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. Though the discussion is long and messy, ultimately evidence of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources has been provided and not convincingly refuted. Vanamonde (Talk)04:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert Being an associate editor is not evidence of non-notability. In fact, many associate editors do pass academic notability guidelines, through other activities than their editorship. The associate editorship seems here a small part of the article. Why did you single it out in your comment? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources I can check many (most?) appear to be primary, and the rest seem to either not mention Atwood or a trivial mentions in articles not actually about him.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Google Scholar lists two highly-cited publications by Kimball C. Atwood but with a date of 1951; I think they're likely by a relative of the subject rather than the subject himself. If Atwood has any notability it appears to be through his skepticism of others rather than his own works as a physician. But although I can find various skeptic blog posts about him, I'm having difficulty finding reliably-published and in-depth sources about him, which we would need for WP:GNG notability. His Institute for Science in Medicine page is in-depth but not independent, so that doesn't count. The page announcing that is a Fellow of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry [1] (despite being insufficient for WP:PROF#C3) probably does count as independent of him and in-depth, though. So that's one. But we need more than that, and I didn't find it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this Atwood is not the same as the grapefruit one or the genetics one, both of whom appear likely notable. gnu5723:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I am beginning to doubt whether the Center for Skeptical Inquiry bio is entirely independent, because it is quite similar to non-independent ones: for instance, it includes the line
He is particularly concerned with implausible claims being promoted, tacitly or otherwise, by medical schools and government, and by the ethics of human trials of such claims.
He is particularly concerned with implausible claims being promoted, tacitly or otherwise, by medical schools and government. He is also dubious about the ethics of human trials of such claims.
Dr. Atwood is especially concerned with the extent to which influential medical institutions -- among them medical schools, respected journals, and the National Institutes of Health -- have tolerated and even embraced highly implausible health theories and practices.
But isn't it quite common for an organization to lift language describing someone's background from another site? For example, I've seen bios for invited speakers where part of the description of their background is lifted almost verbatim from the Wikipedia article about them. This doesn't necessarily show lack of independence of the organization. NightHeron (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For this article to pass WP:GNG, it needs to contain external sources of information on Atwood. Regardless of what organisation is publishing the description, if the content is lifted almost verbatim from a promotional profile or self-written material, it is not independent/external. (I agree that invited speaker and "about the author" blurbs generally don't count towards notability.) Cheers, gnu5713:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notability comes from recognition of Atwood as a "Fellow" by the Center for Skeptical Inquiry, but that can be questioned if the CSI is not an independent organization. I'm suggesting that the fact that part of the content of the CSI bio of Atwood was lifted from a non-independent source does not show CSI's lack of independence, and so does not diminish the significance of the recognition as a Fellow by CSI. NightHeron (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I see what you mean. I don't think the fellowship counts towards WP:NPROF#C3, though, since it's not with "a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)". gnu5717:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm waiting to see if more shows up - but at the moment I'm leaning towards keep. This is a man that was very active in the scientific skepticism world in the past but not active lately. It is hard to hold this older generation to the same standards as someone who is active in 2019. Being a Fellow of CSI is quite notable (conflict - as so am I). I see the Chicago Tribune and Nature reached out to him about his work against chelation therapy - that's notable. Also he gave testimony to the Massachusetts Legislature - that's very notable. His career as a doctor is not what gives him notability, but his expertise as a doctor has allowed him to be a notable critic of alt-med. Lets see if others can give us some more, but as I say I'm leaning to keep. Sgerbic (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently in Massachusetts anyone who wants to can submit testimony to the state legislature.[4] Atwood did so in 2003 not on his own behalf, but as a representative of the Massachusetts Medical Society. According to their website, "MMS officers frequently offer testimony and/or legal perspectives to state and federal officials on issues relevant to Massachusetts physicians and their patients." (Atwood was chair of the MMS "Committee on Quality of Medical Practice" in 2003). There are a large number of testimonies archived on the MMS site, either uncredited or delivered by professionals who do not appear Wikipedia-notable. The society presented naturopathy-related testimonies with very similar wording in 2013 and 2015, without crediting Atwood. gnu5723:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Sgerbic: Since the notability question seems to be borderline, it would be helpful to know whether or not Atwood was perceived as a leader in the scientific skepticism world. For example, how would he compare with Steven Novella, Marcia Angell, and Edzard Ernst, all of whom deservedly have wikipedia pages? NightHeron (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great question - but I don't know how to compare these people fairly. Novella and Ernst are considered the top of the top in the scientific skepticism community. I had not heard of Angell before reading her Wikipedia page right now, sounds like a pretty amazing person. Atwood seems to be behind many important organizations, and also writes for Skeptical Inquirer and Science Based Medicine - both considered RS - he is an important part of the time when the Internet as far as scientific skepticism was finding its feet, publishing and doing activism concerning CAM. If I had to think of him in the terms you mention, I would say Stephen Barrett, Barry Beyerstein or maybe James Alcock. Not so much a "leader" but more of someone who was behind getting things started and keeping things running. I wasn't around at the time that he was active with his activism concerning CAM. Reading over what he did concerning the Massachusetts Legislature and his writings, I think he is plenty notable. Thanks for the question. Sgerbic (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ultimately, we don't keep or delete articles based on the perceived significance of the subjects, but on the ability we have to write independently about them. Atwood seems like a great figure, but if the indendent sources don't exist - and if we have no evidence that they do exist, even if they are hard to find - then we can't write an article. That said, I'll keep looking, as maybe there is something more we can use, and I'm happy to change if the sources turn up. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons in Sgerbic's comments and answer to my question. Atwood seems to have been recognized as an important figure in the debate by both the skeptics and the alt-medists, as well as by publications covering the debate. NightHeron (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Visible enough that it's in the public interest that we write about who this person is; documented enough that we can provide a biographical baseline. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be biased since I did the rewrite for Atwood. Part of the problem may be my inexperience as a wiki editor. After reading the criteria of notability, I see I used quite a bit of primary sources instead of secondary sources. I am used to writing about science information where primary sources are important. I went back and found 52 entries of secondary sources ranging from CNN, NBC news, USA Today, CBC Canada, Chicago Tribune, QZ.com, Forbes, Psychology Today, theaustralian.com, spiegel.de, researchgate, medscape, Center for Inquiry, Science in medicine, Nature, and multiple science blogs, and a few alt-med sites. I am willing to edit the page to include these secondary sources. Here is a list of the secondary sources I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CarlosXing/sandbox/atwood-secondary-sourcesCarlosXing (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your links that I spot-checked looked like either blogs (not usually reliable) or stories in reliable sources that merely quoted Atwood rather than including in-depth material about Atwood. Sources like that do not count towards notability. Could you possibly make a trimmed list of the sources that you think should count in this way? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still did not distinguish news sources that mention or quote him from news sources that provide in-depth information about him. Unless maybe there are none of the latter? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, thank you for keeping me on my toes. I removed a duplicated AP article. I sorted the news articles with what I think is the best ones on top. I do note the news articles covering the ethical issues on a single study range over an 8 year period from 2008 to 2016. One final comment not covered directly in the news but should be part of the equation. Atwood is no longer active, but proponents of alt-med continue to defend themselves from his criticisms as I pointed out in my comment below. CarlosXing (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentGary Null is an alternative medicine proponent. In his most recent show notes on August 19, 2019, Null is rather critical of scientific skepticism. However, he recognizes Atwood as one of the leaders against alternative medicine. "At a glance many of its contributing authors are familiar to Quackwatch and SBM blog readers, notably Kimball Atwood, the co-founder of Barrett’s National Council Against Health Fraud William Jarvis and Wallace himself." and "It is also worth noting that SRAM editorial administration operated out of the leading Skeptic organization Center for Inquiry through which all subscription and press inquiries were directed. Stephen Barrett, Wallace Sampson, Steven Novella, Kimball Atwood and David Gorski are all leading celebrities in the Center, especially its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry."CarlosXing (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Null does mention Atwood, but he doesn't provide substantive information about him beyond calling him a celebrity of skepticism. gnu5717:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance is there in whether or not Null gives "substantive information about him"? The fact that a prominent opponent of skepticism calls Atwood a "celebrity" of skepticism is certainly evidence of notability. Null isn't being used as a source for the article, except in providing evidence of notability. NightHeron (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:GNG: Atwood hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the sources in the article are written by him, closely connected with him, or mention him in passing. gnu5717:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the recent changes and reading others comments I'm going to vote Keep. The Gary Null comment was what tipped me over, notability can be established in many ways, including being recognized by notable critics. Null being one. Sgerbic (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen that criterion used before - does that mean that every pseupscience proponent that is openly recognized by a notable critic deserves an article? I don't see this working as a standard. - Bilby (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is the slippery slope argument Bilby, of course not. There is more than that. But generally people are made notable by their peers and detractors who are also notable. When you are notable and you recognize someone else as notable then you have the makings of a peer. People like Chopra and Null criticize people all the time, but they rarely mention them by name. Even more rarely they write about them, when they do then we should take note also. Here is one way I explain notability to people who are unaware of how this works, I say imagine that something odd has happened in the world, like suddenly we see a sea monster crawling along the beach. The media will reach out to someone to explain, the more notable the media the more likely they will call in a expert. They name that person as a expert. The more that person is recognized as a expert and more interviews are done and more articles written about that expert, and then notable critics write about why they have taken issue with that expert then it raises their nobility. Plus that sea monster event will probably get a Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing two separate things. We don't create articles about people because they are experts, or because they have been criticised by name. We create articles about people because reliable sources have "taken note" of them sufficient for use to create an NPOV article. What you are arguing is that being important ("notable" in non-Wikipedia terms) in some way is enough to warrant an article, but that has never been what notability on WP was about. Notability has always been about whether or not sufficient coverage exists, not about the subject's percieved importance. It doesn't matter how many times they are asked to comment on your sea monster - if there are insufficient non-trivial independent sources about the subject, then we can't create an article on them. - Bilby (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously it would follow that RS are being created because they are recognized as experts by notable people and notable organizations. I'm not sure why you keep splitting hairs Bilby? Can we move on now? Sgerbic (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't follow. The point of the specific notability requirements is to name situations where we can safely assume that the coverage would exist, even if we haven't found it. Nothing that has been proposed here shows that Atwood meets the specific notability requiremenst or the GNG. The mistake you seem to be making is assuming that expertise equates to sufficient coverage, and it doesn't. What we need is evidence that sufficient coverage exists, not that the subject is in some way important in the field. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2019 (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.