Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Dunkel

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. ✗plicit 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Dunkel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I PRODed this article, it was deprodded by AndreJustAndre. This author does not meet any WP:NACADEMIC criteria and has only passing mentions or routine coverage in a few media articles. Katzrockso (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Psychology, and Social science. Katzrockso (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak keep. Katzrockso and I have been working on a protracted dispute that has still led to some constructive article improvements, but Katzrockso has opined that this guy should be stricken from the article and Wikipedia now apparently. I deprodded because I thought this had at least a 50% chance of surviving an AFD under GNG. This is evidently a fringe author, has published in fringe publications, and he seems to have some association with hereditarian/race realists/scientific racists/racist scientists/whatever you want to call them, or is one, but being a bad person or an unsavory personality isn't a reason to prod. We have lots of articles on notable white supremacists. He definitely doesn't meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR, but under GNG, I am leaning weak keep. There is the Guardian source already in the article, which gives him a couple paragraphs that I'd probably consider more than just a passing mention: The other co-author, Curtis S Dunkel, is a psychologist who was affiliated with Western Illinois University (WIU) on the paper but is billed as an independent researcher on recent publications and on the ResearchGate website. The Guardian contacted WIU for clarification. A spokesperson said: “Curtis Dunkel is no longer an employee at WIU”, adding: “I cannot comment on the reason for his departure.” Dunkel, along with Kirkegaard and Woodley, spoke at the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) in 2016, according to leaked conference schedules. Dunkel’s paper was entitled Sex Differences in Brain Size Do Translate into Difference in General Intelligence, and the abstract suggests that Dunkel claimed that women were less intelligent than men by an equivalent of 4 IQ points on average. Here is coverage of him in Psypost, which I think is an RS right?, and which seems to be fairly significant coverage as it focuses on him and his study: [1] He is cited for debunking purposes by the Chad and Brym 2020 article[2], and by the Panofsky article (already in the article). Those cites are pretty cursory, but taken as a whole, he appears to have a footprint. I also got a bunch of hits in Google Books, about 2 pages, unless there is another Curtis Dunkel, citing a book "Possible Selves Theory, Research and Applications" and some for "Terrorism: An Identity Theory Perspective."[3] ResearchGate, which may not be correct or reliable but as a rough indicator, claims he is cited 2814 times and has 126 publications. Another small cite in a cognitive development book, "Children′s Thinking" [4]. The Panofsky thing is covered in a book [5] which devotes most of the preview page to Dunkel that I can see. Another small cite in "Confronting the “Weaponization” of Genetics by Racists Online and Elsewhere" [6]. My standard for keep is not dependent on how much I disagree with or find distasteful the person, and I have argued to keep less notable individuals, so I have a tough time coming down on the delete side here. Andre🚐 07:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly notable fringe researchers like Emil Kirkegaard have had their articles deleted/redirected multiple times despite mentions in exposes of race science. Having a small number of citations or even one example of routine coverage of a specific adademic paper in PsyPost doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. I don't think that the passing mentions of Dunkel in The Guardian article constitute WP:SIGCOV, since they don't have any analysis of him but consist of small factoids about his academic career.

I agree this is borderline notability, because his prior work on identity in relation to social psychology is much more significant than his recent work on fringe theories, but without a good analysis of the actual prominence of his work within that literature, I believe there is no real justification for notability. Katzrockso (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sourcing. We have a similar problem at Russell T. Warne. Some of these far-right "race" pseudoscience people are not notable for Wikipedia articles. There simply isn't enough good WP:FRIND sourcing on them to establish an article. Veg Historian (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Katzrockso, and an assessment of the sources included on the article below. The primary issue is the lack of significant coverage throughout all of the sources used in this article. I can't really find much sourcing that would establish notability that's not included in the article because he simply isn't discussed much outside of fringe science. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:SmittenGalaxy
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Reference 1: The Register-Mail. Note that this is paywalled.			Run-of-the-mill coverage of tuition change, trivial mention of article subject amongst a large list of other people.	✘ No
Reference 2: Time		WP:TIMEMAGAZINE	The article is not about him, and the single time he appears is plainly a trivial mention.	✘ No
Reference 3: PsyPost	Concerns from other editors over the WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:PRIMARY status of PsyPost leads me to say that it is not an independent (third-party) source.	PsyPost does claim, on their about page, to have editorial standards. However, my research on here has shown that there are editors with concerns over PsyPost's reliability, as it does not appear to be anything more than a pop-news blog.	~ As per Katzrockso, this source is probably not significant coverage. Having a single paper reported on would not normally contribute to notability, although it would be a helpful source to support someone already notable.	✘ No
Reference 4: The Guardian		WP:THEGUARDIAN	Article not primarily about subject and his mention is trivial. Just about his co-authorship on a paper and another trivial mention of one of his papers.	✘ No
Reference 5: 'How White nationalists mobilize genetics: From genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counterscience and metapolitics			He was cited once, and is briefly mentioned as the author of a single paper in an analysis that is many pages long.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete- per nom and the good criticisms of SmittenGalaxy. I want to add too that PsyPost does not at all check the reliability of their sources, as several times I removed links which cited retracted studies. It is a (non-primary source) blog, and therefore not a good source. Plasticwonder (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2025 (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.