Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Dutton: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
comment
Line 37: Line 37:
'''Extremely Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters''', '''gold bars and silver bells but if not delete then merge ''' – There are criteria for inclusion. The DD entry doesn’t meet the criteria. But clearly, DD has some fans. I suggest they copy the entry and start a fan club. The fans seem quite fanatical. I do not deny that he has fans and friends, and a flare for self promotion. However, claims for inclusion are exaggerated and show that fans and friends either have not read the guidelines or feel strongly that an exception should be made for DD. As for the awfully dramatic claim of 10,000+ Google hits… So what, even if they are all his (and they are not). John Smith gets about 4.7 million hits (and a statue). The fan club’s Denis Dutton is not the only Denis Dutton. The Google hits are not references to him alone. For example, there is a Denis Dutton at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0244926/ who was nominated for two Primetime Emmys. Clearly more notable but without a Wikipedia bio, and I would say, also not notable enough. Another Denis Dutton is at http://www.reunion.com/denyiv There is also a disturbing element of parochialism in the special pleading for retaining the DD entry. NZ is a small country, 4 million people. International standards should still be used. There [[are]] lots of notable academic NZ residents and NZ born who are not in Wikipedia. And those that do have relatively tiny entries. Take Peter Phillips, one of the world’s best econometricians, for example (see http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/faculty/phillips.htm). Instead of wasting time with all these Facebook entries, and DD is not, by far, the worst I have seen, why not spend the effort on adding people who are notable? On the parochial topic, the NZ system of academic titles is the same as is used throughout the Commonwealth. NZ Professors are the same as Australian Professors and British Professors and those in HK and South Africa and so on. They are equivalent to Full Professors in the American system. They have chairs. They are not Super Professors. And associate professors, readers and more senior lecturers are about equivalent to the American Associate Professor. Lecturers and some less senior, senior lecturers are about equivalent to American Assistant Professors. In the last twenty years the status of academics in NZ and Australia has declined as various, previously non-academic, institutions have been turned into Universities and their staff given various academic titles. The new competition has necessitated ‘old’ Universities promoting more staff into higher titled positions. The Salon article is over the top and is not exactly written by an independent party and does not make DD notable. As for the claims about DD’s contributions to evolutionary psychology, lets hear an expert say that he has made a significant contribution. If he has, where are the refereed academic articles, in good journals, to support the assertion. I have never met DD. I imagine I would like him. I imagine I would be happy to have a beer with him at the ‘Bush Inn’. He seems like a entertaining rogue. But notable? Not. Let’s maintain some standards folks! {{unsigned|203.214.15.223}}<small>Note, this is 203.214.15.223'd 3rd delete !vote in this AfD. [[User:Pete.Hurd|Pete.Hurd]] ([[User talk:Pete.Hurd|talk]]) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)</small>
'''Extremely Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters''', '''gold bars and silver bells but if not delete then merge ''' – There are criteria for inclusion. The DD entry doesn’t meet the criteria. But clearly, DD has some fans. I suggest they copy the entry and start a fan club. The fans seem quite fanatical. I do not deny that he has fans and friends, and a flare for self promotion. However, claims for inclusion are exaggerated and show that fans and friends either have not read the guidelines or feel strongly that an exception should be made for DD. As for the awfully dramatic claim of 10,000+ Google hits… So what, even if they are all his (and they are not). John Smith gets about 4.7 million hits (and a statue). The fan club’s Denis Dutton is not the only Denis Dutton. The Google hits are not references to him alone. For example, there is a Denis Dutton at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0244926/ who was nominated for two Primetime Emmys. Clearly more notable but without a Wikipedia bio, and I would say, also not notable enough. Another Denis Dutton is at http://www.reunion.com/denyiv There is also a disturbing element of parochialism in the special pleading for retaining the DD entry. NZ is a small country, 4 million people. International standards should still be used. There [[are]] lots of notable academic NZ residents and NZ born who are not in Wikipedia. And those that do have relatively tiny entries. Take Peter Phillips, one of the world’s best econometricians, for example (see http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/faculty/phillips.htm). Instead of wasting time with all these Facebook entries, and DD is not, by far, the worst I have seen, why not spend the effort on adding people who are notable? On the parochial topic, the NZ system of academic titles is the same as is used throughout the Commonwealth. NZ Professors are the same as Australian Professors and British Professors and those in HK and South Africa and so on. They are equivalent to Full Professors in the American system. They have chairs. They are not Super Professors. And associate professors, readers and more senior lecturers are about equivalent to the American Associate Professor. Lecturers and some less senior, senior lecturers are about equivalent to American Assistant Professors. In the last twenty years the status of academics in NZ and Australia has declined as various, previously non-academic, institutions have been turned into Universities and their staff given various academic titles. The new competition has necessitated ‘old’ Universities promoting more staff into higher titled positions. The Salon article is over the top and is not exactly written by an independent party and does not make DD notable. As for the claims about DD’s contributions to evolutionary psychology, lets hear an expert say that he has made a significant contribution. If he has, where are the refereed academic articles, in good journals, to support the assertion. I have never met DD. I imagine I would like him. I imagine I would be happy to have a beer with him at the ‘Bush Inn’. He seems like a entertaining rogue. But notable? Not. Let’s maintain some standards folks! {{unsigned|203.214.15.223}}<small>Note, this is 203.214.15.223'd 3rd delete !vote in this AfD. [[User:Pete.Hurd|Pete.Hurd]] ([[User talk:Pete.Hurd|talk]]) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)</small>
*Professor Dutton has, in his career, crossed a number of paths, some of the nastier consequences of which had been slanderously included in the article about him (prompting my clean-up some time ago). I suspect that our anonymous friend here has something of this motivation since the personal animus is palpable, and only poorly masked by these repeated bleatings about policy. I suggest that Ursap withdraw this nomination, since the article will clearly not be deleted; a civilised merge discussion can continue on the talk page. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] ([[User talk:Eusebeus|talk]]) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
*Professor Dutton has, in his career, crossed a number of paths, some of the nastier consequences of which had been slanderously included in the article about him (prompting my clean-up some time ago). I suspect that our anonymous friend here has something of this motivation since the personal animus is palpable, and only poorly masked by these repeated bleatings about policy. I suggest that Ursap withdraw this nomination, since the article will clearly not be deleted; a civilised merge discussion can continue on the talk page. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] ([[User talk:Eusebeus|talk]]) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Comment''' This is all very amusing. I came across the DD page having seen many other pages of people who are not notable including some people I do know. DD I don't know. But a little investigation shows that he is not notable either. I tried to clean up his page, consistent with Wikipedia standards, admittedly I did add a bit of humour because a page on a non notable person invites humour and then I am accused of being a fan of Prof Butler's, someone else that I have no knowledge of. For someone who cleaned up the DD page to remove slander, you seem remarkably free to slander yourself. There is no personal animus. And if it was palpable your comment would not be required. Have you heard of argument ad hominem? Whether someone is anonymous or not it is their arguments that should be evaluated, not their alleged motivations. I am sure you can find this principle explained elsewhere in Wikipedia. As I said this, DD's entry, is not the worst example I have seen in Wikipedia of a non notable person entry. Some of these entries are written by the people themselves. I have seen pages clearly written by the person who uses their name to write them. These entries are a joke. Overall Wikipedia is a great concept and a great resource but surely it is not and should not become Facebook! The people who contribute are, overall, doing a great job. However, many of you do take yourselves far too seriously.

Revision as of 18:53, 26 March 2008

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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. As for the suggestion of malice for having views, I have had many good laughs at climate change denial arguments but the topic is becoming passé. I really think that DD's fans should aquaint themselves with the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. He may be an amusing companion down at the pub but as far as inclusion goes, he is just not notable.
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extremely Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters, gold bars and silver bells but if not delete then merge – There are criteria for inclusion. The DD entry doesn’t meet the criteria. But clearly, DD has some fans. I suggest they copy the entry and start a fan club. The fans seem quite fanatical. I do not deny that he has fans and friends, and a flare for self promotion. However, claims for inclusion are exaggerated and show that fans and friends either have not read the guidelines or feel strongly that an exception should be made for DD. As for the awfully dramatic claim of 10,000+ Google hits… So what, even if they are all his (and they are not). John Smith gets about 4.7 million hits (and a statue). The fan club’s Denis Dutton is not the only Denis Dutton. The Google hits are not references to him alone. For example, there is a Denis Dutton at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0244926/ who was nominated for two Primetime Emmys. Clearly more notable but without a Wikipedia bio, and I would say, also not notable enough. Another Denis Dutton is at http://www.reunion.com/denyiv There is also a disturbing element of parochialism in the special pleading for retaining the DD entry. NZ is a small country, 4 million people. International standards should still be used. There are lots of notable academic NZ residents and NZ born who are not in Wikipedia. And those that do have relatively tiny entries. Take Peter Phillips, one of the world’s best econometricians, for example (see http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/faculty/phillips.htm). Instead of wasting time with all these Facebook entries, and DD is not, by far, the worst I have seen, why not spend the effort on adding people who are notable? On the parochial topic, the NZ system of academic titles is the same as is used throughout the Commonwealth. NZ Professors are the same as Australian Professors and British Professors and those in HK and South Africa and so on. They are equivalent to Full Professors in the American system. They have chairs. They are not Super Professors. And associate professors, readers and more senior lecturers are about equivalent to the American Associate Professor. Lecturers and some less senior, senior lecturers are about equivalent to American Assistant Professors. In the last twenty years the status of academics in NZ and Australia has declined as various, previously non-academic, institutions have been turned into Universities and their staff given various academic titles. The new competition has necessitated ‘old’ Universities promoting more staff into higher titled positions. The Salon article is over the top and is not exactly written by an independent party and does not make DD notable. As for the claims about DD’s contributions to evolutionary psychology, lets hear an expert say that he has made a significant contribution. If he has, where are the refereed academic articles, in good journals, to support the assertion. I have never met DD. I imagine I would like him. I imagine I would be happy to have a beer with him at the ‘Bush Inn’. He seems like a entertaining rogue. But notable? Not. Let’s maintain some standards folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Note, this is 203.214.15.223'd 3rd delete !vote in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Professor Dutton has, in his career, crossed a number of paths, some of the nastier consequences of which had been slanderously included in the article about him (prompting my clean-up some time ago). I suspect that our anonymous friend here has something of this motivation since the personal animus is palpable, and only poorly masked by these repeated bleatings about policy. I suggest that Ursap withdraw this nomination, since the article will clearly not be deleted; a civilised merge discussion can continue on the talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is all very amusing. I came across the DD page having seen many other pages of people who are not notable including some people I do know. DD I don't know. But a little investigation shows that he is not notable either. I tried to clean up his page, consistent with Wikipedia standards, admittedly I did add a bit of humour because a page on a non notable person invites humour and then I am accused of being a fan of Prof Butler's, someone else that I have no knowledge of. For someone who cleaned up the DD page to remove slander, you seem remarkably free to slander yourself. There is no personal animus. And if it was palpable your comment would not be required. Have you heard of argument ad hominem? Whether someone is anonymous or not it is their arguments that should be evaluated, not their alleged motivations. I am sure you can find this principle explained elsewhere in Wikipedia. As I said this, DD's entry, is not the worst example I have seen in Wikipedia of a non notable person entry. Some of these entries are written by the people themselves. I have seen pages clearly written by the person who uses their name to write them. These entries are a joke. Overall Wikipedia is a great concept and a great resource but surely it is not and should not become Facebook! The people who contribute are, overall, doing a great job. However, many of you do take yourselves far too seriously.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denis_Dutton&oldid=201117133"