- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the topic is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Michael Anissimov
AfDs for this article:
- Michael Anissimov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely promotional, and with no demonstrate notability. The article was entirely devoted to promoting his views, to the extent thatI think G11 might apply. . Furthermore the sources are either mere mentions in general articles, or are about other people such Kurzwell, or are citations to his own works. The first AfD was closed as Delete, and nothing much has changed. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Now that neoreaction has sprung up and he's become the leader of the NRx transhumanists, I'd say he's more notable than he was in 2004. Smooth alligator ( talk) 09:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- your opinion, but I see no evidence. But any possible notability is irrelevant if the article is entirely promotional--the basic policy is NOTADVERTISING, which prevents us from having a promotional article on a person whether or not they pass the [[WP:N] notability guideline.
DGG (
talk )
14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are we talking now about a subtler kind of advertising than the kind that gets deleted under G11? Because when I think of unambiguous advertising, I think of stuff like, "Michael Anissimov now is selling Idaho Project for only $6.99. This handy eBook fits conveniently right into your Kindle. But wait, there's more! Call within the next 15 minutes and get this Idaho-shaped keychain absolutely free. You heard right -- FREE! $8.99 shipping and handling fee may apply.)"
- your opinion, but I see no evidence. But any possible notability is irrelevant if the article is entirely promotional--the basic policy is NOTADVERTISING, which prevents us from having a promotional article on a person whether or not they pass the [[WP:N] notability guideline.
DGG (
talk )
14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- It would be easier to make the case that it isn't promotional if more people had attacked him (and I did google for that; darn it, Southern Poverty Law Center, where are you when we need you?), but unfortunately, from what I can tell, they didn't. That's a little surprising, since normally any white nationalist will get attacked. But what I find is that Anissimov mostly got covered in articles that were either related to his interests outside of WN, or doing a survey of the NRx movement as a whole and saving the criticism for either the movement as a whole or more prominent figures in it.
- It's not the most obvious case of notability, since it's not like a lot of major press outlets have devoted entire articles just to him, the way they have with, say, Curtis Yarvin or Ray Kurzweil. On the other hand, the mentions he does get usually go into enough detail to describe his philosophy and approach, so I don't see it as the most obvious case of non-notability either. Smooth alligator ( talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: mostly promotionalism and fringe theories. DrStrauss talk 14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
-
DGG: is it
WP:G4-worthy? I can't see the deleted version obviously.
DrStrauss
talk
14:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, he did restore the deleted versions. 2007, 2009. Those were much shorter and more poorly-referenced articles, and at any rate, consensus can change over an 8-year period. Smooth alligator ( talk) 14:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
-
DGG: is it
WP:G4-worthy? I can't see the deleted version obviously.
DrStrauss
talk
14:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. My own searching turns up lots of sources, but they're all blogs, social media, and niche-interest websites. None of which remotely approach being a WP:RS. There's a large number of references in the article; I'm not willing to look through all of them, but I did look at one that looked promising from New York Magazine. It's a WP:RS, and does indeed mention Anissomov, but the article's not really about him; it's about the broader subject of transhumanism. It's not a bad source, but it's not enough on its own. If somebody could point out (no more than) two or three of the best sources, I'd be willing to look at them in more detail. But, for now, this looks like a delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, he seems to chronically be in more of a supporting actor type role than the star himself. He gets quoted in The Singularity Is Now, people thank him in their papers for his comments, and he serves in various capacities for different organizations, but whatever are his accomplishments usually get subsumed under those of others he influences or of the organizations he belongs to. Supposedly Accelerating Future was "among the most popular transhumanist blogs, with over 100,000 monthly uniques" but I didn't find an RS for that, and I'm not sure how much of an accomplishment that is anyway. I guess it pays in life sometimes to try to grab more of the spotlight and glory. @ RoySmith:, oh, there is this piece. Smooth alligator ( talk) 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- delete - he's "notable" in the tiny world of the NRx blogosphere, but the coverage of him in third-party RSes is really not convincing, despite the chaff of less than great references. If culled to solid RSes this would be very thin - David Gerard ( talk) 10:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the topic is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Michael Anissimov
AfDs for this article:
- Michael Anissimov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely promotional, and with no demonstrate notability. The article was entirely devoted to promoting his views, to the extent thatI think G11 might apply. . Furthermore the sources are either mere mentions in general articles, or are about other people such Kurzwell, or are citations to his own works. The first AfD was closed as Delete, and nothing much has changed. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Now that neoreaction has sprung up and he's become the leader of the NRx transhumanists, I'd say he's more notable than he was in 2004. Smooth alligator ( talk) 09:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- your opinion, but I see no evidence. But any possible notability is irrelevant if the article is entirely promotional--the basic policy is NOTADVERTISING, which prevents us from having a promotional article on a person whether or not they pass the [[WP:N] notability guideline.
DGG (
talk )
14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Are we talking now about a subtler kind of advertising than the kind that gets deleted under G11? Because when I think of unambiguous advertising, I think of stuff like, "Michael Anissimov now is selling Idaho Project for only $6.99. This handy eBook fits conveniently right into your Kindle. But wait, there's more! Call within the next 15 minutes and get this Idaho-shaped keychain absolutely free. You heard right -- FREE! $8.99 shipping and handling fee may apply.)"
- your opinion, but I see no evidence. But any possible notability is irrelevant if the article is entirely promotional--the basic policy is NOTADVERTISING, which prevents us from having a promotional article on a person whether or not they pass the [[WP:N] notability guideline.
DGG (
talk )
14:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- It would be easier to make the case that it isn't promotional if more people had attacked him (and I did google for that; darn it, Southern Poverty Law Center, where are you when we need you?), but unfortunately, from what I can tell, they didn't. That's a little surprising, since normally any white nationalist will get attacked. But what I find is that Anissimov mostly got covered in articles that were either related to his interests outside of WN, or doing a survey of the NRx movement as a whole and saving the criticism for either the movement as a whole or more prominent figures in it.
- It's not the most obvious case of notability, since it's not like a lot of major press outlets have devoted entire articles just to him, the way they have with, say, Curtis Yarvin or Ray Kurzweil. On the other hand, the mentions he does get usually go into enough detail to describe his philosophy and approach, so I don't see it as the most obvious case of non-notability either. Smooth alligator ( talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: mostly promotionalism and fringe theories. DrStrauss talk 14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
-
DGG: is it
WP:G4-worthy? I can't see the deleted version obviously.
DrStrauss
talk
14:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, he did restore the deleted versions. 2007, 2009. Those were much shorter and more poorly-referenced articles, and at any rate, consensus can change over an 8-year period. Smooth alligator ( talk) 14:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
-
DGG: is it
WP:G4-worthy? I can't see the deleted version obviously.
DrStrauss
talk
14:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. My own searching turns up lots of sources, but they're all blogs, social media, and niche-interest websites. None of which remotely approach being a WP:RS. There's a large number of references in the article; I'm not willing to look through all of them, but I did look at one that looked promising from New York Magazine. It's a WP:RS, and does indeed mention Anissomov, but the article's not really about him; it's about the broader subject of transhumanism. It's not a bad source, but it's not enough on its own. If somebody could point out (no more than) two or three of the best sources, I'd be willing to look at them in more detail. But, for now, this looks like a delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, he seems to chronically be in more of a supporting actor type role than the star himself. He gets quoted in The Singularity Is Now, people thank him in their papers for his comments, and he serves in various capacities for different organizations, but whatever are his accomplishments usually get subsumed under those of others he influences or of the organizations he belongs to. Supposedly Accelerating Future was "among the most popular transhumanist blogs, with over 100,000 monthly uniques" but I didn't find an RS for that, and I'm not sure how much of an accomplishment that is anyway. I guess it pays in life sometimes to try to grab more of the spotlight and glory. @ RoySmith:, oh, there is this piece. Smooth alligator ( talk) 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- delete - he's "notable" in the tiny world of the NRx blogosphere, but the coverage of him in third-party RSes is really not convincing, despite the chaff of less than great references. If culled to solid RSes this would be very thin - David Gerard ( talk) 10:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.