Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearce (philosopher) (3rd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. There seems to be agreement that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, but there is no consensus on the inherently subjective question of whether he meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearce (philosopher)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Pearce (philosopher) (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)

David is in no way notable in terms of his academic qualifications or academic publications to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This is despite a loyal group of friends that continually revert his entry to reference primary-sourced citations, often linked his own collection of websites listed at BLTC Research domains. Reasons: Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources flyingkiwiguy (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. FAIL
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. FAIL
3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). FAIL
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. FAIL
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). FAIL
6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. FAIL
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. FAIL
8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. FAIL
9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. FAIL
flyingkiwiguy (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the above Delete vote is by the nominator (whose nomination is typically to stand in for a delete vote in itself). --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. My understanding was that the decision is not based on a tally of votes, but on discussion and final consensus. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because notability is suggested by third-party coverage in mainstream media, including Vanity Fair (referenced in the article at present), and The Economist (see previous deletion suggestion). Whilst the nominator, above, has gone through a specifically academic notability checklist, we should also consider that this person is notable for other reasons too including (ironically) his internet empire — the previous deletion nomination describes him as "one of the most prolific spamdexers ever". – Kieran T (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see sufficient evidence of notability. He fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BASIC. The only source that helps establish notability is the Dazed & Confused story, which isn't hugely detailed but has some info.[1] The link to German Vanity Fair is purely an interview, so it doesn't count as a secondary source. Ditto the io9 interview (io9 editorial is reliable but not interviews). Other coverage seems to be from very obscure transhumanist publications. As to other notability guidelines, there are no notable books by this person; he's not employed by any academic institution or recipient of anything (awards, fellowships, state honors, etc) to show his significance. So we'd need either more press/media coverage about him (i.e. not interviews) in multiple sources, or credible, referenced statements about his importance as a philosopher. He seems to be someone with mildly interesting ideas who's got a small amount of press coverage but who doesn't quite meet our notability requirements, so I wouldn't be opposed to merging or mentioning him in articles on relevant topics if there are suitable articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the case for deleting this article rests on the erroneous assumption that David Pearce is an academic. He isn't, so the fact that he fails to meet all those criteria is irrelevant. The pertinent considerations for and against deleting this entry have already been covered in previous deletion nominations, and the consensus was that the entry should be kept. Sir Paul (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please tell us what other notability guideline he meets. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - He's a public intellectual and proponent/activist/proselytizer of transhumanism, and in transhumanism he easily meets the criterion of having made a significant impact. He co-founded the World Transhumanist Association, now known as H+, probably the best known transhumanist publication/organization. That he has written and been interviewed for many top tier sorts of publications, regardless of how you would weigh an interview as primary/secondary source, certainly speaks to his importance and impact on these fields (and in reverse, how many non-notable philosophers are the subject of a feature interview in Vanity Fair?). I see many citations of his work on Google Scholar, but I don't think that should even be a necessary metric in this case. --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see huge amounts of citations to David Pearce the economist. Where do you see citations to this David Pearce? Just curious. --Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See e.g. here. Note that, as I mention in my vote above, David Pearce is notable primarily as a public intellectual/promoter of transhumanism, not as an academic, so this is irrelevant for the current debate anyway. Sir Paul (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry for being a bit dense, but the citations that I see are to publications by N. Bostrom, B. Hibbard, M. Walker, etc. Not a single one of those publications is by Pearce. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link above looks to be a list of citations of Pearce's book. --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case, than that is woefully insufficient. We usually need hundreds of such citations to establish notability (of course, that is if you want to show that someone meets WP:ACADEMIC; for WP:GNG these kind of citations are even more trivial). --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations were provided because you requested them ("Where do you see citations to this David Pearce?"), not to establish academic notability, which --to repeat myself once more-- is irrelevant in the present context.Sir Paul (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that "notability" has nothing to do with "merit", so having contributed to transhumanism or anything else is only relevant if that is supported by in-depth independent reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is incorporating these types of sources in the article - not that those sources don't exist. They do, I've added some and I can add more. I've even found a philosophy textbook, written by a group of academics, that credits David Pearce with founding the idea of transhumanism itself. So if anything, if we're relying just on these sources we could credit him with far more than the article currently does. -03:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a WP:ACADEMIC argument. Again, just having contributed a book chapter and an overview is absolutely trivial. The same goes for conference invitations. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + improve the sourcing. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMICS as his "science" doesn't meet the criteria, but passes GNG with significant coverage in the media. Moreover, he has been a subject of multiple third party analysis, so the article should stay. Alex discussion ★ 09:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Given then that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC - out of the 11 sources cited in the article: 3, 6 and 8 (the latter only available on archive.org) are links to David's own websites, 4 and 7 are from the website of an organisation David co-founded, and 10 is a disingenuous partial copy of 3, so all six are WP:BLPSPS. WP:BASIC explicitly states that "primary sources do not contribute towards the notability of an article". There has been no progress at providing non-primary sources, despite repeated requests on the talk page over the span of a number of years. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added a line at the end of the first paragraph providing evidence of notability. Sir Paul (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be agreement here that Pearce does not meet WP:ACADEMIC (whether or not that guideline is applicable is not relevant), the question therefore is whether there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG directly. Like flyingkiwiguy, I don't really see the necessary coverage for that. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's relevant because the nominator put up the AfD on the basis of failing WP:ACADEMIC. If it's not applicable, then it's not a valid reason for deletion. I mean, he fails WP:Notability (numbers), too. (OF course, this isn't to say I'd be naive enough to think that made for a speedy keep). --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's irrelevant what the nom said. We're not in a court of law here where a case gets thrown out because the plaintiff made an error when formulating the complaint. As far as I am concerned, the nom could have cited WP:ASTRONAUT or another inapplicable guideline. Whatever the nom says, it's our task here to establish notability, regardless under which guideline. Deletion does not follow from failing one guideline, it follows from failing any guideline. If a subject passes one guideline, the article is kept, regardless of whether it simultaneously fails other guidelines. In any case, some above have put forward the argument that the subject is cited in Google Scholar, which is an argument under WP:ACADEMIC, not GNG or something else, so noting that the subject fails ACADEMIC is relevant, although it of course is not sufficient to arrive at a "delete" !vote (which is why I also mentioned GNG). Hope this doesn't sound too muddled... --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like I may be making a mountain out of a molehill with this response, because nothing particularly egregious has transpired here, but how can you say it's irrelevant? If that's what some of the delete votes rest upon, and it's not applicable, then it's quite relevant. I acknowledged in my previous comment that I understand that some fault in the nominator's argument doesn't mean speedy keep. The point is, it was relevant enough for you to bring up as the very first statement of your deletion argument, granting it some credence with "Whether or not that guideline is applicable." The effect is a red herring (i.e. it creates the false impression that the article in question may run into trouble with all sorts of norms/policies). To be clear, I'm not trying to be accusatory -- just a procedural gripe that whether or not it's intended, arguing that something may or may not be true and then following it with "but it's irrelevant" makes it relevant, with rhetorical consequences. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I approached this AfD nomination from the basis of WP:ACADEMIC owing to the fact that the article explicitly presents David as a philosopher. The article specifically includes a reference to his alma mater Brasenose College, but significantly no information on his educational achievements. The Wikipedia definition of a philosopher states: "A generally accepted interpretation in academia is that a philosopher is one who has attained a Ph.D. in philosophy, teaches philosophy, and has published literature in a field of philosophy or is widely accepted by other philosophers as a philosopher". Therefore the consensus that David does not meet WP:ACADEMIC notability directly implies that he also does not meet Wikipedia's stated requirements to be described as a "philosopher". David's only remaining secondary-sourced contribution that is notable is his co-founding of Humanity+. This fact is in turn already more than sufficiently documented in Wikipedia. Finally, David is almost always mentioned in secondary relation with Nick Bostrom who in comparison is incontrovertibly a philosopher, as per the above definition. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your entire case for the claim that Pearce is an academic rests on an invalid inference. Being a philosopher doesn't imply being an academic. If this is not clear enough to you, then I'm happy to edit the article to state that Pearce is an independent philosopher. Sir Paul (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sir Paul, @Keystroke I agree that if the final consensus is "keep", then as per the reference in the Telegraph blog kindly provided below, the article should be updated to describe David as a "maverick independent philosopher", so as to clearly distinguish him from an "academically educated and recognised philosopher", such as Nick Bostrom. David looks to be riding the coattails of Nick. -- flyingkiwiguy (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will change the description to 'independent philosopher', as I indicated. I don't think the word "maverick" is appropriate, nor do I think he is not academically educated or recognized. Philosophers of the highest distinction, such as David Chalmers, have spoken favorably of Pearce. Your claim that Pearce is "riding the coattails" of Bostrom is also unwarranted. It seems to me that you are making a number of claims about this person without being sufficiently familiar with his work or public reception. Sir Paul (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites Yes, I do think that you're making a mountain out of a small molehill. Let me try to re-state my position: in an AFD it is most important which guidelines are passed, not which ones are failed. However, you should also realize that special guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC were designed to make it easier for some persons to pass our notability hurdles. It happens, but is not all that frequent that someone passes WP:GNG while failing a possibly applicable guideline. Apart from that, I agree with flyingkiwiguy that given how the article is written, WP:ACADEMIC had to be addressed. (I don't necessarily agree that failing ACADEMIC means we can't call him a philosopher, but that really is irrelevant here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair points. I don't think the wikipedia article for philosophers has much to do with whether someone can be called that, especially when the definition starts "generally accepted interpretation in academia..." (what about outside of academia?), but that's a subject for the article talk page. I mean, look, if he were an academic I think there's a good argument for impact on a field (of transhumanism or whatever other label you want to put on this nebulous grouping of positions/topics). But since he's not -- and therefore cannot be passed according to wp:academic -- my gripe above is just that it shouldn't be repeated over and over that he fails it. Because while this process isn't about a vote tally (and this is also responding to flyingwikiguy's comment at the top), consensus is what's most important and often determined by votes on either side (i.e. one well-presented keep vote among 50 weak delete votes will not result in a keep decision but 5 compelling keep votes among 6 delete votes may result in keep). This, as well as the unfortunate fact that a list of existing positions creates a baseline on which additional parties cast their own opinions, is my molehillmountain. I'll leave it there, though, because it's getting too far away from the actual subject of this discussion. Apologies for the tangent. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another recent source: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100246226/hangovers-and-the-abolition-of-suffering/ Keystroke (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another in-passing mention on the journal's blog, not even their main pages... --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper blogs are staffed by the same reporters and editors as write any of the other articles - that makes no difference as to notability, accuracy or reliability. --Gloriamarie (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the case may be, it doesn't change the fact that it's just an in-passing mention. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it looks to me like it's two entire paragraphs about David Pearce. Unless an entire article is about someone, that's pretty decent coverage.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes WP:GNG with the media attention he has received. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I wrote quite a bit of this article at one point but have not monitored it, and therefore I believe the problem is the watering down and vandalization/blanking/removal of information that was once in the article rather than a lack of notability of its subject (who clearly qualifies by WP:GNG) - for example, I just did a search for his book in Google Books and found close to 500 citations of it in other books. That would take me hours to sift through if I were to try to add information from them to this article. Anyone commenting on here is free to do so themselves, but they cannot honestly make the argument that he is not notable. I added some information to the article to make that clearer. He does, however, have a lot of people who for whatever reason get riled up by his ideas and don't want anyone to hear them - the recent article history even includes death threats to Pearce. Nonetheless, Pearce has ideas that have been featured in books and articles by numerous third-party sources, and "The Hedonistic Imperative" is on college syllabi. Very clear keep. -Gloriamarie (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Pearce_(philosopher)_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1140405568"