Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamais Cascio: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Anne Delong (talk | contribs) →Jamais Cascio: some more comments |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
===[[Jamais Cascio]]===
:{{la|Jamais Cascio}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamais Cascio|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 25#{{anchorencode:Jamais Cascio}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamais_Cascio Stats]</span>)
Line 46 ⟶ 53:
*'''Delete'''', as not meeting [[WP:GNG]]. A few minor mentions here and there, and some interesting looking work from time to time doesn't add up to notability. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 04:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC).
*'''keep''' He is taken seriously by serious media [http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0503/Should-geoengineering-be-used-to-address-global-warming], [http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/can-humans-manage-the-atmosphere/?_r=0], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jamais+Cascio%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22Jamais+Cascio%22&tbm=bks].[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - First, I understand the impetus to remove sources one feels are clouding the issue, however, in this instance, at least two solid references were removed (''Wired'' and ''Physics of the Future''), especially after another editor ({{u|MelanieN}}) has referred to them as their basis for a "keep" !vote. In addition, as one of the editors who worked on the article pointed out, the other citations were there to verify facts, not to show notability, and as such, trivial mentions are fine. There are so many mentions of him in reliable sources (hundreds, after you get through all the false positives, particularly the Lifeboat blog), that it makes sorting through them tedious, but the two now deleted references alone meet [[WP:GNG]]. But more importantly, he clearly passes [[WP:BASIC]], which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". While many of the sources are only brief mentions, they are not simply mentioning him, but mentioning him as "an expert... futurist" (USA TODAY-Oct 29, 2014), "a research fellow at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif., and a senior fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging ..." (New York Times -May 4, 2011), " ...quoted one of our expert participants, Jamais Cascio from the Institute for the Future" (GreenBiz), "a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future" (HuffPo 05/04/2015), etc. [[User:onel5969|<b><
::The sources I cited as being the basis for fulfilling GNG are actually still there in the article; they were just moved from the lead to the "career" section. However, I agree with your general feeling that it is inappropriate to remove sources during the middle of an AfD discussion. The whole point of an AfD discussion is to evaluate the article and particularly its sourcing. To gut the article like this ([[User:David Gerard]] literally removed half the article) is unfair to the discussants, by removing information they might consider relevant. In effect, this kind of thing is an attempt to impose one person's opinion of the sources on everybody else. I am glad to see that some of the deleted material was restored. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 20:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Deleting a fog of bad sources is always appropriate, ''particularly in a [[WP:BLP|BLP]]'' - this isn't just any article. As BLP expressly notes, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Note also, from the policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – '''should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.'''" (Bolding in original.) As it is, the restored material actually has proper sourcing now - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Line 52 ⟶ 59:
::::I was initially hesitant to make changes for this very reason. However, I accept that David is acting in accordance with BLP policies. With their emphasis on immediate removal of contentious material (even from the 'Talk' section), the BLP policies do not encourage balanced discussion. However, they are what they are, and this isn't the place to grumble about their failings. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have reinstated the Article via AfC. Still, this is where we are, and we may as well let the process run to its conclusion.[[User:Arfisk|Arfisk]] ([[User talk:Arfisk|talk]]) 00:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
*'''Comment''' No opinion as to notability, but if this is deleted, perhaps creation protection should be considered, because the subject seems to be recreating it after every deletion? [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
:*I am not the Subject. 'Curator' might be a more appropriate term to use. As for relisting; should the final decision be to delete, then I will seek its reinstatement through the formal process, as perhaps should have happened previously (Rookie error)[[User:Arfisk|Arfisk]] ([[User talk:Arfisk|talk]]) 22:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
*<s>'''Comment'''</s> '''Keep''' (see added comments at the bottom of this thread) "Foreign Policy" is not a neutral source; the subject writes for this publication. I can only see "snippit" view, but it appears that the mention in the Steffen book is on the acknowledgements page, rather than an article about Cascio. The ABC source doesn't mention him. McGonnigle lists him as one of her closest collaborators, so that's not independent. Most of the online mentions of his self-published ebook appear to be in his own profiles, but it does have one review from Bob Olson (which he mentions endlessly) and I did find and add a short
:*Thanks for taking the time to look into all this. Brief responses:
::*Foreign Policy is a respected news source. I can't imagine why they'd blot their reputation by touting their own contributors in a Global Top 100 listing unjustifiably, but I'd have to check that in more detail. For now, I'll rely on 'reasonableness'.
Line 70 ⟶ 77:
:::[[User:Arfisk|Arfisk]], at an AfD the main issue is usually notability. Some sources may be okay to have in the article to provide facts, but may not add much to notability if they are written by the subject's friends and colleagues. This is my point about the Worldchanging book. Entries on the acknowledgment page are usually the author's personal gratitude, not neutral information and don't demonstrate notability. The same point about the McGonigal reference - I wasn't suggesting it be removed, but if it's not independent, it won't help establish notability at an AFD. I pointed out the many identical mentions by Cascio of his book and its review as a heads up to others because when I did a Google search these postings significantly increased the number of hits without demonstrating any notability or information. (and actually after checking notability for thousands of articles I have not seen this particular type of promotion before).
:::I removed the reference to the list of board members for a reason unrelated to the AfD - There are many, many facts about a person which ''could'' be included in an encyclopedia article; those chosen should not be what the subject and his/her friends want the reader to know, but instead what independent journalists and authors thought important enough to write about. I considered removing the item of information, but it didn't seem controversial, and it's possible that an independent source for that information may be found later. Policies say that unsourced information ''may'' be removed.—[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 03:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
::::I found quite a few discussions of Cascio's work in various books and I added a some to the article. I hope they are all independent, but feel free to remove any that aren't I believe that the article should be kept, but scrubbed of the cherry-picked quotes and cross-promotional citations to the work of his friends and colleagues.—[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 05:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the help, [[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]]. The only thing wrong I find about these is that you've used the Naughton reference twice. Is that intentional? (I can't see p.21- online, so I can't check relevance. You may need two refs, with inline citation. Guess that goes for McGonigal ref as well) About Ensia: I can't predict what a journalist would consider relevant or important. Why remove this position ref, and not others?[[User:Arfisk|Arfisk]] ([[User talk:Arfisk|talk]]) 08:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::No, [[User:Arfisk|Arfisk]], likely two citations in the same sentence to a reference aren't needed. As the article develops, and notability becomes clear, these reference numbers would all be moved to the end of the sentence and the duplication removed. YES, exactly right, you can't predict what a journalist would consider relevant, and you don't need to; that's why we have independent citations. Also, and this is important, I and others who work on the article are not doing this to help you or Mr. Cascio; we are building a publication, in which each article has multiple editors and no "[[curator]]" is allowed to manage or oversee it. Since citations to closely connected references don't affect the AfD notability issue, let's leave that discussion for the talk page later if the article is kept.—[[User:Anne Delong|Anne Delong]] ([[User talk:Anne Delong|talk]]) 13:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Passes [[WP:GNG]]. Also, see MelanieN and Anne Delong. Also, I believe there is too much "do not like" here! --[[User:MurderByDeadcopy|<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">'''MurderByDeletionism'''</i>]][[User talk:MurderByDeadcopy|<sup style="color:black;"><i>"bang!"</i></sup>]] 01:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||