Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee David Pearce (philosopher) was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 14, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Sourcing needed[edit]

Over the last few months, I've marked inappropriately cited primary sources, namely those that the subject controls and hosts, and publications by his associates. I marked them because such sources cannot establish the significance or notability of the facts they support (see WP:BLPSPS and WP:PRIMARY). Reliable third party sources are required. No improvements have been made to these sources, so I removed them and the claims they supported — they did not look objectively noteworthy in the least. Before posting this, I went through the history of edits here and deletion discussions, and saw they tended to ride on the multitude of domains and groups this subject has spawned. They're neither notable themselves, nor significant, nor reliable when it comes to reporting on the subject. Below are some links that might lead to better sourcing:

I intend to nominate for deletion relatively soon if nothing is found. Happy editing! JFHJr () 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Several times I have made improvements to sourcing in this article, but it often later gets removed, and I don't have the time to babysit the article to make sure this doesn't happen. If you look at the article from a few years ago, I had a perfectly sourced article that was well-written. David Pearce has appeared at many conferences, in magazines, albeit often in different languages which makes it difficult for showing up in English on Google and for English-speaking Wikipedia editors like myself. His work is in books and on college syllabuses. I have no clue why you would announce your intentions to delete an article that is noteworthy rather than improving it, but please don't imply that there are not primary sources for most of the information in the article. Information should also not be deleted wholesale from the article without first marking it with tags and attempting to find sources yourself, so I've restored the entire section you deleted.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion on Deletion.[edit]

This page is a candidate for deletion. The man is not known in philosophical communities, is not an academic, and has not made contributions to philosophy of any substance. My concern is that if this page is to be maintained, then it will justify the inclusion of several other pages of people of equally low stature. This will reduce the credibility, integrity and quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. The page should therefore be deleted, and if you have objections please state them here. I have proposed deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceLion (talkcontribs) 15:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PROD, PROD should not be used on articles that have previously been sent to AFD. The previous AFD for this article is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Pearce_(philosopher). Do not replace the PROD template on this article. Send the article back to AFD to obtain further discussion and consensus. Thanks --Illia Connell (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, instructions for AFD are here: Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion Illia Connell (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the note at the top of the talk page notes that the last deletion discussion was closed for no consensus, by my count there were nine comments to "keep," including three strong keeps, and three suggestions to delete, including the nominator. Although deletion discussions are not a strict numbers game, looking at other recent deletion discussions, when they have included similar vote counts they have been closed as a "keep." I have improved the sourcing of the article and don't expect it to be nominated again. - Gloriamarie (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for deletion cont.[edit]

I've cleaned up some irrelevant and incorrect biographical detail that seems to have sat around for over six months without anyone noticing or caring. I also corrected the summary to directly reflect his included quotations. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Removed bad reference to David being on the board of Medical Hypotheses, again. Please carefully read WP:RS and check your citations for accuracy. There are additional claims that have been recently added that need citing as well. -- flyingkiwiguy (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I updated the reference - you could always look for a source yourself or tag it, rather than removing the information. And please list the claims you say need citing (or you can always add citations yourself). -Gloriamarie (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I corrected the sourcing for Medical Hypotheses, as an out of date bio is also not a very good source. -- flyingkiwiguy (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (I also corrected your bit of original research there.) --Gloriamarie (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but clearing up of minor inconsistencies does not remove the rationale for deleting this page. This is a self-promotional, biographical page, and there is little to demonstrate that it actually belongs in the Wikipedia community. It does not add any additional value to what has already been covered in the other transhumanist pages. The reasons for deleting this page are: (1) it is an advertisement for an individual and his work, when the individual is not even a qualified academic philosopher - there is no evidence that he has a PhD or any peer-reviewed publications (or any publications in any academic journal); (2) The individual, not being an academic philosopher and only having published one book popular with only a small number of people, is not a notable individual and therefore does not qualify under Wikipedia's rules for their own page. Also, the vast majority of sources are from organisations or individuals to which Pearce has some form of affiliation - approximately 75% fall into this category, making the sources not independent of the subject, another violation of Wikipedia rules. Most of these sources, emerging from a small number of individuals associated with the transhumanist movement, cannot be reliably said to be intellectually independent of each other. A secondary qualification for a biographical page is that the subject must have "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." - this person is not even contributing to the field of philosophy; a semi-academic manifesto, the Hedonistic Imperative, cannot reasonably said to stand in parity with Aristotle, Descartes and Kant. All of these reasons mean the page is a candidate for deletion; any relevant material within the article should be transferred to the transhumanism pages - ScienceLion

The points you raise have been extensively addressed in previous discussion threads. Please make an effort to engage with those replies instead of starting a new discussion here. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that you are the same person that nominated this article for deletion two years ago. Back then, a user explained to you that "PROD should not be used on articles that have previously been sent to AFD". Yet in recent days you again proposed the article for deletion. Please stop doing this, which contravenes Wikipedia's policy. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The points raised have never been legitimately addressed, and the page is present on Wikipedia without the requisite legitimacy. The user explained that to me on the assumption that PROD was removed on the basis of a legitimate process, where the criticisms were adequately addressed; given that this condition does not hold now, and did not then, PROD can be restored as appropriate. If you have legitimate reasons please state them, otherwise it is safe to assume you are protecting your vested interest in restoring your friend's self-promotional page. - ScienceLion — Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You are entirely mistaken. I suggest you read WP:PROD. "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." A prod can be removed for any reason or none. An article which has survived an AfD clearly should not be prodded, as AfD is a more complex process. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

ScienceLion, why are the majority of your edits over the years trying to delete the David Pearce article? It appears that you have an ax to grind and are seeking to further a personal agenda. I do not think this is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Keystroke (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Pearce (philosopher). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

excessive ELs[edit]

Moved these from the page per WP:ELNO - please put into the article as proper references as and when actually useful.

- David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)