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. Non policy based keep votes for unestablished editors get little weight. The assertions of adequate sourcing fall down agaibst detailed discussion of them by delete side. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Biddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article is a vanity advertisement for subject. References are brief mentions or articles written by subject. reddogsix (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Note that I am the original author of the article. Let me copy what has already been entered on the article's talk page (without response there) by myself and another editor (@JGehlbach:) in response to the initial addition of advert, notability, and BLP sources and refimprove banners so this all does not get lost:

---(start of copy)----

New article published

I am publishing this article now which I created in my user-space. I believe I wrote this in as neutral manner as was possible given the references available on the subject. I specifically looked for criticism/critiques of Biddle as I was worried about the appearance of the article having a Biddle-positive POV, but can find NOTHING. If anyone can find any such material, please feel free to add it! RobP (talk) 11:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Objection to proposed deletion

I take issue with the proposed deletion, and with the advert, notability, and refimprove tags:

advert The article's author stated above that no criticism could be found despite a search, and explicitly left the door open for other editors to contribute some. If there are NPOV problems, please provide examples.

notability Established through the subject's mention in notable publications including: Popular Mechanics Atlantic 10 News Tampa Live Science People/Celebrity Conventionally published books by at least two notable authors.

BLP sources and refimprove Article is well referenced and does not rely excessively on primary sources. I'm removing all the tags discussed above.

JGehlbach (talk) 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Thank you. After seeing with great surprise that Biddle's notability was in question, I researched the topic and found this on Wikipedia:Notability (people):

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded[1]"

I bolded the part that I believe is, without a reasonable doubt, applicable to the subject. Biddle is significant, interesting and unusual in that he has not only walked both sides of the paranormal divide, (can you find ANYONE else in this category?) but is now an active participant in the scientific skeptical movement, detailing for the world how his former paranormal-enthusiast peers are off-base. RobP (talk) 6:33 pm, Today (UTC−5)

---(end of copy)----

• Also, what does "non-trivial support" mean? Don't you mean you think there IS just trivial support (meaning references?) for the article? Of course, I strenuously disagree with that assessment. And, can I vote? RobP (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: Of course you can. Since the importance of votes is considered by their arguments according to policies, if doing so, I recommend highlighting the independent sources demonstrating notability. —PaleoNeonate – 11:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think that he just slides through. I personally do not like tagged articles so I will clean up the article so that all COI and AD concerns are met. As for sourcing, I think that they are sufficient, barely so. Elektricity (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on how he slides through? I see basically no strong references.104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reflist contains many instances of Facebook and Youtube as sources. Most others are sketchy site, self published or Amazon! The one good ref (Atlantic) was a minor one sentence mention. Fails GNG.medicine104.163.153.162 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are cherry picking and mentioning only the low hanging fruit. Once notability is established, such sources are permitted. What about Popular Mechanics, 10 News Tampa, Live Science, People, Skeptical Inquirer and the books Biddle was mentioned in? RobP (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the solitary Facebook source, that page is the article subject's chosen primary web presence. In the present context with no alternative available and notability arguably established, I dispute that it's a problem. JGehlbach (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Please specify which source sites you consider "sketchy". JGehlbach (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this appears to be group self-promotion. Regardless, WP:ANYBIO criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First, that point is made out of context.... The lead in to the WP:ANYBIO subsection clearly states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
• Second, what is GROUP self-promotion? You just invented a new category for COI out of whole cloth. I am a proud scientific skeptic (as it says on my user page) and noticed that the subject active in that area had no article, but I thought should. Is that a COI now? Can a doctor not write an article on medicine, or on any famous person in medicine?... Where would THAT end? Should people only write about what they don't care about? Only people disinterested in sports write about baseball... Good luck with that policy.
• Third, why is no-one addressing the points made by JGehlbach, or my point above that Wikipedia:Notability (people) includes the condition "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and that the subject clearly fits THIS notability criteria? The entire pertinent part reads as follows: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." As I said above, and which has not been countered in this discussion: that Biddle is significant, interesting and unusual in that he has not only walked both sides of the paranormal divide, (can you find ANYONE else in this category?) but is now an active participant in the scientific skeptical movement, detailing for the world how his former paranormal-enthusiast peers are off-base." RobP (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you're WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion.104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus what RobP cites are just references to potential definitions found elsewhere. This article needs to meet at least the Wikipedia basic and biographical criteria. The example containing "unusual" is merely a reference to an Encarta definition.--Rpclod (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - My objections to the original proposed deletion (posted on the article's Talk page and pasted above in this discussion) remain unanswered. I fail to see the rationale for going to AfD without responding to those objections in the Talk page. I will also echo Rp2006's call for a definition of group self-promotion. JGehlbach (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, self-promotion backed up by a raft of non-independent references and trivial mentions. Melcous (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Per Melcous.Winged Blades^Godric 06:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This person's biography is based on citations from notable publications like Popular Mechanics, The Atlantic, People Magazine and 3 non self-published books, 2 of which are written by notable people. He is in the unique position of having supported paranormal ideas and is now considered an expert in countering paranormal ideas. This seems to pass the test for a person of note deserving of a Wikipedia page.KoKoCorvid (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. a mention in Popular Mechnics is not enough to support notability, and essentially everything else here was either written by the subject. And a self-published book tends to indicate lack of notability , not notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DGG: You may have misread the previous keep-vote. It notes the three books as being non self-published. JGehlbach (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

his only book is eelf-published. I should have worded it , "and that the person has written only one book, which is self published, tends to indicate a lack of notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I imagine everybody here would agree that any author with an elf-published book would be automatically notable ;)

• Keep. Some of the points aren't earthshattering, eg a skeptic being inspired by skeptics, but overall I feel that founding PIRA, co-founding USPA, setting up ARS and other bits meet criteria for: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" as described above by more than one person.  Joolzzt (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with the points made above. I do believe the article meets the criteria of notability. He certainly is "interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention." The numerous citations support this--particularly the Popular Mechanics and People Magazine articles. He is a skeptic commentator of note. Dustinlull (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not to further "bludgeon" this... But I was not sure I could vote as the author's originator, but now THINK that I can , so I will cast mine officially now for a (duh) Keep. Let me reiterate my main point as to why I decided Biddle was notable enough that I spent a good portion of my week off writing an article on him. And I think NONE of the Delete advocates have addressed this point (which I previously made): Wiki notability includes people that are "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". (See above for quote in context.) When I learned of Biddle's transformation from one of the innumerable paranormal advocates (a ghost hunter who formed paranormal groups!) to someone now firmly and vocally on the other side of the fence, I was intrigued. I had never heard of anyone in that position. (I think that qualifies as "unusual"!) Then I found out he is one of the rising starts of the scientific skepticism movement. He not only just had a coveted speaking spot at last year's CSICon (his first as such a prestigious event), but discovered he has been mentioned in a variety of recent books by already notable and respected skeptics including Sharon A. Hill and Ben Radford, and more are on the way. (I had added text to this affect - now deleted for some reason - about a Ben Radford proclamation on his podcast that Biddle is discussed in another, upcoming, book he wrote). The reference I found like People and Popular Mechanics and Skeptical Inquirer to me seemed a sufficient start. And there were plenty of others refs as well (yes - of lesser note - but once notability was shown, I though that was OK). So all that - for me - sealed the deal, and I put in the time to create this article for Wikipedia. I am sorry some of you think I wasted my time. And if it gets deleted I certainly did. RobP (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 9 photos credited to Biddle in the Book "Scientifical Americans". Also cited in People.com/celebrity online article "stanley-hotel-ghost-photographed-at-hotel-that-inspired-the-shining".

ScienceExplains (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is not much to add as I think as all keep voters do, there are a good amount of citations which are not by any means small mentions or done by the subject themselves. The objections seem to be done towards a certain citation without taking in count the rest of them. An example is saying that the books are self published, when only one of the cited is self published. Objectors are focusing on one or two things when there is a wealth of citations to take in count. Walkiria Nubes (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that all Keep votes are by editors with few edits. (Assuming the relist comment had a typo, and this is what was actually meant.) I have over 4,000 myself. Also, did you check on the edit history of those making Delete votes to compare? And, perhaps most importantly, what is the magic number considered "few"... and where in WP policy is the number of edits in the history of voting editors stated as a valid reason for a relist, instead of just considering the soundness of the arguments presented by any editor no matter what their vote, and making a determination based upon those arguments? RobP (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure you are getting your point across. Can you say 5000 more words on this?198.58.168.40 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That's really not a bad line-up of sources. A big proportion of web-based material should not be taken as an indicator of lack of notability when a) some of it is quite high-profile, and b) it is combined with a fair number of more "standard" sources, as here. WP:GNG seems satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I waited to see if new sources would be added to this discussion. The notability is not strong, but I see no cause for removal. Kyle^(talk) 03:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A lot of trashy, unreliable sources are used to pad out this article --- Ghostvillage.com, Spooktator.co.uk, adventuresinpoortaste.com, barrytaff.net, hayleyisaghost.co.uk, anomaliesresearchsociety.wordpress.com --- not to mention Facebook posts, Youtube videos and non-notable podcasts. Get rid of all these (and the material cited to them) and we'd have a better indication of this individual's notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see WTSP, The Atlantic, Scientifical Americans, The Southside Time, and one local humanist society and less-local societies in New York and Philadelphia. We usually don't like interviews for article sourcing, but being considered worth talking to by Skeptical Inquirer is persuasive to me in this context. Not bad enough for an automatic delete. Independent sources are there but I have not assessed quality or depth. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Biddle is mentioned on 5 seperate occasions in Ben Radfords's latest book 'INVESTIGATING GHOSTS: The Scientific Search for Spirits' ISBN 978-0-9364-5516-7. His expert analysis on ghost detectors and ghost photography analysis is relied upon to support certain arguments. I consider this to support the argument that Biddle is notable. I have not updated Biddle's page, however it is my intention, unless someone beats me to it. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 8==8 Boneso (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article relies mostly on questionable sources, so I don't see a GNG case here. I place no trust in Rhombus Publishing, as it seems they publish a bunch of books on oddball pseudoscience. I don't see a track record for them nor do I see reviews about Radford's book. The Scientifical Americans book only gives the subject credit for photos they used; he's not mentioned in the book. The discussion about the subject relies upon ghost hunter websites and the like. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be nice if anyone voting to Delete actually take the time to read the article. It might avoid making votes based on factual errors like the one in this comment. Saying Biddle is not mentioned in the book Scientifical Americans is plain wrong, as is evident by this paragraph from the article: "Biddle's impact on some members of the paranormal research community was described by Sharon Hill in her 2017 book, Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers, for which Biddle provided the photography. In the book, Hill says: "Jason and Bobby [Jason Korbus and Bobby Nelson] consider Randi to have been a critical influence on their change in thinking as well as Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, and Kenny Biddle (another ghost-hunter-turned skeptical-advocate)...[2]" Also, even if you are right about Rhombus Publishing, they publish on both sides of the fence, as the Radford's books you are diminishing are all scientific in nature. And Radford's latest book came out just the other day, hence no reviews yet. Looks like folks are really stretching for reasons to delete this. RobP (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rp2006: You need not disparage me. I did read the article. You'll note that edited it a bit, too. I have no dog in this fight; I just don't see the subject passing GNG. That's my opinion. You're free to disagree but you need not accuse me of being ignorant or biased. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Chris troutman: I did not mean to disparage you, nor did I call you ignorant. You were simply not the first to vote Delete and then to sight as a reason, not a matter of opinion, but a factually incorrect observation about the article ("The Scientifical Americans book only gives the subject credit for photos they used; he's not mentioned in the book.") So I am perplexed that you took the trouble to reply to me about feeling insulted, but you are not going to comment on the detail you got wrong? Will you really not admit that what you claimed about Biddle only being mentioned as contributing photos is just incorrect (as is clear from the article's text as I quoted above)? I had assumed it was an oversight and you either didn't read the article, or simply glossed over the pertinent part, but if you will not admit that error now, then I don't see how I can continue to assume good faith. So why do I care? I simply do not think it is fair if others read through these votes and then decide to vote Delete based upon categorically false information provided by others. A matter of opinion is one thing. But this is NOT a matter of opinion. RobP (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rp2006: I acknowledge on page 204 that the book says what you claim. It's a single sentence in the concluding chapter of her book and, frankly, doesn't mean much when the author obtained permission from Biddle to use a bunch of his photos. In that light, she's not independent of the subject. She doesn't objectively discuss him, anyway, beyond the mention you've pointed to. As I said, it's not enough for GNG to my mind. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has become increasingly difficult for editors to improve the page with disruptive edits (reverts) made by Elektricity. See comments here on Elektricity's talk page and here. on Kenny Biddle's talk page. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, WP:RSes. Concur with User:Chris troutman's comments above. While it is nice to see a lot of editors who have not participated at AfD often weighing in here, many of the keep iVoters above seem unfamiliar with the sort of sources that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:29, 20 January 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.