 citations, just on the first page, of Google Scholar, with over 10 additional pages following, concerning his books as shown here [1] Believe he more than meets Professor. Or a better question is what are your standards? ShoesssS ^Talk 19:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss, please unbold the word "strong" as the only word that is meant to be bolded is either delete or keep. Please see WP:GD. Furthermore, I would argue that while you are correct in that the individual does have several cited papers, which does meet the notability guidelines for academic (this makes my previous claim incorrect), there are little to no existing non-academic, reputable third-party sources that discuss this individual. Should every individual that has a high citation impact be eligible for a Wikipedia page? I do not believe so. I am a scientist, and I do not believe that the principal investigator for my lab should have a Wikipedia page for her work. While the Wikipedia guidelines serve as useful guidelines, I do not believe this individual should have a Wikipedia page just because he has several cited publications. If every single highly-cited individual deserved a Wikipedia page, then Wikipedia would simply serve as another ResearchGate for highly-cited researchers. That's not what Wikipedia is for. It is not a hub just for highly-cited academics. What differentiates a well-known academic both in academia and in the media like John Ioannidis and Steven Goodman from individuals such as Loren Cordain? The former two have been in reputable third-party sources and they have substantially changed the field of science. Again, I do not think this individual should have a Wikipedia page. Lesslikely (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Lesslikely. Sorry to say, I will not “Unbold Strong”. In fact, I changed my opinion to “Speedy Keep”based in the guildlines found in Academics with particular attention to Subheading 3 (VII). ShoesssS ^Talk 21:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shoessss, please provide a valid reason for a WP:SK because as far as I know, it does not meet the criteria for eliciting a speedy keep. Please elaborate which of the six reasons support a speedy keep. Thank you. Lesslikely (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per item #3 of the guidelines in Speedy Keep and your own words above; “…Furthermore, I would argue that while you are correct in that the individual does have several cited papers, which does meet the notability guidelines for academic (this makes my previous claim incorrect)” makes for my argument for a Speedy Keep. Hope this explains my rational. Regards. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I believe that criteria doesn't fulfull the use of a speedykeep because I have read the article in question, as it's less than a few a paragraphs and I do not believe it is "erroneous" because the guidelines serve as guidelines rather than rules. Please see these relevant statements on the WP:ACADEMIC. "An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient." "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule". Lesslikely (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry, but you forgot to finish the policy statement where it states; “…However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.” The citations provided in Google Scholar, as provided above, shows that;”… the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.” ShoesssS ^Talk 22:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesslikely, WP:GTD does not forbid the bolding of "Strong" in "Strong Keep." All the guideline states, in passing, is that the editor's recommendations are to be bolded. The rest seems up to us. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I know too much about evolution, however, I'm looking at some other pages by academics like Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) (to compare), and there's substantial contributions to the academic literature (which Cordain has done), but Miller also has several reputable journalistic sources citing him like ABC News and the Atlantic. I agree with Shoessss that LessLikely here is incorrect about not meeting the notability guidelines and should elaborate on what his/her standards are, but Lesslikely also does make a point about every notable academic individual having a biography on wikipedia. I'm a bit iffy on this, but I'm leaning towards a delete as there aren't non-neutral sources discussing this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scilover1 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because of an invalid deletion rationale (it is so far from being true that it is difficult to believe the nominator actually did any searching for sources). Easily passes WP:PROF for highly cited publications, WP:AUTHOR for well-known books, and WP:GNG for heavy mainstream media coverage of his efforts to promote the paleo diet. In fact, the difficulty with finding sources is not that there is too little but that there is too much, making it difficult to find the ones that are sufficiently reliable and cover Cordain himself in non-trivial detail. But they are definitely out there: see [2] [3] [4] [5]. One doesn't have to believe in the validity of the paleo diet to recognize that one of its main proponents is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He publishes in the highly pop field of human nutrition. Has 20 papers with over 100 GS cites, Enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk).
Keep on account of subject passing WP:ACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.