Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Dutton

Denis Dutton

Denis Dutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable individual does not me WP:BIO criteria Ursasapien (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete If he is included then there is good reason to include an obscene number of others. What has he done? Plenty of others have founded webpages. Plenty of others teach at universities. As a philosopher what ideas has he contributed? The important question is, is Wikipedia to become some sort of Facebook? There are quite a few others currently in Wikipedia who have not done anything of significance to justify a biography. Unless Wikipedia becomes ruthless on this type of self (or friend) promotion Wikipedia is liable to be overwhelmed by 'Facebook' entries. I suggest delete and search for other candidates to delete. Their presence only encourages others to put in more 'Facebook' entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - The NY Times link in the article does not even actually mention Dutton by name. There are no other references. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - the material in the article strongly suggests some indep sourcing shold be available. I am prepared to assume good faith that those who can find some material can get it in there eventually. Also, independent bits and pieces should fulfil notability. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) *05:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you can find some more indep sourcing on the man himself, I'd change to a keep. But independent bits do not by any stretch automatically confer notability; "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Seems notable, just need the sources fixed up. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, what about this person appears notable to you? He seems extremely non-notable to me. Ursasapien (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the founder of Arts & Letters Daily is clearly notable, but I am concerned about the lack of sources.-gadfium 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - His upcoming book has a reasonable sales rank for something which is still a while away from being released. This may indicate its/his importance. Also, his new website has already been acclaimed by the Times of London.
• Delete DD's new website has not been acclaimed by the Times of London. I suugest that others follow the links. It has simply been listed. And along with other sites that show that the new DD site is full of nonsense. Regardless, plenty of writers have books with reasonable sales rank etc., (although 651,175 in books doesn't seem all that 'reasonable') and there are plenty of other climate change skeptics/deniers who have achieved something other than denial. This type of denial is likely to be a passing fad anyway, rather like hula hoops, or flared pants in the '70s. Evolution denial, that is, creationism (God did it) or intelligent design (someone like God did it), is a much more noteworthy reason for inclusion. Creationism and ID are likely to continue longer and do give people somewhat more to laugh at than climate change denial. The questions are: What has DD done that merits inclusion? And should Wikipedia become some type of Facebook or fan site for any blog writer who currently has a few fans? Do we really want to include in Wikipedia the authors of all 651,174 books that placed higher in sales rankings? If Wikipedia included every self promoter who wants the Wikipedia imprimatur to further advance themselves how many extra donations and resources will be needed to accomodate them all? If he actually does achieve something then, when he does, he can always be included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Note: this is 203.214.15.223's 2nd !vote in this AfD Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Climate change denial? *rereads article* climate change denial? *sifts article history* are you sure you're commenting on the right article? Yep, your edit history suggests you are.. so this non-sequitor is just linking someone you don't like to unpopular views that he might well not hold? I'm having a really hard time following the logic, or is that intentional? Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for the hard of thinking. The comment re:climate change is, of course, not on the article but is on the claim that a new website on that topic is grounds for DD being notable enough for inclusion. I am sorry that you find logic hard to follow.

• Keep - would be notable simply as founder of a highly-notable website, but in this case there's also significant coverage in at least one reliable secondary source, this salon.com writeup from 2000. I found this with only a few minutes work; I imagine further searching could turn up more independent sourcing. Scog (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Here's a more recent write-up, in the context of his new website. Sadly, I don't have time right now to figure out how best to add this to the article. Scog (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the Salon.com interview is sufficient to establish notability: creation of Arts & Letters Daily, editor of Philosophy and Literature, creator of Cybereditions. --D. Monack | talk 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd suggest a Merge to Arts & Letters Daily, which is the principal source of notability here. He is only an associate professor, and there do not appear to be many sources indicating independent notability per the WP:PROF standard. Eusebeus (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge sounds right to me too. Note that this article seems pretty much a WP:COATRACK for the contest/flap with Butler, which has a closer association to Philosophy and Literature than Arts & Letters Daily... Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge seems sensible; Dutton is really only notable for A&L, not in himself. --Helenalex (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Stong Keep It will take time to sort out the most appropriate references from the 10,000+ google hits he gets. I oppose a merge because he is notable for multiple things:
  • Arts and Letters Daily - [1] gives a good sense of its notability.
  • Cybereditions.com
  • Being an outspoken (cited in NZ Parliament) board member of New Zealand's national radio broadcaster.
  • Being a prolific author and speaker on aesthetics and philosphy of art.
  • President of the NZ skeptics society (often in the news)

also note that New Zealand Universities have relatively few Professorial chairs - an Associate Professor is not equivalent to that title in the context of US faculties - it is about two grades higher. It will be easier to develop and improve this article than to have to recreate it from scratch. dramatic (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just a point to answer the first question "as a philosopher what has he contributed?" His ideas on evolutionary psychology and aesthetics are a reasonable contribution (among other things in aesthetics). This is what his upcoming book is about, also. Also, he is no longer president of the skeptics society. He was, however, the founder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.106.217 (talk • contribs)

• Very strong keep - very prominent and widely respected New Zealand academic. An author, his publications range from to articles in the New York Times and reviews in the Washington Post to contributions for encyclopedias. Also note Dramatic's comments- in New Zealand, "Professor" is one step down from "Dean", right at the top of the academic tree. Grutness...wha? 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)