Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Sandberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:52Z
Anders Sandberg[edit]
- Anders Sandberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A bio for a postdoc? This is a classic vanity page and is not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sandberg is a fairly significant name in transhumanism--as mentioned in the entry, he was chairman of the World Transhumanist Association, and this article on the history of transhumanist thought says (in section 4) that he was also a major contributer to one of the organizations's founding documents, which laid out the ideas behind a more "academically respectable" form of transhumanism. Sandberg is also quoted a number of times in the book The Spike by Damien Broderick, and in Citizen Cyborg by James Hughes (Hughes' book also has a long section on the World Transhumanist Association and its founding documents, and the WTA is the main group for those who support his philosophy of Democratic transhumanism). Hypnosifl 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nomOo7565 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Edeans 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete He is clearly not yet notable as a scientist--5 peer reviewed papers in specialized journals , and still a postdoc.
He is not mentioned in the WP transhumanism article--and they list quite a number of people over several centuries as their founders. Nor is he listed as one of the two founders in the article on the Society. It might be enlightening to look at his web site. DGG 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] - In response to DGG's comment above, Sandberg is in fact mentioned in the "History" section of the wikipedia transhumanism article, which says "A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist." Looking back, it appears this sentence has been there since May 5 2006. He is also mentioned on the list of transhumanists article, one of only 54 entries. While I agree he is not notable as a scientist, I think most people with a significant level of familiarity with transhumanism would agree he is a notable transhumanist. Hypnosifl 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC) You are quite correct that he is mentioned, right in the middle. My apology.DGG 03:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promising but not yet notable. Edison 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable within the Transhumanist movement, and despite his relative youth he has been well known for a while in those circles. I first heard about him when he and other transhumanists were interviewed in an issue of the excellent but sadly defuct 21*C magazine quite a few years back. For what it's worth Google book search "Anders Sandberg" transhumanist Google scholar, Web search, same text query M Alan Kazlev 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, try the Google Scholar search and you'll see that his few papers are rarely cited. Not notable. Mnemopis 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But no one is claiming he is notable for his academic career! He is notable because of his position in the transhumanist movement, the Google book search shows he is quoted or discussed in a significant number of books about transhumanism, including Ray Kurzweil's influential book The Singularity is Near. I really would advise people not to make a judgment about keeping/deleting unless you have a reasonable level of familiarity with the transhumanist movement as a whole. Hypnosifl 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very familiar with the Transhumanist movement, both with its movers and with its mover-wannabes. Anders is a wannabe. He has not done anything notable as yet that merits a Wikipedia page. Maybe some day he will do or write something significant, but he hasn't yet. Anyone who researches the matter sufficiently will very likely concur. I'm still waiting for anyone to show me anything he's done that's notable. Mnemopis 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you define as "notable", exactly? There are a number of prominent transhumanists who haven't written books on the subject (Nick Bostrom, Robin Hanson, Max More, etc.)...do you have any criteria for notability besides writing books or founding transhumanist groups? I'd say he's notable as a thinker and commentator, someone whose thoughts and opinions are valued by other prominent transhumanists, as evidenced for example by how frequently he's quoted in books by others such as Kurzweil and Hughes, and by the fact that he is often invited to speak at transhumanist events or collaborate on group efforts such as the founding documents of the WTA mentioned above. The opinion of his peers should count for more than the opinions of us wiki editors, I think. Hypnosifl 07:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I stated at the top of this page, Anders Sandberg is not notable per WP:BIO. Also see What_Wikipedia_is_not. Mnemopis 08:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The central criteria of WP:BIO is that "the person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", and "This criterion includes published works in all forms". Sandberg has certainly been the subject of a number of published interviews, such as this one from German television, or this one from the BME ezine. Hypnosifl 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not notable. Most people here have already voted to delete. Mnemopis 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say it's not notable? Do you disagree that Sandberg has been the primary subject of non-trivial published works? As for your second comment, please note that according to AfD etiquette, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." Hypnosifl 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He hasn't been the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Mnemopis 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was asking was why you think the interviews I linked to above don't qualify according to the stated criteria. For example, isn't the BME ezine a reliable source on the topic of mody modification? I'd also add this article from the magazine New Scientist--it's an interview with both Sandberg and Nick Bostrom, but it seems to me that when there are only two subjects they could both reasonably be called a "primary subject" of the interview. And this page from the Future of Humanity Institute mentions in its "interviews and reports section" an "Interview for the Swedish youth radio program "Stjärnstopp" about life extension, cryonics and identity, Anders Sandberg" (more info here), along with a few others. This page from Eudoxa links to several more (see highlighted version here to find the ones involving Sandberg), although in most cases the language is not english so it's hard to tell to what degree he was the primary interview subject. Hypnosifl 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He hasn't been the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Mnemopis 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say it's not notable? Do you disagree that Sandberg has been the primary subject of non-trivial published works? As for your second comment, please note that according to AfD etiquette, "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." Hypnosifl 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not notable. Most people here have already voted to delete. Mnemopis 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The central criteria of WP:BIO is that "the person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", and "This criterion includes published works in all forms". Sandberg has certainly been the subject of a number of published interviews, such as this one from German television, or this one from the BME ezine. Hypnosifl 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I stated at the top of this page, Anders Sandberg is not notable per WP:BIO. Also see What_Wikipedia_is_not. Mnemopis 08:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you define as "notable", exactly? There are a number of prominent transhumanists who haven't written books on the subject (Nick Bostrom, Robin Hanson, Max More, etc.)...do you have any criteria for notability besides writing books or founding transhumanist groups? I'd say he's notable as a thinker and commentator, someone whose thoughts and opinions are valued by other prominent transhumanists, as evidenced for example by how frequently he's quoted in books by others such as Kurzweil and Hughes, and by the fact that he is often invited to speak at transhumanist events or collaborate on group efforts such as the founding documents of the WTA mentioned above. The opinion of his peers should count for more than the opinions of us wiki editors, I think. Hypnosifl 07:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very familiar with the Transhumanist movement, both with its movers and with its mover-wannabes. Anders is a wannabe. He has not done anything notable as yet that merits a Wikipedia page. Maybe some day he will do or write something significant, but he hasn't yet. Anyone who researches the matter sufficiently will very likely concur. I'm still waiting for anyone to show me anything he's done that's notable. Mnemopis 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But no one is claiming he is notable for his academic career! He is notable because of his position in the transhumanist movement, the Google book search shows he is quoted or discussed in a significant number of books about transhumanism, including Ray Kurzweil's influential book The Singularity is Near. I really would advise people not to make a judgment about keeping/deleting unless you have a reasonable level of familiarity with the transhumanist movement as a whole. Hypnosifl 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, try the Google Scholar search and you'll see that his few papers are rarely cited. Not notable. Mnemopis 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(un-indenting) The criterion stated in Wikipedia:Notability is reliability, not "respectability" at the level of peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Science. (and as I mentioned before, no one is claiming Sandberg is notable as a scientist, so if that's what you're suggesting it's a strawman--what would you consider a reliable source on the subject of transhumanism?) TV news programs and magazines like New Scientist would in my understanding be considered reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I think a notable ezine like BME would also be considered reliable in its specific subject area of body modification, although this one might be more of a gray area. Hypnosifl 00:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- so you can't produce anything from reputable sources. Glad we cleared that up. Mnemopis 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One-liners are not very productive. Can you state what specific criteria from Wikipedia:Notability you think is not satisfied by the New Scientist article, for example? If not then it seems to me you are relying on your own subjective sense of what a "reputable source" is, not wikipedia's official policy. Also, can you answer my question about what would be a reliable source on the subject of transhumanism, as opposed to the subject of science? Hypnosifl 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He has a small number of publications, none of them in respectable journals, and they rarely get cited which indicates they are not significant. This person definitely does not belong on Wikipedia. He's not notable; he's not even mediocre so it's amazing that anyone would think he deserves a Wikipedia page. Mnemopis 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Anders Sandberg is an important person of the transhumanist movement. If you cannot recognize this, then you 1) do not know enough about the transhumanist movement, or 2) have issues. //Kada, 9 Feb 2007
- this is not convincing. If there is anything notable about him, then out with the details and credentials. Mnemopis 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid there is no other way I can convince you. The details are right here on Wikipedia, in the article about him. But according to you it's not enough. What must he do, win the Nobel price? // Kada, 12 Feb 2007
- this is not convincing. If there is anything notable about him, then out with the details and credentials. Mnemopis 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promising but not notable. Maybe try again in 10 years. Brainsynth 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per this and this Addhoc 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Incidental media coverage, as evident from the above searches and links, doesn't yet cross the WP:BIO threshold. Sandstein 06:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though little-known outside the Transhumanist movement, he is very well-known within it and been a significant contributor. In addition, he crosses the WP:BIO threshold via known coverage in New Scientist and a number of minor publications. 210.86.40.235 11:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting, debate still going on and poor consensus. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is a well-known transhumanist, as well as a notable scientific journalist in Sweden. Has numerous published debate articles, though in nordic languages.--85.226.76.109 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant ideological contributions to the Transhumanist movement internationally. Very significant for the Swedish Transhumanist movement. Numerus publications in Swedish newspapers and magazines. Several apperances in Swedish television on Transhumanist subjects. Not a notable Scientist but then his research is very narrow, not many other who write papers with in that field at all. Also longtime Science editor in the Youth Scientist radio in Stockholm. here
- Keep. High impact within the transhumanist movement, and a significant contributor to the visibility of transhumanist ideas. Michiexile 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Beside the arguments above we have the fact that Anders Sandberg is very often in TV, like scientific programs national Swedish channel SVT and the channel Kunskapskanalen. Fabben 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sock-puppets and meat-puppets notwithstanding, Sandberg is completely non-notable as a neuroscientist, which is what his Wikipedia page seems to focus on. If he has some role in Swedish Transhumanism, then his bio should be just over that, though this does not seem notable either. Seriously, if my uncle played a role in Uganda's Transhumanism scene, would that merit a Wikipedia bio? Hardly.
- 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.