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. There is no agreement on whether he is independently notable. Regarding Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, there is no evidence that this publication is "major." However, the status of his peer-reviewed papers has not been determined one way or another, hence the no consensus. As a side note, it has been proposed that Sternberg peer review controversy be merged into this article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sternberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This person seems to be notable only for one incident, which already has an article: Sternberg peer review controversy. Is this article really needed? Wolfview (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I've always thought a brief bio should be part of the controversy article. No need for a separate article, but a biographical sketch on the controversy page would be helpful. Yopienso (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: WP:BLP1E (albeit milked for self-imposed martyrdom over the years). WP:MERGE rationales 'context' and 'overlap' would seem to apply. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per WP:BLP1E Karenjc 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)!vote stricken, see comment below. Karenjc 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all meets WP:PROF as editor in chief of an important journal. Second, Second, he has 27 published peer-reviewed papers, most of them in international recognized journals. At least 12 are in Scopus, with citation counts of 28, 26, 13, 11, 10, for the highest 5 , all in major international journals other than the ones he has edited. For invertebrate systematics, that's not bad. I notice the nature of the controversy, and see that the article on it needs some serious POV work, btw. I have not the least sympathy with any variant of intelligent design, but a fair presentation is essential. It helps to understand the general topic to see full bios of people supporting it. Removing articles on scientists involved in such is more than a little questionable--if people here generally have a bias against this view, we should go out of our way to avoid deleting articles on it. There is a reason for 2 articles--first, because the controversy is known in its own right, second because merging his general work into it is unfair, using a possibly derogatory title when the plain name is available. Karenjc is right that if we do merge, it should be into this article. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am curious how you come to the conclusion that the "hitherto obscure" & "a sleepy scientific journal" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is "an important journal." I would further point out that this article does not have any information on "his general work", just a short resume. Finally, Karenjc makes no claim that "if we do merge, it should be into this article." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestion was indeed to merge this article into the one about the controversy, rather than the other way round. This was based on my perception of the Proceedings as a non-major journal (thus not valid for establishing notability under WP:PROF), and on a lack of clear evidence (in the article itself or in a Google search) that Sternberg's work has been significantly influential in his field. However, DGG's points are well taken. If we merge the current version of Richard Sternberg into the current version of the controversy article, with no attempt to improve either, it will associate Sternberg's name in the encyclopaedia only with a negative event and could (and almost certainly will) be regarded as part of some anti-ID, anti-Sternberg crusade. I agree with DGG that Wikipedia should take pains to avoid the appearance of partiality, even by omission, in such an inflammatory subject area. So, merge B into A instead of A into B (and add details of the controversy to Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, since it's probably the most exciting thing that ever happened in the journal's history?) That doesn't work either, because the controversy satisfies WP:N#Events and a deletion proposal would doubtless be defeated. I'm striking my !vote for now, but I find neither article satisfactory, Richard Sternberg because it doesn't assert or demonstrate his notability outside the controversy, and Sternberg peer review controversy because it's POV as it stands, particularly the title. I'm off to see whether I can help improve them at all. Anyone fancy joining me? Karenjc 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would point out that Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is in fact only a redirect to Biological Society of Washington, and is only one of two journals published by that society. It would almost certainly unbalance the article to add a major amount on a single, disavowed article, from a single issue, of one of their century-old journals there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, and reiterate that IMO the Proceedings is non-major (as the redirect tends to suggest). However, I find it odd, in view of the impact of the controversy, that a search for Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington currently takes you to a place in which it gets no mention at all, not so much as a Wikilink to the controversy article. Karenjc 08:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It’s funny that I tagged this AFD to revisit after I brought my thoughts together on the rational to keep both articles. It seems DGG has explained my rational better than I could. First, the primary AFD piece Richard Sternberg shows through Google Scholar searches that he has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity and is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area ,which qualifies him with a place here at Wikipedia under Academic Profession. With regards to merging the Sternberg peer review controversy into Proffesor Sternberg bio does an injustice to the controversy piece in that the article itself gained notoriety based on the controversy alone, though Proffesor Sternberg involvement was the major contributing factor. The controversy is still separate and distinct from the Sternberg bio and should stand as a separate piece. Thanks for listening and Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, (i) Google Scholar finds mainly hits on an unrelated 'RW Sternberg'. If you restrict to 'RM Sternberg' as the author, you only get a handful of hits. (ii) NO, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is NOT "a major well-established academic journal" -- every indication is that it is quite a minor and obscure journal. (iii) None of this comes even close to meeting WP:PROF. (iv) To claim that "the controversy is still separate and distinct from the Sternberg bio" when the majority of the bio is on the controversy is ludicrous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: before somebody else makes a comment like "editor in chief of an important journal" or "editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal", I would suggest that they provide evidence supporting the claim that the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (the only journal he has been editor-in-chief of) is especially prominent because, as far as I can see, the claim is WP:BOLLOCKS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hrafn,

I have no idea where whether the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is prominent.

The Biological Society of Washington seems to be focused on biological classification/taxonomy of eukaryotic organisms. PBSWis their primary publication. If I read BSW's article correctly, PBSW has been regularly published since 1882.

When I click on Special:WhatLinksHere/Biological Society of Washington, I see that the PBSW has been used as a reference for taxonomy information for over 20 articles.

Curious about the source of "sleepy" and "hitherto obscure": Do the phases come from a Washington Post article? <ref>Powell, Michael (August 19, 2005). "Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article". Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-01-04.</ref>

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes were from the W[ashington]P[ost] piece. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, it is cited for such things as fossil tsetse flies, a new species of leptostracan and a new species of Alvinocaris -- but given the shear number of invertebrate species (living and fossil), introducing a few more can hardly be considered to be "prominent". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 1 of the Post article calls the journal "hitherto obscure" and page 2 calls it "sleepy." Yopienso (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - this article contains no useful information which is not duplicated in the Sternberg peer review controversy article. We don't need to have two articles on substantially the same topic. Personally, I'd actually prefer to merge the peer review article into Richard Sternberg, but WP:BLP1E advises us to go the other way. Robofish (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets our WP:prof requirements and coverage such as the Washington Post would seem to make it desirable for us to have have an article. Wikipedia is where I come to get a balanced view in such cases and it is nice to find just such an article (and discussion like this). (Msrasnw (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Question: how does he meet "our WP:prof requirements"? Which of the 9 criteria does he meet? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think he meets wp:prof #7 (The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.) via the Sternberg peer review controversy. I also think the editorship of the well-established academic journal should be enough. The only note in the guidance for WP:prof 8 reads Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 8. This does not seem to me to be the case for this journal. So I think we can accept this journal. Two articles seem to me preferable even if they are related as I think it is desirable to keep our encyclopedic structure. It also seem inappropriate and unfortunate to have redirects from people's names to problematic embarrassing things even if they are a major contributing reason for notability. It would also seem to me as a result of the controversy he meets our general requirements for notability (Msrasnw (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Except that (i) the Sternberg peer review controversy has had no substantial or lasting impact outside academia, (ii) there is no evidence that the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is a "major" journal, as required by criterion 8 & (iii) it does not matter whether we have one article or two, when most of the bio article is about the controversy anyway. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:38, 16 January 2011 (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.