Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Paul Cummins

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Paul Cummins[edit]

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

Fails notability by a long shot. Dster (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 9. Snotbot t • c » 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Even by the standards of this sort of thing, this is bad. The first several pages of google searching are either booksellers or social networking; GBooks gives essentially nothing that he didn't write himself. I find exactly nothing third party. Mangoe (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete First, this is obvious self-promotion. Second, the author has included a number of simple fallacies set as truths in order to preclude an argument (in his World View section). He appears to be trolling climate scientists, geologists, and biologists who study the effects of climate change on various systems. Third, there is a Facebook campaign at the moment that is challenging people to refute this idea that climate change is a good thing - again, only in hopes to waste the time of people that should have better things to do and distract attention away from other pressing matters like changing our dependence on petroleum and the undeniable biological extinction cascade that is not under debate in any scientific literature. How would the human species be able to survive without ecosystem services like food and water cycle regulation? The ideas here are bait.

keep First,I have to say how ridiculous the previous comments are. Claiming that what seems to me to be an interesting philosophical worldview is just a "number of simple fallacies which preculde argument", that because there is a facebook page where people discuss this philosophical worldview, you believe there to be "campaign". That the people who are discussing the philosophy on this page are in your opinion "wasting their time" (I presume they all disagree with you). You claim the ideas "are bait" because they are different to yours and seemingly you would like to see alternative views to your own deleted off the face of the planet. Why do you take the page to be obvious self-promotion. You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet for some reason, but making up things in this way and twisting them to your distorted view is really quite bad. And relating to the previous comment I am unsure why a process of "google searching" resulting in books showing up is a good reason to want to remove a page you have personally taken a dislike to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.231.90.90 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am the person who originally set up this page quite some time ago; it must be 9 months to a year at least. I was in Germany when Dr Cummins gave his acceptance speech at the Spinoza Gesellschaft in Marburg Concert Hall. There was talk circling around the academic audience that Dr Cummins was well on his way to becoming one of the prominent philosophers of the century. After reading two of his books I decided to put the page on Wikipedia. I see that the page has been modified/changed/partly deleted since I originally put the page up. I don't know why someone has suddenly decided to take offence to the page, it seems from the comments here that they simply have a different view. This situation reminds me of the recent TED talks scandal where those who had a different philosophy to Rupert Sheldrake put pressure on TED to remove his talk, only to lead to an unsurprising outcry at TED's actions in actually removing the talk under such pressure emanating from a couple of individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesf576 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of Cummins' view should not be the question here and this is not comparable with Sheldrake and TED. The main question is whether Cummins is sufficiently notable to be included. If you wish the article to remain you need to demonstrate his prominence with references to his work from reliable sources like a comment in a book or a published article in a magazine or newspaper or an academic journal from a source that has no financial or legal interest in his theory. Has he received any awards to show that he is outstanding in his field? If not, Cummins may still become notable in the future and this will be the time for a biographical article on WP. Kooky2 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are no reliable secondary sources to show that Dr Cummins has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large to be considered notable for a dedicated article in Wikipedia as per WP:NOTABILITY Kooky2 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The wikipedia notability criteria for people is as follows: "[people need to be]significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It seems clear to me that Dr Cummins and his philosophy is significant (potentially very significant), interesting (most definitely), and it is most definitely unusual (you surely won't disagree with that!) and deserving of enough attention to be recorded. Deleting this unique and interesting view from the encyclopedia would not be of value to human society and human enquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.231.90.90 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second vote from the same IP address: 91.231.90.90 (traced to Brighton). This is not the place to Vote early and vote often. You need to back up claims that Cummins is significant with evidence. Kooky2 (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find absolutely no evidence that this person is significant or notable according to any WP standards. There's really nothing else to say with this one. -Wine Guy~Talk 00:23, 18 July 2013 (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.