Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamais Cascio

Jamais Cascio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Lacks notability. Passing mentions in most sources.
WP:RS Lacks reliable sources. Self sourcing from his own projects.
WP:COI Highly probably that the author of the article is the subject of the article.
WP:RESUME Article, aside from above issues, reads like a resume/promo piece.

PeterWesco (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - deleted at PROD twice for much the same reasons. The sources are largely primary and passing mentions, and the article cobbled together from them is a bad article that could do with applied WP:TNT. If there's a better article with better sources I might think otherwise, but this article and its sourcing completely fails to be up to the standards required by WP:BLP and needs to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted this user has recently removed a substantial part of the article for reasons given later on in the discussion. Anyone wishing to view the article as it stood at the time the AfD was issued should see here. Arfisk (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To address the issues raised:
- WP:COI - I have been maintaining this page in recent times. While I have been in correspondence with the subject about this page's earlier deletion, I am quite independent of the subject. I am not even in the same country.
- WP:N - Acting in accordance with what I believe to be WP:BLP policy, I have added references from notable sources: people Bruce Sterling, Alex Steffen, and Michio Kaku, and from Foreign Policy Magazine. Being listed in the top 100 list of Global Thinkers is no mean feat.
- WP:RS - Again, acting in accordance with WP:BLP I have been citing independent references. I think this assertion is plain wrong, but am happy to hear what I'm doing wrong.
- WP:RESUME - This is a matter of style, which I am in the process of correcting. If constructive criticisms can be made, they would be welcome. - Arfisk (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG; the first three references alone seem to demonstrate coverage ABOUT the person from independent sources. The article is a little promotional ("and then I wrote" type stuff) but that can be trimmed. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is much more than "a little promotional". If kept, can we please loose the I'm-the-greatest quotes in the lead, move them to the bottom, and rewrite the rest. w.carter-Talk 19:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree the 'promotional' nature of the article needs to be toned down. That was an overcompensation for earlier accusations of WP:N. A bio template needs to be applied. I had hoped to have this sort of discussion in the talk section. Oh well...Arfisk (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert masquerading as an article. Also, the user shouldn't be canvassing the Teahouse for keep votes. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I was canvassing for any comments, good or bad. Thanks for taking the time to respond (really!). WP:ADMASK? What 'solicitation' is being sought? Otherwise, see above comment. Arfisk (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. He's written things, he's been quoted as saying things, his various employers' sites tell us about him. But I see no independent discussion of him. Maproom (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is Michio Kaku's recollection of a conversation with him, and the 2009 listing from Foreign Policy. Both are discussions from independent sources. Arfisk (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Too many of the references are to the subject's own publications. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are 26 references currently, of which 7 could be deemed to be associated with the subject. 4 of those are simply to establish places of work, and the remainder have different authors. To which were you referring? Arfisk (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You need to review WP:RS and WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Trivial mention applies to most of the references and the rest fall under WP:RS. Blogs and websites and similar are not reliable sources. Any sources that remain after eliminating the WP:RS failures are trivial mentions. There is simply not anything quantifiable for references to justify an article for this subject 79.157.250.230 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have just culled the worst of the blatant self-sourcing and trivial mentions. What remains is as sparse as Cascio's notability - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy in the making. While it's permissible to edit an article subject to a deletion notice, I have to wonder why you deemed it necessary at this stage. Why not wait until the final decision has been made? I also call the Adjudicator's attention to the tone of your comment.Arfisk (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Because the terrible sources were making it look like this article was well sourced, when in fact they were terrible sources that were at no time suitable for a BLP. (I remember deleting these terrible sources from other incarnations of your publicity piece.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Terrible? *My* publicity piece (I am not Cascio)? Well, you clearly have opinions and I can't argue with them. I'll leave your deletions as they stand, for now (although I've referred folk to the original version at the start of this discussion.). Frankly, I don't think your action helps the case for Deletion at all. In legal terms it is called 'tampering with the evidence'. It is frowned upon.Arfisk (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I disagree. All online references are, by definition, to other websites. If you followed the WP:RS criteria with such rigor you'd likely end up deleting all wikipedia pages! That said, I have (or thought I had) been rigorous in providing reliable and independent references, and several of the references made have OLPC/ISBN numbers associated with them.Arfisk (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please reread WP:RS. You won't see having an ISBN listed as constituting a source, e.g. to a self-published book on Lulu - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm certainly not relying on a 'self published book on Lulu' as a basis of notability! References are also used to establish the body of work. Cascio combined some of his essays into a book on Geoengineering. I use the ISBN reference to establish a fact: yes, he wrote that book. That is all that particular reference was intended to convey. More substantively, the Cheeseburger footprint references that you dismissed as 'from a blog post'? One of them was to a segment in the National Geographic program called 'Six Degrees Could Change the World'. Is that self-promoting?Arfisk (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I concur with the decision to remove the WP:RS failures. It provides a much clearer picture when solely the viable sources are listed and all of the fluff (WP:RS failures) sources are eliminated. PeterWesco (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm. Well I've provided a reference to the original form for folk to compare, so they can determine the good and the bad for themselves. Meanwhile, when I get a few moments, I'll reinstate the Superstruct section with an additional reference from McGonigal's book 'Reality is Broken', and see what happens.Arfisk (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reinstated both Superstruct and Cheeseburger sections, with what I think are suitable RS sources (ie published, and reliable. The deleted video reference already met this btw, but I suspect it was missed). Arfisk (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
keep He is taken seriously by serious media [1], [2], [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 (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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]