Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hypermodernity Club

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 of the debate was DELETE, although I observe some claimed references at the end. The editor who examined at least one of them found it to be wholly lacking, however. -Splash^talk 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hypermodernity Club

Self-styled "philosophy discussion group/academic alliance/secret-society". 200 google hits, and that includes hits for a band of the same name; I can't tell if they're related, but if they're not, they're both even less notable. This page appears to have some of their wicked-deep writings; see also the correspondence course ad at [1]. Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. bikeable (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the Talk page to this AfD:

Unfortunately, some of your patrols seem to be ignorant college students with little knowledge of the subjects they are policing, thus making this entire "wikiproject" absurd by design. Though I find all of this amusing, I have no desire to engage in a long discussion as to the merits of my entry, I merely posted it on a whim after finding its entry strangely absent from your database. I am a university professor and not only am I aware of the club, I attended the hypermodern lecture series with the esteemed Mr. Baudrillard himself at my institution. The presence of the club has been written up in several books, the authenticity of which I do not doubt, and if that is insufficient I will leave the "google-ing" to you.

I wish wikipedia the best into the future and by all means do what you wish with my entry.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs) bikeable (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN, vanity. Authors commentary (and omniscience regarding other wiki editors) notwithstanding. Slowmover 21:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. According to author, my (ongoing) graduate education in philosophy must be worthless, as I've never heard of this society. Website contains no serious philosophy, just nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricaud (talk • contribs)

• Do Not Delete So since you haven't "heard of it" the entry should be deleted, above poster? That's essentially what this sophomoric debate amounts to, 1.) a 2-second google search, and 2.) philosophy students upset that a professor (rightly) calls them out as unknowing. I, too, had never heard of this organization until reading the entry, but as a New Yorker, I certainly remember the Baudrillard lecture to which the entry refers. I regret that I could not make it. Can you clarify why you consider it "vanity", or "made up in school" because both accusations are tenuous at best?
  • Comment. I think we understand it's not "made up". However, is it appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article about something of very little significance outside the small group of people who are familiar with it? If it is notable, provide a published reference. See WP:Notability, where the POV nature of "notability" is discussed. IMO, this is NN. Slowmover 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Will Barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.141.164 (talk • contribs)

• You mean, you'd never heard of it until you took the deletion tag off the page? Fair enough. In any case, Paulambery01 says it's been "written up in several books", so now we just need a reference and we'll be satisfied. Otherwise, how could we tell whether it was made up or not? bikeable (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Against my better judgment I am returning to this debate because Wikipedia, an incredibly ambitious project (apparently) run by students, is certainly intriguing to this old-timer academic who just recently got used to e-mail! I applaud you all. In fact, I'm sure I'd love to have you all in any of my classes for some lively discussions. But to the issue - I pulled this book from my shelf, which unfortunately is in German (loosely translated): "The Decline of the Frankfurt School in European Universities" by Karl Zinner, Uni Saarland, 2002, which contains several pages on the relatively new organization (pgs. 134-145). If anyone is interested please investigate so that this discussion can move beyond such hypersensitive sentiments such as "my (ongoing) graduate education in philosophy must be worthless" and into the merits of the club itself, which are somewhat insidious if taken at face value. Also, one might consider contacting Slippery Rock University philosophy Professor Bernard Freydberg, who surely can offer more on the subject than I. Finally, I want to apologize if I have offended anybody with my previous remarks on this subject.

Paulambery01 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery

• • Please tone down the rhetoric and your suppositions about others whom you do not know. Slowmover 18:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I can't imagine why I'm still following this thread, but as for Herr Zinner, the only book by an author of that name in either my university library, the consortium of libraries to which we belong, the Harvard library, or the University of Saarland library is Supercharging of internal combustion engines : fundamentals, calculations, examples / K. Zinner. (Saarland does carry it, you will be pleased to know.) Alas, I suspect K. Zinner's grasp of "continental thought" is as weak as mine. bikeable (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete

• • You have found the wrong author, Bikeable.

Paulambery01 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery

• Do Not Delete

• • Friends, and fellow thinkers,

As a Brooklynite, I am amused to find wikipedia entrys for “Rubulad,” a debaucherous party that occurs every few months on the Northside, and the entry for “East Williamsburg Industrial Park,” which is where I live, described condescendingly in its sophomoric entry, and to LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution which could be assailed by number of history professors. Being an academic myself, I am curious to understand why references to both Jean Baudrillard and Martin Heidegger cannot philosophically legitimize an “entry” into your ghoulish dream of information consolidation. Also, I would like to know how many moderators and even "philosophical grad students" are not only versed in Attic and Homeric Greek, but are intimate with those earliest of thinkers, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Thales, Parmenides, Anaximenes, that forcefully mark the inception of "Western thinking."

You allow entire entries which are devoted to “reptoid conspiracies,” which allege that the ruling global elite are actually shape-shifting reptilian creatures who sprung from an ancient genetic experiment, perpetrated by a dim race of ET visitors. The entry for this is quite exhaustive, preposterous, and downright insulting to those of us who do, in fact, descend from the reptoid bloodline, and do not have some insidious dream to enslave humanity through domestic internment camps, internet regulation, and RFID bio-metric ID cards. Please, show some discretion, and permit these people who, like bees flung from their hive, and deep into the mists of fragrant gardens, seek only to pollinate and prolong their sweet, succulent existence.

Most respectfully yours,

Professor J.P.W. Cragglestocker

• Do Not Delete

• • To whom it may concern,

While I believe it is irrelevant to dicker over the fine points of this entry. I cannot help but remark when the pot calls the kettle black. Just the other day, I was reading how political yes-men had been consistently ammending and omitting submited data for Wikipedia entries on various politicians. What we have here is a fine object lesson in information theory. Wikipedia itself represents the hypermodern attitude toward information - vis a vis the flux, eternal expansion and user generation that categorize the internet as a whole. If the mavens of Wikipedia believe themselves to be one iota holier than the myspace whores, with regard to self-promotion by users, they have a tragic lack of self-insight. The roots of the Wiki project and the internet itself are in a mistrust of absolute truth, cancerous generation and alternative history, which come together like Voltron to form the god Narrative. If ya don't know your roots, then you got no culture. And I'll shed no tears when big Fox Murdoch separates your wheat from its chaff.

sincerely, L. O'Hara

Comment. My sympathies to the Admin who closes this one out. Slowmover 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have just confirmed gone out of my way to verify that Davidson and Northwestern, as I stated in the initial entry, have *confirmed* chapters for the Hypermodernity Club. Please call them yourselves if you must verify this even further. Moreover, a colleague of mine, the head of philosophy at Tulane university, served as US chapter President for 2004, thus confirming that the group is "notable". As far as anyone with any sort of intellectual acumen is concerned, Now the burden of proof as to the club's worthiness for inclusion into the Wikipedia database falls on the above moderators (students) who so rashly dismissed it.

Edit: Paulambery01 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery

Great news. Now we just need some way to verify that, and we'll be all set. bikeable (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's up to you, I've already done too much. If your agenda is to prevent this organization from inclusion into your hairbrained database, then so be it. Paulambery01 22:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/french/maison/events/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom and slowmover

• Keepobviously there is notability here. despite ill tempered comments on part of supporters, it isnt our job to define validity of philosophy. One of the worlds largest religions started with one lonely guy and a few believers.ZornArmand 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Zornarmand

• • Note: this is ZornArmand's 8th edit or so, to 5 different AfD debates. Delete. Hypermodernity is certainly a notable concept and a movement. Paul Ambery's book reference by Karl Zinner doesn't exist on the Library of Congress online catalog. Existence of clubs at two universities doesn't make the overall organization notable. As a "secret society" it's impossible to verify any of this information without actual sources. Mangojuice 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: References to the Hypermodernity Club can be found here: Baudrillard, Jean. Le ludique et le policier. Sens & Tonka. Paris, March 2000 pages 67-71.

Baudrillard, Jean. Le complot de l'art suivi de Entrevues à propos du complot de l'art. Sens & Tonka. Paris, 1999, pgs. 45, 62, Paperback

Baudrillard, Jean. The End of the Millennium or the Countdown. Theory, Culture & Society. February 1998, pp. 1-9

Finally, I echo ZornArmand's educated understanding of what is at play here.

Paulambery01 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the references. I grabbed the closest one at hand, the paper from Theory, Culture & Society, 1998. Odd that it would mention The Hypermodernity Club since it was published at least a year before the article claims the Club was founded. I found a lengthy discussion of the end of modernity and the year 2000, but no mention of THC (I didn't even notice the word "hypermodernity" used, although as Mangojuice points out the concept of hypermodernity itself seems notable). This is all beginning to wear rather thin. bikeable (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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.