Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Rind
- 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. ST47 (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Bruce Rind
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This is the lead author of the study in the
Any 'keep' argument would likely refer to point 1 of
Of interest may be the fact that the user who created the article and wrote most of it is presently topic banned from human sexuality articles, including biographical articles. (Sexology arbitration case) The article does indeed have elements consistent with it being a POV push. It says unnecessary things to make its subject look good (he's a great chess player! Some nonscientist named Oellerich in a nonscience journal said his science was good!) while ignoring the subject's association with pedophile advocacy and age-of-consent reform groups, as documented in the Rind et al. controversy article.
I suggest we replace this article with a redirect to
- Note: This discussion has been included in the talk) 21:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)]
- Delete I was there when this article was created by the now subject-banned user. Based on evidence the came to light during that event, concur with the theory that it was intended as POV fork/push. It ignores mentioning the subject's various, shall we call them "suspect" behaviors, which while I understand the BLP policy means a high level of scrutiny towards libel, is nevertheless well documented. The article subject is otherwise not terribly notable and could be argued, has not really contributed to science in a meaningful way. His work mostly came to light due to media hysteria. I did not take action to AfD this article prior to this due to my minor involvement in the arbitration case, combined with article creator's history incivility, harassment, and petty acts of retribution against anyone who dares disagree.Legitimus (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment The article should be evaluated independent of the motivation of the article creator. It seems at least that the subject could be noteable due to the Rind et al. controversy and the subject has produced independent academic research that has been cited often. This is not the place to establish whether he developed a significant new concept or discovery but this should rather be evaluated in the context of scientific citations (e.g. by peers / scientists and not by us). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannes Röst (talk • contribs)
- Delete This is a very much POV-pushing article. It is largely an unjustified POV fork from the much better article on the subject matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2019 (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.