Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies[edit]

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (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)

As was pointed out on a recent thread at WP:FTN, none of the sources in this article are actually about the subject of the article. Yes, the name is mentioned (as a so-called "name check") but simple mention of the name of an organization does not notability make. We need something that indicates that this particular organization has been studied and evaluated by more than just trivial mention. As such, I think the subject does not pass WP:ORG. jps (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands - you're right, the third-party sources aren't actually about the organisation and so don't constitute sources on the organisation. I just went through them all - literally none are actually about the organisation. They're generally quoting someone who gives his affiliation as the IEET. Coindesk article writes up an IEET press release because they mentioned blockchains. The WSJ piece is an op-ed from someone at IEET. This is a bit ... puffy - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note where I mentioned this on the talk page here. The article was then puffed up a bit, but it has lacked evidence of notability for quite a while - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: Sorry, but that's false. Many of those are specifically about the organization. Here's just one as an example: the book The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. --Fixuture (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this meets GNG or ORG. In the (rather unlikely) event that evidence of notability would be found, WP:TNT certainly applies. --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bemused - I am not an editor, just a humble occasional contributor. I find it difficult to understand the 'delete' status of this article. I have no connection to the IEET - indeed had never heard of it. I was looking for information on David Wood, a futurologist, and was redirected here. And I am pleased to have arrived - pleased that Wikipedia knows about this organisation. However, I was concerned at the article's status - the implication is that it is a bogus organisation, that all the links were self-promotional. So I went and looked at its website, only to find an obviously active non-profit scholarly organisation that publishes regular articles by a wide range of authors, one with a regular programme of events, and which publishes its own scholarly peer-reviewed journal.
    • On this basis, it would seem to me that two things are obvious; first, that Wikipedia would be the poorer without reference to this organisation, and second, that the organisation is obviously NOT a self-publicising one, since it would be trivially easy for them to address the failings of the article discussed above.
    • So my question is, why is the article slated for deletion, rather than for improvement? Why has someone spent the time to review every single one of the 20 or more references cited in the article, but not the time to improve the article? And yes, you could ask me the same question - why not improve the article instead of writing this comment? As a wikipedian, the answer should be obvious; the attitude evidenced here is presumably affecting thousands of other interesting and useful pages, and I am concerned to raise the issue. And I will do some work on the article in the near future.-dilgreen (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll note it's been lingering flagged as needing improvements for months, as detailed above. This strongly suggests there's very little helping it along. The ideal proof otherwise would be adding details that are up to the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and at the least meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria - it's ridiculously short of them at present - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The article being on AfD is not an implication that the organization is bogus. This is a common mistake that many Wikipedians themselves make, whereby they cannot dissociate the article from the concept discussed nor the presence/absence of an article from endorsement/condemnation. If the article fails to meet the standards necessary for inclusion, the organization will be as good as it was. It's true that, if the organization has qualities that could satisfy requirements, the article should reflect that, but it's not the explicit duty, that I know of, for people to move to keep on the basis of what isn't present, anymore than to delete because of the absence of something they know could be added. Instead, they have to make a good faith judgment about whether the article meets and can be made to meet the guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be a conflict of issue problem with David Gerard being so influential in the deletion of this article considering he is a trustee of RationalWiki, a wiki dedicated to debunking pseudoscience, and the IEET is dedicated to publishing many transhumanist ideas considered pseudoscience. If you visit the RationalWiki page on transhumanism[1] you will see that the majority of the page is dedicated to criticizing the ideas the IEET promotes. This type of conflict of interest is similar to Wikipedia's prohibition against staff members of a political candidate editing articles on their opposition. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Campaigning.2C political. What we have here is a staff / board member of one policy non-profit promoting the deletion of its opposing non-profit. This is clearly a conflict of interest. The original notability templates were added by David Gerard, and he has been consistently promoting this article's deletion. [2]
There has also been a consistent double standard applied to this article. Other US non-profits have even fewer references and they are not challenged. Others even have a notable members sections but the notable members section on this article is repeatedly deleted. See [3]. A user deleted the section allegedly due to Wikipedia's prohibition against directories, but creating a notable members section is not a directory and is an accepted Wikipedia practice if the listed members are actually notable. Wikipedia even has a consensus accepted template for building a notable members section. See Template:Member and Template:Mem. Another think tank, the Cato Institute, has a very large notable members section with even subsections. See Cato Institute#Notable Cato experts. And a search of Wikipedia using the phrase "Notable members" gives hundreds of articles with "Notable members" sections. See search [4].
It is a common feature of non-profits for the reference to be about the member of the non-profit because the members, as representatives of the non-profit, are the people generating the ideas.
A few notable members of the IEET who were not allowed on the page for unjustified reasons.
Waters.Justin (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the article should stay, you need to add references that are about the organisation. Literally none of the references at the time of the nomination actually check out. Attacking people who notice this - and literally positing a conspiracy theory - is much less likely to make your case than making your case would be - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will note also our past discussion on the talk page: Talk:Institute for Ethics and_Emerging_Technologies#Notability_2. Anyone considering Justin's argument should read the past discussion on this precise matter - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're absolutely right that many articles violate WP:NOTADIRECTORY by including a "notable members" section. Without reliable sources that those members actually did something of note for the organization involved, all that stuff needs to be deleted. Remember that we have no deadline, which is why this stuff sometimes stays around. But if that were an argument to lower our standards, we would end up with accepting the worst article on WP as the standard used to measure all others... Finally, you above "keep" !vote does not contain a single policy-based argument, meaning that the closing admin will most likely ignore it completely. If you want your voice to count, you should base your arguments on WP:GNG or WP:ORG, instead of aspersions about peoples' motivation. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody cares about the political motivations of either the people !voting "delete" or those !voting "keep". All that counts in an AfD is policy-based arguments. Anything else will be ignored. Personal attacks, including speculation that some editor perhaps has some ulterior motives, seriously weaken your arguments here and can get you into serious trouble. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The IEET has long been the leading voice of left-liberal transhumanism. Perhaps a "Criticisms" section might be added to strengthen the article - if anyone believes that e.g. RationalWiki's criticisms of one (or all) strands of the transhumanist movement aren't adequately reflected in the entry as it stands??--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The same as has been said goes for your !vote: it is not baed in policy and will likely be ignored. And what Rationalwiki writes or writes not is completely irrelevant to the discussion here: as a wiki, it is not a reliable source and being covered there does not contribute to the IEET's notability. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know what does and doesn't constitute a policy-based argument. If they have "long been the leading voice of left-liberal transhumanism", do you have a citation from a WP:RS that says so? - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. I was trying to suggest ways that the entry could be strengthened if the result of this discussion is a keep. It’s easy otherwise to waste countless hours on polemics about what is and isn’t notable for no constructive purpose. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no reason to doubt your good faith, or familiarity with the area! I mean that I can use WP:WTF to you in reasonable confidence of comprehension. But, e.g., this is an area I'm not unfamiliar with and yours is the very first claim I've heard to this effect. Surely it's then citable - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the most unenlightened delete request I've ever seen on Wikipedia. So what if nobody ever wrote about IEET in an ancient newspaper or magazine? That concept comes from the old paradigm of paper and pencils. Welcome to the 21st century where groups form overnight to deal with accelerating technological advances. Nobody has the time anymore to deal with archaic forms of recognition like "registering a non-profit with the IRS" or "publishing papers in a journal". Everthing the IEET does is published online instantly and available for peer review at any time by anyone. 162.255.108.184 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — 162.255.108.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. I fear that your !vote may actually not be ignored, because your remark that "nobody ever wrote about IEET in an ancient newspaper or magazine" is actually a very powerful deletion argument. Please familiarize yourself with WP's policies and guidelines. --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?. That doesn't make sense. It's like saying "Your X hasn't been found in archaeological stone tablets and therefore is not real". Just because something doesn't meet your old standards doesn't make it any less real. I'm actually very doubtful that what you're describing are real wikipedia standards because most articles would be deleted based on them. It sounds like you're just making things up... 162.255.108.184 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All guidelines and policies have been linked, so feel free to check for yourself. "[N]obody ever wrote about IEET" is basically a definition of not being notable. It does not mean it doesn't exist (we have their own website to verify that), it just means that they have not made a measurable impact and that there are no independent reliable sources on which we can base an informed article. Face it pal, you just shot yourself in your foot. --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?. Nobody writes about it because it's all completely new. There aren't even journals that deal with these topics. A journal wouldn't even be able to keep up because it would take months to publish something and by then the technology would have changed. There are only a handful of writers with sufficient knowledge to even understand this, let alone put out an article. I think you need to step into the 21st century, look around, and see the new paradigm... rather than clinging to semantics and technicalities based on outdated definitions that no longer apply. Wikipedia is supposed to be a crowd-sourced information portal. You're just trying to remove information. 162.255.108.184 (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think you need to step into the 21st century. Publishing moves at a much faster pace nowadays. But I get it, nobody has written about this, few people even understand it. Your argument that this has not been noted outside of a tiny circle of intimi is really a very powerful deletion argument! --Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a policy-based argument. They've been linked here a lot.
Look, is there any news media coverage of IEET itself? That would count. Go on - give me a policy-based reason to change my opinion - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davidcpearce has not in fact advance a policy based reason as yet - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Don't be ridiculous, that's not a COI. --Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also the notifications Justin made, listed there: looks like canvassing. Please comment there - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is "perfectly acceptable." Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. Waters.Justin (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Frankly, I wouldn't mind about the canvassing at all, if they could at least get their act together and provide policy-based arguments, instead of the crap that this debate is being smothered under. Please people. Two good sources and it's a keep. If you can find that, you either !vote "delete" or you don't !vote at all. --Randykitty (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. FALSIFIABLE CLAIM: Find two articles actually about IEET - not passing mentions, not quoting someone who happens to claim IEET affiliation, but actually about IEET, at length - in sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources and I will firmly support keeping this article - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the fact that numerous reliable sources frequently talk about work coming from the organization without discussing the organization itself at length really cause for deletion? 73.195.30.34 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    • Publishes its own journal with many articles by notable individuals.
    • Anti-transhumanism activist blog Amor Mundi run by a notable individual mentions it 437 times. To cut down on archive based duplications, I used "site:amormundi.blogspot.com/yyyy/ ieet", and came up with the following list: "2006: 3", "2007: 11", "2008: 6", "2009: 18", "2010: 92", "2011: 170", "2012: 41", "2013: 18", "2014: 13", "2015: 6". The result is 378 mentions for years 2006-2015.
    • Provoked mild left-wing criticism from an animal rights blog, One Green Planet, however this is listed as published and removed before the site officially launched per the date on their about page. The Post-Humane Age? When Transhumanism And Animal Rights Collide
    • Conservative site National Review mentions it twice, both times critical of its left-wing agenda and one complaining of its lack of Anthropocentrism. Survey results it obtained were also used for the sake of criticizing Transhumanism as a materialistic religion.
    • Nomination appears to have been made by the same person who nominated George Dvorsky for deletion, and who also tagged transhumanism as "engineer woo" and "science woo" on RationalWiki, a site which has been referenced by multiple media sources and is thus notable by WP criteria.
    • Occupies a somewhat rarified niche in being both transhumanist and left-wing, which contrasts with transhumanism's frequently libertarian roots.
    • I feel that this organization is notable, given the amount of criticism it has received, and that the nomination was most likely motivated at least partly by anti-transhumanist activism, whether it counts as COI or not. The article does need improvement. Could perhaps be merged into an article describing left-transhumanist organizations, at some point. Lsparrish (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) — Lsparrish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Thank you for trying to give a policy-based argumentation. Unfortunately, none of the sources you mention are acceptable. Almost all are blogs, which are not considered to be reliable sources. The only other source is Rationalwiki which, as a wiki, is not an acceptable source either. As for your other arguments: 1/ publishing a journal does not make an organization notable, even if the journal would be notable itself; 2/ Who nominated this and what else they did here or elsewhere is irrelevant; 3/ Occupying "a somewhat rarified niche" does not make an organization notable, unless this stance has led to substantial coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the reply. WRT WP:SPA, my account's main purpose thus far has been correcting cryonics related articles. I found this article by looking at David Gerard's history after he made erroneous edits to 21st Century Medicine. I am admittedly a cryonics advocate, but my intention on wikipedia is to to stick to factual corrections and diversify to other niches of interest. WP:COI based on "transhumanist" activism could be plausible, provided David Gerard's anti-transhumanist activism is given equal consideration.
I do think it's weird for an organization as visible (and, in the case of Carrico's blog, much maligned, although I still think many of those were duplicates) as IEET to be non-notable, but I can accept that it may not be per WP policy. WRT sources, National Review is a print publication, so I think it might count per WP:RS despite being a blog. JET seems like it might be as well (per their History page, "In November 2004, the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies assumed control of the journal.") Lsparrish (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claims about the nominator editing at RationalWiki appear to be false. (Lsparrish also edits there, fwiw) - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Correction acknowledged WRT nominator identity. I incorrectly thought David Gerard was the nominator here, actually he was just voting and commenting; evidently User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc originally nominated it. Here are the sources for claims WRT David Gerard: science woo, engineer woo, Dvorsky nom.
FWIW: "also edits there" (present tense) is possibly misleading. I made recent edits to RW after posting my vote and accompanying remarks here, and they have been reverted since. Apart from those, the most recent were talk comments from December 2010. My old comments from that era were recently (April) referenced by David Gerard, in a comment on a cryonics-hostile blog, and portrayed (speciously, I think) as evidence of my irrationality. I was somewhat involved in the original formation of RW Cryonics several months previously because I (at the time) thought it was intended to eventually be a credible source on the topic. Multiple inaccuracies that had already been addressed in the talk section were left intact for the intervening five years (one of which was added to Wikipedia a few days ago by David Gerard). I began making remedial edits to RW shortly after commenting here, but they were subsequently reverted in their entirety by David Gerard. None of that is terribly relevant to the issue at hand, but might give useful context for any friction between us. Lsparrish (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is evidence of notability for Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies; it appears to be an extended assumption of bad faith and personal attack on one commenter (and not even the nominator) in a deletion nomination. As I noted above: If you can produce two articles actually about IEET - not passing mentions, not quoting someone who happens to claim IEET affiliation, but actually about IEET, at length - in sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I will heartily change my "delete" to a "keep" and advocate that others do so - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Above was intended as a response to points raised, including verifiable sources for previous statements I had made while thinking erroneously that DG was nominator.
Given lack of good sources, strongest argument so far for Keep is common sense, as most transhumanists are at least aware of the existence of this organization due to it frequently publishing interesting articles which get shared and discussed a lot among this niche. Sources issue is hard to explain given its visibility and prominence. May have to do with incomprehensibility of mission/interests to the majority of people. Lsparrish (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Continued This entire New York Times article is about an article from the IEET's scholarly journal. [9].
This entire article from CoinDesk is also about an article from the IEET's scholarly journal. [10]
This entire article by Wesley J. Smith published in the National Review is about the IEET and its ideology. [11].
Many other articles mention the IEET scholar as a spokesperson of the IEET. In those references, the scholar is speaking on behalf of the IEET, so that is not a passive mention of the IEET. Waters.Justin (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an NYT article, it's a blog post, and is not a WP:RS on the IEET.
The Coindesk article has no information on the IEET.
The National Review, apart from being an opinion piece, mentions an IEET article and then goes off on a tangent. It is not a source on the IEET.
- David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Blogs' on newspapers are by regular columnists and RS, see WP:NEWSBLOG. Darx9url (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ignoring the personal attacks and non policy based arguments, there are no reliable sources present in this debate or the article which provide significant coverage independently of the subject. This was the closest thing to a significant mention, but the subject is only being mentioned as it relates to the concept of transhumanism as a religion. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given by Lsparrish and others. --Janepharper (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Called here by bot, never heard of this Institute before. Keep per sources found by Justin Waters and others. Also, cursory google news and google books search shows multiple RS treating the institute as a reliable source and a 'real' institute. Shows that it is notable. Darx9url (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a weird discussion this is. Wikipedia has very low standards for what it includes and as best I can tell, no one here has acknowledged those rules and tried to meet them. A lot of people are saying to keep this article. I encourage everyone who wants this article kept to say nothing more at all and instead post 2-3 citations to reliable sources which feature this organization as its subject. This is the most common standard by means of which deletion is judged. I regret that so many people have come here to make strange proposals for keeping this which are unrelated to Wikipedia's rules. This is not complicated - 2-3 URLs shared here constitute a complete argument for keeping this article. Waters.Justin - you came close because you shared links, which is more than what others are doing. Do you understand the criticism that the links you shared do not feature this organization as their subject? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the delete voters are defining the subject of the article too narrowly. If the subject of the article was only the mission of the organization then I agree there are few references. However, the subject of the article also includes the academic journal and the views of the scholars speaking on behalf of the organization, and there are many references on the journal and the scholars speaking on behalf of the organization. I understand "notability is not inherited" but there is a difference between an organization that is only associated with a notable scholar and a notable scholar that is speaking on behalf and as a representative of the organization. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waters.Justin The conversation and the speaker are different things. The sources which are acceptable to prove WP:N must feature this organization as the topic of conversation. You seem to wish that when the speaker is asked for an expert opinion then that constitutes coverage of the speaker. The community here routinely rejects such sources.
You may disagree that Wikipedia should be so narrow, but I hope that you would at least agree that in hundreds of thousands of cases in the past the Wikipedia community has consistently rejected sources in the same way and passed consistent judgements in this way.
Even if this article is kept all or almost all of the content in it will need to be deleted immediately. The content in this article is not a reflection of the sources cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Rasberry: I have added some print sources that I believe address these concerns, referencing the organization itself rather than a representative, and sticking closely to what is specifically said in those sources. @Winner 42: I think that my aforementioned additions meet that "two reliable sources" litmus test. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Other "Keep" voters have, in my eyes, successfully argued a case for the notability of this organization. Ideological bias seems to be a possible issue from both sides of the argument, but objectively the article meets notability guidelines. Voyagingtalk 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By all means. If you google 4 letters, ieet, you get plenty of first results referring to the IEET. If that is not notability, I wonder what it is!!!! --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Bluerasberry, if all you keep !voters can just find two reliable, independent sources about IEET, I will change my position to keep. Until then I remain unconvinced that this passes WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second that! The relist was, in my eyes, completely unnecessary. Several well-argued "delete" !votes, no policy-based "keep" !votes. Clear case... --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having !voted in an AfD discussion it is not good form to comment on, let alone to harshly criticise, a neutral mediating action like a relisting. The discussion was open for a whole day longer than the customary 7 days, and no admin felt like making a decision in this case, so relisting was a legitimate move to both clear up the backlog and get more input to make a decision easier. As you say yourself here above (10 June, 16:59): "we have no deadline". Kraxler (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We have no deadlines" does not mean that we should drag out a discussion endlessly, especially if the outcome is as clear as is the case here. And "no admin felt like making a decision in this case"? Really? We now have routinely AfD closure backlogs that are often much more than a single day. All obvious "keeps" get often rather rapidly NAC closed, so the fact that this wasn't is perhaps more an indication of the fact that a NAC close was not possible, rather than no amin wanting to burn their fingers. --Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We have no deadline" means that we have no deadline, could we agree on that? No, there are no AfD closing backlogs these days, although participation in a general way is still quite low. There are a few admins who routinely close everything that has a not too controversial outcome. Having voted one way, then saying, in spite of several contrary votes, that there is a clear consensus for one own's opinion, and then drag out a discussion to support that is verging on being conduct unbecoming an admin. The discussion was relisted, so, please, get along with it. Kraxler (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No backlog? Sure, sure. And, please, do look at the "keep" !votes, which have almost no policy-based arguments, just "I like it" and similar. Including the recent "keep" !votes below. And giving one's opinion at an AfD, including commenting on other people's !votes is absolutely not "conduct unbecoming". This is a *discussion*, remember? And all I did before was saying that I found the relist unnecessary. In fact, whether that comment was justified or not, to explode like you do and start accusing people of "conduct unbecoming" because an action of yours is being criticized really is out of line. It's relisted, that's done. Now contribute to the discussion here or let it rest. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All discussions up to (and including) June 7, listed in your link have been closed or relisted, and are awaiting bot archiving. As we speak an admin is going through the rest of the list. I never comment on pages which I relist. As a !voter in a discussion you can not close it and can not assess consensus, it's that simple, it's actually basic admin knowledge. Kraxler (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object. There is a Wikipedia policy saying that there is no rule when arguments are good enough: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. I find the "Keep" arguments better than the deletionists' until now. I mentioned Google search results for ieet... they are interesting not only because they show that IEET is enough known and appreciated to come out strongly, like only valuable organizations would with only four letters, but also because they lead to many high quality pages, which is by itself a recommendation for keeping, as it is the role of a good encyclopedia to allow access to first class knowledge. See also alexa.com: IEET website is ranked 188,660 globally and 67,446 in USA, which is remarkably high. Compare with Institute_for_Energy_and_Environmental_Research (IEER): 1,527,741 globally and 585,035 in USA. --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. How is this even a question? The Holy Grail states: "extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources". Does IEET count with such sources? A resounding NO! All sources are either associated with it, or are passing mentions within articles about or written by any of the founders. It's very simple: fail General Notability and you can't be on Wikipedia. I don't see why this is turning out to be so tediously controversial. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on Keep. A Google Books search yields several hundred hits; at first glance, a few seem to be independently published books. I am going to look a bit deeper into this. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Here's one source: Joseph R. Herkert, "Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies", in Gary E. Marchant, Braden R. Allenby, Joseph R. Herkert, eds., The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight (2011), p. 38:

If emerging technologies pose unique ethical challenges, who is in the best position to meet those challenges? As noted earlier in the discussion of robotics, the promoters of emerging technologies have begun to stake out the “moral ground” surrounding these novel technologies. For example, The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) (http://ieet.org/) (associated with the World Transhumanist Association) has as its mission:

...to become a center for voices arguing for a responsible, constructive approach to emerging human enhancement technologies. We believe that technological progress can be a catalyst for positive human development so long as we ensure that technologies are safe and equitably distributed. We call this a “technoprogressive” orientation.

We aim to showcase technoprogressive ideas about how technological progress can increase freedom, happiness, and human flourishing in democratic societies. Focusing on emerging technologies that have the potential to positively transform social conditions and the quality of human lives–especially “human enhancement technologies” – the IEET seeks to encourage public policies for their safe and equitable use, and to cultivate academic, professional, and popular appreciation about their impacts.

  • Here's another: Katarina Felsted, ‎Scott D. Wright, Toward Post Ageing: Technology in an Ageing Society (2014), p. 109:

[T]he Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) has proposed several categories within the matrix: Libertarian Transhumanists, Technoprogressives, Left-wing Bioconservatives, and Right-wing Bioconservatives based on several key indicators such as definition, exemplary groups, citizenship, humanism versus religious right, individual liberty versus yuck factor, , technological risks, the equality challenge of enhancement technology, procreative liberty, ecological protection, structural unemployment, and globalization. ... Although IEET prefers the label technoprogressive to transhumanist, some scholars prefer to group the entire matrix into "strong conceptions" and "moderate conceptions" of transhumanism and argue that one particular criticism, moral arbitrariness, undermines both forms of transhumanism (McNamee and Edwards 2009).

I am adding these to the article now. bd2412 T 19:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: There is also a footnote in Ron Novy, "Transhumanism: Or, Is It Right to Make a Spider-Man?", in Jonathan J. Sanford, ed., Spider-Man and Philosophy: The Web of Inquiry (2012), p. 157, n. 2, which states: "Hughes is the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a hotbed of transhumanist thought", but this is perhaps too passing a mention to bother adding to the article. bd2412 T 19:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is another source: Jacquelyn Erdman, Library Web Ecology: What You Need To Know as Web Design Coordinator (2014), p. 148:

The mission of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) (http://www.ieet.org) is to 'promote the ethical use of technology to expand human capabilities.' The IEET is an example of one of many groups formed around emerging technologies that is often missed by the mainstream library circuit, mainly because it is not focused on libraries, or even academia. Organizations like this give a perspective on how different industries are using technologies.

  • One more, and I'm calling it a day: Max More, ‎Natasha Vita-More, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future (2013), pt. II:

After Extropy Institute was closed, the WTA — renamed Humanity+ — became and remains the central organization of the movement in general, although organizations such as the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) and the Future of Humanity Institute play a strong role in the academic arena.

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Notability is obviously given. The deletion-proposal is baseless and I don't think any further discussion is needed in this case. Just Google the following and you'll find tons of news-articles, books and websites featuring it: "Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies" -site:ieet.org --Fixuture (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2015 (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/Institute_for_Ethics_and_Emerging_Technologies&oldid=1137931278"