Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir De Thézier
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. Listed for almost a month with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir De Thézier[edit]
- Vladimir De Thézier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable "cultural creative". Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources given appear to be completely independent from this person's specific area of interest. Lacks reliable sourcing while at the same time making claims that ought to be supported by such (i.e., "became known for having developed the concept of a 'green republic'", "most prominent francophone transhumanist"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Vladimir De Thézier article has existed since 18 July 2004 and this person is notable because he has been mentioned in several articles in both alternative and mainstream Montreal newspapers such as the Montreal Mirror, Voir and Le Devoir as well as in a book on transhumanism written by a notable Canadian journalist. Ultimately, there seems to be many reliable sources listed in the external links section of the article but they simply aren't being referenced in the body of the article. I can work on correcting this problem. As for the claims that are disputed as dubious, I can easily change the wording to something better and will do so right now. --Loremaster (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you would bother. Once the unsupported statements are removed, what is it that this person is supposed to be notable for outside of a tiny local group of adherents to a fringe philosophy? Wikipedia doesn't need these kinds of vanity articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on deleting this article that isn't the source of disputes and edit wars. This person is notable because he has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regardless of what you think of transhumanism, it is a philosophy that has gained a lot of media attention. The Transhumanism article was identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community and featured on Wikipedia's main page on on June 2, 2006. It is note-worthy that a person who has gotten press for being a transhumanist activist has become a critic of transhumanism. Furthemore, from what I can translate and read, this person is increasingly becoming known as a green theorist and activist in his country. So his transhumanist past will probably not be the thing he is most notable for. --Loremaster (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were "significant coverage from reliable sources", I would not have nominated the article for deletion. Despite your claim, there simply is not. This is a person with no general international recognition, no general national recognition, and probably very little local recognition outside of a small community of like-minded individuals. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You nominated this article for deletion only because the article was badly sourced while not realizing that this person is notable because he has been mentioned and/or interviewed in several articles in both alternative and mainstream Montreal newspapers such as the Montreal Mirror, Voir and Le Devoir as well as in a book on transhumanism written by a notable Canadian journalist. Furthermore, he was also interviewed by a notable journalist in France as well so that is international recognition. Therefore I'm not sure what more you need. As I said before, I'll work on better sourcing this article so there is no need to delete it. --Loremaster (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were "significant coverage from reliable sources", I would not have nominated the article for deletion. Despite your claim, there simply is not. This is a person with no general international recognition, no general national recognition, and probably very little local recognition outside of a small community of like-minded individuals. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on deleting this article that isn't the source of disputes and edit wars. This person is notable because he has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Regardless of what you think of transhumanism, it is a philosophy that has gained a lot of media attention. The Transhumanism article was identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community and featured on Wikipedia's main page on on June 2, 2006. It is note-worthy that a person who has gotten press for being a transhumanist activist has become a critic of transhumanism. Furthemore, from what I can translate and read, this person is increasingly becoming known as a green theorist and activist in his country. So his transhumanist past will probably not be the thing he is most notable for. --Loremaster (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you would bother. Once the unsupported statements are removed, what is it that this person is supposed to be notable for outside of a tiny local group of adherents to a fringe philosophy? Wikipedia doesn't need these kinds of vanity articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've added multiple reliable sources to the article and I've eliminated a lot of content in the External links section. The article has been improved enough to avoid deletion. --Loremaster (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that all you have done is move some of the external links into the body of the article as sources, which hasn't actually added any new sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that you seem to not have taken into account some of the external links (which are reliable sources) when you argued that this article was badly sourced. So sentences and paragraphs in the article are now being sourced to different and better sources than before. Are you gonna let your intransigeance prevent you from acknowledging this fact? --Loremaster (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop reading my mind - I find it intrusive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between making legitimate assumptions and using telepathic abilities. That being said, can you please respond to my argument so we can settle this deletion dispute once and for all? --Loremaster (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't how AfD works and I am not interested in arguing with you, so please stop addressing comments directly to me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. But, putting aside the fact that discussions to improve the article to avoid deletion are allowed during AfD, I only addressed comments directly to you because you failed to follow your interpretation of AfD guidelines and started addressing comments directly to me. That being said, I and everyone else can now reasonably conclude that your position has been refuted. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't how AfD works and I am not interested in arguing with you, so please stop addressing comments directly to me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between making legitimate assumptions and using telepathic abilities. That being said, can you please respond to my argument so we can settle this deletion dispute once and for all? --Loremaster (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop reading my mind - I find it intrusive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that you seem to not have taken into account some of the external links (which are reliable sources) when you argued that this article was badly sourced. So sentences and paragraphs in the article are now being sourced to different and better sources than before. Are you gonna let your intransigeance prevent you from acknowledging this fact? --Loremaster (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seem to be sufficient sources. The page is also in the frWP, but its been edited there by the same people who have edited it here, so I do not give their judgment the usual special deference, except to note that the frWP standard for living people seems to be considerable more restrictive than our's. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has multiple references from independent publications. Whether we think the philosophy he is noted for is interesting is rather beside the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Harris (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well-published technoprogressive --MoonLichen (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 02:08, 9 March 2011 (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.