Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperativism

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 speedy delete all as being solely promotional. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperativism[edit]

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

Also adding

Can I add Asleep in the Helix: Survival & the Science of Self Realization too - prod removed on article about self-published book by M.A.Carrano? Peridon (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable philosophical system by a non-notable person. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article subject MIGHT be notable, but not much sources, that is why I sent it here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Keep the article.

Reason: Here's a nationally televised debate held at Fairfield University regarding his run for the U.S. House of Representatives.[1] Obviously, he's notable enough to make national, official news in major media outlets.

Evidence: Simply go to a Yahoo! search engine, type in "M.A.Carrano" and search assist tools in "philosopher" and "olympics" automatically. You'll see that enough people are reading his work that Yahoo!, a much larger institution than Wikipedia, recognizes him. If anything, it's time for Wikipedia to play catch up. Also, type in Michael Anthony Carrano and dozens of pages come up.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imperativism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangecalypso (talk • contribs) 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangecalypso, just having Yahoo hits (or gHits) isn't enough. you need SOURCES. If you want the article to be kept, improve it, add sources. There, I am helping you Ok? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unintelligible philosophizing by a minor party candidate for the US Congress. No evidence that this has been covered in reliable sources other than Mr. Carrano's own books: That insofar as the map is not the territory, independent of all subjective representations, existence is an integrated reticulum of information whose essential disposition is expressed via a metaphysics of holism and synergy. Well, it sounds impressive.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'Spurned from the mind of...'? I spurn it too. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spurn We are not here to discuss the intelligibility of the philosophy, although I will say it's one of the least intelligible expositions I've met - and I have addressed a Philosophical Society on the subject of Arthur Schopenhauer. We are here to decide the notability of the subject of the article. All his publications appear to be self-published - at least, I can not separate 'Carrano' and 'Avatar Paradigms'. Being a candidate does not confer notability - until the candidate is successful (and by definition therefore not a candidate any more). (Personal opinion time: if he manages to get elected in the USA on a philosophical basis like this, it may well signal the end of the world approaching or something like that.) Searching for "m.a. carrano" gives a lot of ghits until you start to use the minuses: -cytogenetics -chromosome -dna, for example. This removes another possibly less philosophical but more scientific M.A. Carrano. This may or may not be the M.A. Carrano that according to someone's friend Steph has 'cured two gay men'. That's just an illustration of how difficult is seems to be to find the wheat amongst the chaff. Timing of the appearance of the article and a candidature raises suspicions - as have other similar appearances recently connected with other candidates. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable self-published mumbo-jumbo. And not philosophy. Hairhorn (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Self-Published content is not listed in Wikipedia as violating it's notability criteria. See article on Jill Bolte Taylor's self-published book My Stroke of Insight. [[1]], which is also featured in Wikipedia. Plus, insulting the page as "mumbo jumbo" and "not philosophy" demonstrates nothing since the opinion itself doesn't even meet Wikipedia's standards for quality control -- because, ironically, it doesn't come from an established, independent, third party source.

Also, enough references are included pertaining to M.A.Carrano in order to meet and exceed the minimal limit for what is required as notable insofar as they are 1) from well established sources (e.g., Fairfield University), 2) represent independent, 3rd party confirmation of the article's contents (The Greenwhich Times), and 3)acknowledge his career as a philosophy writer (League of Women's Voters, and Asleep in the Helix).

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which this article has, then it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Below are Wikipedia's terms:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. (University coverage is extremely reliable, which Carrano has)Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. (Self Publishing applies) Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. (This article includes over ten sources.) [3]

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. (Wikipedias terms of what is and is not appropriate are satisfied in this context because it does not include either adult related or explicit content in violation of User Agreements) [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangecalypso (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this article meets all quality standards with the excepton of requiring clean up, deleting article at this juncture would constitute as violating of Wikipedia's User Agreements and would qualify for Vandalism.

Speedy delete, hoax, nonsense. BTW, Asleep in the Helix: Survival & the Science of Self Realization is published by Lulu, a self-publishing organization. Woogee (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu publications are allowed in the Terms of Service Agreement listed with Wikipedia. Please search Jill Bolte Taylor, who is covered in Wikipedia, and her Lulu published work entitled My Stroke of Insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangecalypso (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue is the notability of this person, as backed up by reliable sources. Having written a self-published book, by its very nature, does nothing to make this person notable. So the notability has to come from somewhere else. Anyone can self-publish. And it's clearly mumbo-jumbo, saying that in an AFD doesn't violate any policies at all, this page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a project page. Hairhorn (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, literally: if the discussion of this page is to progress, other editors involved need to adapt their positions to the data. So far it's already been presented on a point-for-point basis how the included sources meet and exceed Wikipedia's criterion for notability. There have been university publications, government websites, third party news sources, direct quotations, etc. Again, I know it's terribly inconvenient for those who'd like to see this article deleted, but the data is available and argument-ending in that this article meets and exceed's Wikipedia's criteria. From this point forward, for the third time, to delete this article when it meets and exceeds all criteria would be a violation of User Agreement and would count as Vandalism. And that's why the postures of the editors now have a responsibility to adapt to this data and reflect this in their positions. Does it need clean up? Perhaps. Incubation? Less likely, but feasible. But the argument is over on deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangecalypso (talk • contribs) 02:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which university refs? The "Fairfield University" links that go to YouTube? Where I'm sitting, the references given in the entry pretty clearly fail the notability guidelines (press mentions are not on par with press coverage).... all of which goes to show that there's not really any such thing as "argument ending" data, as any good philosopher of science could tell you... Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Press mentions are COMPLETELY distinct of press coverate. And the Fairfield U. debates aren't just merely mentioning the debates; they're COVERING THE DEBATES with 30 minutes of live footage as questions are fielded directly to the guy who, in turn, directly answers. So again, the evidence remains unchanged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangecalypso (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to youk, but YouTube isn't a "university publication"; the video on the link does nothing to establish notability for this person, it appears to be a local candidates debate. Hairhorn (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is entitled 'Imperativism', which is said to be a philosophical system. No evidence that this system has received recognition or notice by reliable sources. The web site http://www.imperativism.com cited in the article does not work and the author's Myspace page is marked as private. He is written up as a minor party candidate for Congress in a voters' guide which acknowledges that it is simply printing statements sent in by the candidates. Generally, candidates are not notable simply by being candidates; if he were elected to Congress he would become notable. In any event, it is unclear how his status as a candidate would give any notability to the topic of 'imperativism' which, one gathers, is an ethical system intended as a contribution to philosophy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The issue of contention here is whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's Notability Criteria. It does. For the fourth time. And this is the last time I'm explaining it.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

In the interview with Todd Sheets on Night Watch, a nationally broadcast radio show, the subject, M.A.Carrano, is the special guest of the program and is addressed directly for 30 minutes. No original research is needed.

In the televised event with Fairfield University on Finding Our Way, the subject, Carrano, is a special guest of the program and is addressed directly for 25 minutes. No original research is needed.

Consequently, the article meets the criteria for significant coverage in two counts.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.

The Fairfield University meets the criteria for a professional source for citible, reference material.

The article meets Wikipedia's demand for a reliable source.

Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media.

Self published media is a form of media, and therefore is covered under the umbrella of all forms and media. Carrano's self published book Asleep in the Helix, therefore meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source.

Consequently, the article meets the criteria for reliable coverage in two counts.

"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.

Carrano's interview in The Greenwhich Times meets criteria as objective evidence that a third party media purveyor has found his writing and public activities worthy enough to note in their publication.

Carrano's Interview in The League of Women's Voters meets criteria again as objective evidence that this Westport publication has found his writing and public activities worthy enough to note in their publication.

This article meets the criteria for sources in AT LEAST two accounts.

Multiple sources are generally expected.

This article includes over ten sources.

It therefore exceeds the criteria for multiple sources.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]

Carrano is listed in dozens of online journals independent of his own publications, self promotion and affiliated releases, eight of which have been included in this article at the time of writing this.

This article meets the criteria AT LEAST eight times for sources independent of those affiliated with the subject.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, if it is not appropriate.

This article matches directly those articles previously deemed appropriate for publication in Wikipedia because it fulfills the purpose of Wikipedia, as free source of information, and does not feature any non-informational content (such as advertising) nor does it feature inappropriate or explicit material that has nothing to do with an educational website like Wikipedia. The article itself, therefore, meets the criteria for coverage significant to the purpose of a Wikipedia article, which is for educational purposes.

Consequently, it's been demonstrated through direct, physical demonstration on a point-for-point basis exactly how this article meets and exceeds in every criteria for Notability that Wikipedia has currently established.

Subsequently, because it's a LEGITIMATE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, to deliberately delete or deface it is grounds for vandalism.

Even still, I'm contacting a Wikipedia Administrator and filing for a vandalism investigation. Because this is ridiculous. I'm the only one giving direct evidence and step-by-step logical arguments. Everyone else is just throwing opinions around on it based on whether or not they like the content -i.e., "mumbo jumbo", "not philosophy" and so on.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangecalypso (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. "Independent" obviously excludes "written and published by the author". Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2010 (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.