Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy

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 and redirect. Daniel 04:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy[edit]

Recreation of article on the same topic that was speedy deleted in June of last year. Subject is a non-notable concept from the writings of Michael E. Arth. All references are either to Arth's websites or books that make no mention of the article's subject. Much of the content merely summarizes sections of the article Technological singularity, and the entire "External links" section is cut-and-pasted from there. Schaefer (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arth notable but this only notable because of Arth. Ttiotsw 04:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if meets notability - Seems to meet notability. --R e m i 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arth is clearly notable, and his ideas about a universe wide network of intelligent conscious energy are also notable, having first appeared in a book published 24 years ago: Michael E. Arth: Introspective 1972-1982. The subject should not be censored just because Arth has not widely promoted the idea during the intervening years. His ideas are of current interest and extremely relevant to discussions about the future, and this site at least deserves a link from Transhumanism and Technological Singularity. Arth is also working on two documentaries, one of which will include a section about UNICE and another that will be exclusively about UNICE and the Technological Singularity. It seems pointless to censor this now, only to bring it back in a year when there are more web hits. Shouldn't Wiki lead instead of follow? elikqitie 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arth is a graphic artist, and Introspective is an art book. UNICE is a subject whose only treatment in published sources is one mention of a similar-sounding idea in an obscure 1984 art book. The fact he got some of his graphic art published doesn't extend notability to ideas about consciousness he decides to write about online 23 years later. The article makes no reference to any published sources not by Arth that have considered his UNICE idea notable. Also, please note that "elikqitie" is User:Lynndunn, the author of the article in question, and that all of Lynndunn's contributions have been either to create or link to articles about Michael E. Arth and his ideas. Lynndunn is also responsible for all non-trivial contributions to the article on Michael E. Arth himself, and was its sole supporter when it was placed on AfD last year. -- Schaefer (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Technological singularity. This lacks its own independent reliable sources to show it is notable, while the target article is notable. Notability is not contagious such that it spreads from one notable aspect of an author's life to all other concepts and writings. Edison 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It's agreed that Arth is notable, and it appears that the subject of UNICE will grow in terms of notability (even though hypothesized future notability is not a Wikipedia criteria for non-deletion). This article does seem marginally notable in a technical sense, but it's still a keeper because it follows the spirit of Wikipedia, which is also one of Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. The UNICE article contains some of the same references and links as the indisputably notable transhumanism and technological singularity articles becuase it is closely related, and flows from the same assumptions. But this article still expresses its own novel point of view ("modern transhumanist myth" dressed up in a communal, infintely-faceted persona). UNICE gives an interesting and generalized perspective to a complex field and is a good handle to grab onto. The article could do away with some of the shared references with transhumanism and it would still be a good article. Or this article could be merged with technological singularity. In either case, Wikipedia should keep this information.

Even under the strictly technical Wikipedia guidelines of general notability the article seems to qualify on at least 3 our of 5 points, with the other 2 points hanging by a thread.

1. (qualifies) The sources address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content.

2. (qualifies) Sources should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multipe sources are generally preferred.

3. (qualifies) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all form and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.

4. (barely qualifies, but only because of Arth's book published in the early '80s.) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

5. (barely qualifies, but gives support for merging with other articles)Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merge with another article.

Conclusion: Keep or Merge with Technological Singularity

Note: The above keep vote is the very first edit of the user AlexH20, and thus should not be considered. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex has brought up some good points to discuss no matter who he or she is, so I'm quoting Alex here:

[Redundant paste of AlexH20's above comment removed by Schaefer]

-- elikqitie 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quoted is still here and legible if anyone wants to read it. That's why I put it in strikethrough instead of deleting it. It doesn't need repeated twice. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments indicates that either the editor himself has reconsidered or that he agreed that this comment is obsolete or redundant. Mentioning that the editor has no other contributions is usually done without striking, so I'll reinstate the comment. Additionally, that it is the very first edit doesn't automatically mean it is a bad-faith edit. Malc82 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is, however, still the user's only edit 12 days later. Sci girl 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject WP:NN. Just because a person is notable doesn't mean all of his ideas and/or theories are notable. If the topic must be kept merge it into Michael E. Arth and/or Technological singularity. --Evb-wiki 01:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 05:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't science, it's just speculative myth making bollocks and unless the article points that out it should go. There's lots of interesting stuff about the future of humanity, virtual intelligence, the 'singularity' and so forth on Wikipedia and it's an incredibly interesting subject but this is just an ad for a book. Nobody talks about a 'universe wide network of intelligent conscious energy' when discussing these ideas, it's just not notable. Nick mallory 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arth. Not notable enough to support an article by itself. It's just not (U)NICE enough to keep. Clarityfiend 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. Speculative Myth combined with some speculative science is all we can say about something that might happen in a few decades. This point can be added to the article to make it even more clear that this is a modern myth. No one, not even Ray Kurzweil, knows what will really happen when AI arrives on the scene. UNICE, as Arth says, is only one of innumerable names for this thing that will probably happen. It makes sense to start talking and writing about it now. UNICE (in the references at least) makes something clear out of a lot of nebulosity. elikqitie 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

elikqitie, please be aware that voting more than once is generally discouraged. Comments are always welcome, of course, but repeating the bolded "keep" marker is a bit misleading. Thanks. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Merge with arth/singularity there's nothing particularly new, or notable here. It could just as well be a small entry in the 'popular culture' section of tech. singularity. cornis 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP As a serious student of religion, with a strong interest in eschatology, having recently read the adaptation from his book, The Future, I have to say that UNICE is an important new concept, appearing at a time when I was groping for some way to understand what seems to be an impending convergence of science and religion--which will leave science the winner, but will replace the mystery with something accessible while still as remarkable as the wildest promises of religion. I think Arth has been very level-headed in not making extravagant claims for UNICE, but rather trying to collect the loose ends of scientific speculation with mythology, religion, and flat out gee whiz "where is all this leading us to???!!!!"Astarte9 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to sign. The previous comments were mine. My conclusion is that UNICE deserves it's own article and links from various related articles.Astarte9 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Astarte9's account was registered June 8 and has only two edits prior to this vote, both to talk pages. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, verging on OR. "Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy" gets a grand total of 7 Altavista hits. Doczilla 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does that lady's wild afro give her extra cosmic powers? ~ Infrangible 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, don't mess with Mother Nature!elikqitie 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael E. Arth. No evidence of notability. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge some of it with the artist's article. There's virtually no info on it on the web; all but 8 of the hits for UNICE are for a European business organization. I get 8 hits on Google for the concept when I filter it, and 4 of those are no Wikipedia. I can't find anything about this in journal sources either. Sci girl 03:32, 12 June 2007 (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.