Talk:Etzel Cardeña

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Etzel Cardeña. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930214511/http://www.salongk.se/artiklar/import/2006/9/7/4470/index.xml to http://www.salongk.se/artiklar/import/2006/9/7/4470/index.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The claim in this article is that ESP is being proven using science. Really? News to me. RobP (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit notes

Improved the article somewhat by removing uncited and 'not noteable' material, still needs more and better citations. The discussion to delete is still very relevant IMO. Without proving the existence of and hopefully citing RS (that aren't just broken links) it is difficult for me to justify keeping this article on the grounds of notability. Endercase (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the reversion of my edit without discussion on the talk page I have weighed in at the deletion !vote about the article. Endercase (talk)

I don't think you can have tried very hard to cite any of this material before just removing it. I have added citations for most of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE

The article gives weight to Cardeña's fringe "expressed views" but omits any mainstream reception, analysis, or context. As a WP:FRINGEBLP, we could apply sources such as Arthur S. Reber and James E. Alcock as well as Steven Novella per WP:PARITY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tag

The article includes promotional information solely supported by primary sources. This includes a seemingly-arbitrary quote, and a non-notable award (the Charles Honorton Integrative Contributions Award) supported only by a primary source. There are also plenty of other problems. The line "he has expressed views in favour of the validity of some paranormal phenomena" is strangely evasive and bordering on euphemistic. WP:TONE means we should state things clearly, without this kind of loaded hinting and nudging. Again, there are multiple problems. These are just examples. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An expression of his views may be accurate or inaccurate, but it is not promotional. A statement that he has won an award may be WP:DUE or undue, but it is merely a statement of fact, not promotional. The primary nature of sourcing is not relevant for claims of WP:PROF notability, which explicitly allow primary sources to document the fact that someone has received an award etc. Take it to AfD if you must but you will be disappointed in the outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look a little closer at what I am actually saying. The 'promotional' tag says nothing about notability, and at no point have I argued the article should be deleted. You're responding to criticisms I am not making.

I am willing to remove or rephrase the content that I don't think belongs in the article, but I can tell from the article's history and the past AFD that this will need consensus first.

There are countless statements of fact we could include. When a non-notable award is included in the lead, this implies to reader that it means something, but I don't think sources support that it's a meaningful accolade that doesn't need any additional context, and that context would come from a WP:IS. Without a decent source, it's promotional trivia.

Including cherry-picked quotes form primary sources without any context at all is promotional. It is implying, based on... an editor's whim, I guess? that this one quote is important and informative.That's not good enough. It's worse than a dust-jacket blurb.

Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The award in question is one of the five main annual awards of a bluelinked society. You might have some animus against the society because it is fringe, and I agree that it is a fringe society, but let's try to be neutral. It is still a bluelinked society that gave one of its major awards to Cardeña. One might form an opinion about Cardeña from this fact that is positive (he won an award!) or negative (this confirms how fringe he is!) but the fact of receiving an award is just a fact, not an evaluation by us. It is an evaluation of him by the society, but that part is adequately sourced. We don't have to avoid evaluations to be neutral; we need merely include them as due when they are due and properly attribute them. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]