Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm not a scientist

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. The discussion has received adequate participation, and no consensus has emerged herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a scientist

I'm not a scientist (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)

Article violates WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEO. Article is a partisan attempt to take a factual admission and inject pov. The Colbert Report was an excellent show, but it was a comedy talk show and I find it unlikely that anyone who has actually seen it could truthfully consider one of Stephen's (albeit hilarious) segments as meeting WP:RS. "I'm not a scientist" isn't a 'phrase'. It's a fact. These politicians, like nearly every politician in congress, are not scientists. Over 95% of congress (yes, including Democrats) *should* be saying "I'm not a scientist", because it's the truth. "I'm not a scientist" violates WP:Neologism. It being referred to as a 'catchphrase' in an article or two, nor its use by 4 people, doesn't make it widely used.

At the most, the specific claims made by each individual politician should be in their respective articles. Including it here only serves as an attempt to associate claims (without providing any context for the comments) of a few people to a wider group. ― Padenton |☎  18:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Article was previously nominated for and declined for CSD (WP:G10) [1]. ― Padenton |☎  19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article. Secondary sources have reported on the topic, and we quote the secondary sources; this is exactly how neologisms get articles on Wikipedia. There is no rule against their inclusion, and we only delete non-notable neologisms. Whether coverage of the phrase is fair or not isn't the point. Significant coverage in reliable sources is the issue at hand. If the article isn't neutral, then it can be fixed through normal editing. It sounds like you disagree with the conclusions of the sources. If so, maybe you should write a blog post. 13:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaRobotPirate (talk • contribs)
• Comment. I don't care about the sources. My issue here is about this absurd article which cannot possibly be made into anything encyclopedic, and its only possible purpose is as a PoV fork with the same level of integrity as the memes that come through my Facebook news feed. I already suggested by all means putting criticisms in each of the named politicians (for which there are WP:RS available) regarding these comments, and the specific claims that each of them made. But of course, then WP editors don't get to malign the entire Republican Party through the use of an association fallacy.― Padenton |☎  16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a dictionary, etc. This really does not appear to be a topic at all, it's just a phrase that has been used by various people. Strictly speaking, it's not a neologism, because it doesn't mean anything different from what the words mean naturally. It (I mean the literal title "I'm not a scientist") also is not a fact, any more than "I am a cat lover" is a fact, and in fact this really isn't anything at all. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This will never be anything other than a vehicle for heaping (richly deserved) ridicule on certain Republican politicians. It passes GNG with flying colors, but it's just not an encyclopedic topic. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Margin1522: See Wikipedia:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's for !votes without a reason. I've given a reason. Can you or anyone else suggest some way that this article could be rewritten from a neutral point of view, without losing the crucial point, namely that it is strange for a politician to make this innocuous statement in a context that demands another kind of statement? Do we have articles about statements that are notable because they are inappropriate to their context? – Margin1522 (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is basically a WP:COATRACK for political criticism. Just because it has been occasionally noted in reliable sources that some politicians have mocked other politicians for using this phrase, I don't think that makes it a notable phrase or an encyclopedic topic. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The phrase isn't terribly notable (not like Let there be light or Nation of shopkeepers) and the article is a WP:COATRACK. -- 120.17.33.20 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a well known phrase. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the following.
  • Jonathan Chait, Why Do Republicans Always Say ‘I’m Not a Scientist’?, New York, May 30, 2014.
  • Coral Davenport, Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They’re Not Scientists, New York Times, Oct. 30, 2014.
  • Suzanne Goldenberg, Obama attacks Republican 'I am not a scientist' climate change denial in address, Guardian, Jan. 21, 2015.
  • Rebecca Leber, Warning to the 2016 GOP Field: "I'm Not a Scientist" Is a Recipe for Disaster, New Republic, Jan. 30, 2015.
  • Steve Benen, The GOP’s ‘not a scientist’ meme keeps spreading, MSNBC, Sept. 17, 2014.

These sources (some of which are indeed already cited in the article) seem to be to be sufficient to support notability. While I wouldn't object to a proper merge/redirect (to climate change denial, etc.) the content should be preserved. Neutrality^talk 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The phrase has been the subject of significant coverage, as noted by Neutrality, that goes beyond dictionary definitions to "include information on the social or historical significance of the term". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎  21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see anything that suggests significant coverage or anything even remotely close to "social or historical significance". It's simply not notable at this point. Deli nk (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Argument from ignorance, of which it is a fork. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nom (I'm in favor of Delete/Merge): @Bearian: Not appropriate. Argument from ignorance and other articles on Rhetological fallacies do include examples, but all examples are abstract and merely used to explain the concept. These are articles on philosophical concepts, to inject needless political issues is not appropriate. It's also not actually an example of an argument from ignorance, because it doesn't qualify as an argument in any of the sources in the article, nor the ones that Neutrality listed above. It's a Statement_(logic). And if you read the sources, the only conclusion that is ever drawn from this statement is that they are not qualified to debate climate change, etc. You may not like it, but it's not an argument, and it's not an example of Argument from ignorance, because not being a scientist is merely their response, not their reason for denying climate change.

As I suggested in my nomination, the appropriate handling of this is that the specific comments by each politician should be placed on the article about that politician, without attempting to ascribe the words of one politician to others. I would also not be opposed to the content being moved to climate change denial, provided that it is not a Straw man as it is in this disgusting article, attempting to put the words of a small handful of politicians into the mouths of many. ― Padenton |☎  21:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Padenton, I'd rather keep it than delete it outright. As noted above, there is substantial coverage in several reliable sources, so it is therefore a notable topic, thus I'd keep the facts; the problem is that the current article gives undue weight and it is forked away from a neutral article. I certainly do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: It does not seem like you read what I wrote. I'm going to wait until you have. ― Padenton |☎  15:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do they say such words? What is the point or argument they are trying to make? Bearian (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: They aren't making an argument or a point by saying "I'm not a scientist", at least not in the articles I've read and interviews I've seen. They say the words because they are true, they're politicians, not scientific experts. An argument generally follows in the interviews, for example in [2], it quotes Boehner as saying “I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change. But I am astute enough to understand that every proposal that has come out of this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing American jobs.” The argument here isn't that the science over climate change is incorrect, false, a hoax, whatever. The argument in this quote is something along the lines of "a proposal to deal with climate change shouldn't be one that hurts the economy and American jobs." "I'm not a scientist" isn't actually part of that argument (paraphrased or not), Boehner's conclusion isn't based on the premise of him not being a scientist, but based on the premise, true or not, that 'past proposals made by the admin. would have killed jobs and hurt the economy.' ― Padenton |☎  22:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The news coverage is minimal and does not indicate any degree of notability or political significance - it is typical of a passing little political attack that never got much traction. The article, with its clear problems with POV, COATRACK, and FORK as noted several times above, comes across as a shallow attempt to make something out of a non-issue. The fact that the article must rely on references that are opinion pieces (from a single political perspective, at that) gives it away. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can support merging this somewhere, but Argument from ignorance doesn't seem like an appropriate target to me. What does this have to do with not seeing kangaroos in the back seat of your car? This is definitely not a WP:content fork of that article; where does argument from ignorance mention climate science? This topic is far more notable than a substantial portion of Wikipedia's BLPs. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just did a major rewrite. All the quotes were removed because they were criticisms of the Republicans and their phrase, which tilted the article to POV. The links to 'logical fallacy' pages have been deleted--they implied that the phrase was a logical fallacy. Readers can still connect to a page on fallacies from a link in the article itself. This article is noteworthy because the phrase has received extensive coverage in major media. Tapered (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I am convinced this is notable WP:WORDISSUBJECT, but the POV issue is huge and seemingly unsolvable. Basically, that line of defense is completely untenable (no, you are no scientist, but you are supposed to take decisions, so if you have no expertise yourself tell me where you take it from), as are many other politician cheap tricks ("I would not comment on that trial while it is underway, because I respect presumption of innocence"). It seems however that this line is disproportionately used by politicians from one side, so exposing it for the bollocks it is (as an article that is more than three sentences long is going to do) might be seen as political POV from the other side. Tigraan (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is clearly illustrated by the sources. Everyking (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2015 (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.