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 keep. Wizardman 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Dutton

[edit]
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]

  • 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]
  • 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 27 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 here 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 here. 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 [6]). 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. Now, have I been there or did I just find it on the web? 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 300th delete !vote in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:29, 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, DD is not as notable as Bill Nye. But WP:BIO does not require being a major media celebrity as a necessary condition for inclusion. being a "minor media celebrity" (using the words of NYT article) is certainly enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. In this case we have a relatively rare situation where notability is not just implicitly implied but explicitly asserted ("minor media celebrity") by a reliable source, like the NYT. Regarding the "nothing new" comment, I am not sure what that means. The links I provided simply go to demonstrate that the subject is sufficiently frequently mentioned by significant media outlets as a sort of media pundit on literary matters. Regarding your other comments, I can claim the same "advantages" as you. I also have lived in several different countries, I also do not know DD. I have not edited his article here in Wikipedia and have no beef to grind in the matter, either for or against DD. Nsk92 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bill Nye is more a minor media celebrity than a major one. When there are so many gaps amongst the notables (or, if you will, the more notable) why waste time on the non notable (or, if you will, the less notable). Everybody is notable, to some extent. That's the idea behind Facebook. If you want a NZ based media celebrity who is not already in Wikipedia, how about Brian Edwards? [15] How about Judy Callingham? [16]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating the notability claims Everyone is notable to some extent, in the same way that everyone is special. The important question to be determined in this discussion is, is DD notable within the commonly accepted meaning and within the Wikipedia criteria for a biographical entry? I suggest that he is not, so let’s examine the claims for the areas in which it is suggested he is notable.

First, is DD notable as an academic? No.

He has a rather pedestrian academic publishing record for an associate professor and is not recognised as having contributed any notable ideas in any area. This can be ascertained simply by looking at his own list of his most important publications. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently? The journal he founded and edited is not notable amongst academic journals. Indeed, it is more a magazine than a serious academic journal. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently?

Second, is DD is a notable web entrepreneur? No.

Admittedly Arts and Letters has a following but so do various community newspapers, specialist publications, webpages and blogs. Arts and Letters aggregates and provides links expected to be of interest to the webpage’s readership. In this respect, it is much like any of a very large number of local newspapers which consist largely of material created not for the newspaper but by others, elsewhere, and initially, for others. Also, not exactly unique as a webpage. Meritorious yes, but notable no.

Cybereditions is not a new or original idea, has not been a roaring success, does not have an impressive list of titles, and has been done better and more successfully by many others - Amazon.com, for example.

Climatedebatedaily is but one of a myriad of other such offerings and only started recently, at a time when that debate, in the mainstream at least, is well and truly over. In comparison, AnswersinGenesis [17] covers another area where rational debate has concluded but is more notable because a large polity in the USA seems wedded to the irrational side. It is also a leading site amongst Creationism exponents.

DenisDutton.com is not at all notable, there are an obscene number of such offerings, and blogs, on the web.

Third, is DD notable as a notable libertarian media commentator/activist? No.

There are plenty of notable libertarian media commentators/activist that are, and were, notable for other things before they became commentators. Gary Becker and Richard Posner, for example, to name just two. As for media commentator/activist, or commentator/activist, starting a few organisations of little if any note, there are so many people, even in NZ, who have done this that this is just not notable. Being on the board of RNZ is no big deal. Writing a report criticising alleged failings of a public broadcaster is also not notable. Allegations of bias and of failings made against a public broadcaster (and against private media) are so common in any country that they are certainly not, of themselves, notable.

Fourth, is DD notable for controversy or some controversy? Not really.

This is an area in which DD appears to have worked particularly hard in to try to become notable. The ‘bad writing’ contest which seems to be what DD is most well known for, did, apparently, ‘briefly become a cause célèbre in the world of academic theorists’, although still not sufficiently to make him notable.

On the topic of ‘bad writing’, criticism and controversy, now I am not going to claim that the following analysis is not a cheap shot but it does show that the game of simply critiquing is one anyone can play, and is rather easy. Take for example this sentence from the first paper in the online sample (Philosophy and Literature 29.1 (2005) 1-23) of the journal DD edits:

First, the sentence is long, just as the Butler sentence is long. But more importantly, isn't it possible to make a similar point to the one 'George Meyer' makes in an episode of the Simpsons: "Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?" Don't "larger, more comprehensive vision", "genuine and valid interdisciplinarity", "connected, coherent, cumulative, and relentlessly self-critical body of knowledge", "dilettantish smorgasbord", "genuine historical vision", and "immediate and long-term causal factors", although grand sounding, involve rather vacuous descriptors? Do they tell the reader something or are they so vague that they are open to claim that they are just meaningless phrases that dumb people use to sound important? Isn't the sentence really equivalent to "I don't like Lacanian psychology and associated critical theory?" And if it is, so what? Does this qualify as academic scholarship? I think not.

Rather than publishing this paper in an obscure, non notable, journal, shouldn't the editor (DD) have nominated it for a 'bad writing' award?

Butler, in her NYT response to her award, accuses DD of using the 'bad writing' award to take pot shots at those whose political philosophies he takes exception to. The evidence suggests that she is right.

Now it so happens that I am far more likely to hold views more in common with DD than Butler (for example, I am not a great believer in relativism, and when I was a student I was frequently accused of being ‘to the right of Attila the Hun’, whatever that means, and I used to enjoy ridiculing the vacuous arguments of those with a 'left' orientation, a bit childish I admit, given they are such easy meat) but academic scholarship is supposed to involve more than "I don't like x". It is supposed to involve original contributions, original ideas, supported by tight arguments and evidence - more than simply the recycling of derivative ideas, and empty invective against ideas or people you don't like. Now just because my political persuasion is somewhat different, I think it only fair to give Butler her due, clearly she is one clever woman and although I do not have the requisite knowledge to understand the technical material she writes, I would be very surprised if it does not count as scholarship. If it does present serious ideas that one disagrees with, one should engage and critique them with serious analysis. If it is all nonsense one should demonstrate it. Simply saying it is all nonsense is rather lazy and is not good enough for academic scholarship.

Within critical theory schools, which I really know nothing about, I imagine that there is a deal of pretension. I think the efforts of Alan Sokal well and truly demonstrate that. (In fact I intend to get around to purchasing and reading his book, which I expect to enjoy.) But, to be fair again, there is considerable pretension throughout the 'Arts' and beyond. I am not blind to considerable pretension amongst those who have views similar to mine, and even occasionally I manage to see my own pretension. Being able to see flaws and pretension in your own arguments and in the arguments of those whose conclusions you agree with is an important part of critical thinking.

To summarise, DD is not a notable academic, not a notable web entrepreneur and not a notable libertarian media commentator/activist. He is not notable as a jack of several trades. Plenty of others, Herbert Simon for example, are notable in several different areas, so there is no need to make someone who is not notable in any area, notable, simply because they do more than one thing. In short, DD is just not notable.

And just because you like someone, or like their views, or think they are a jolly good fellow, does not, in itself, make them notable.

--203.214.15.223 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Arts&Letters website and DD himself are notable because they received substantial coverage by independent sources in mainstream meadia. The same cannot be said about an average blog or a facebook page. Look up WP:V. It is irrelevant for the purposes of deciding if DD satisfies WP:N if his notability is well deserved. The fact that substantial independent coverage exists is the primary relevant consideration. Here is a quote about DD from an article in Time magazine: "A few years ago, Mathew Gross, 32, was a free-lance writer living in tiny Moab, Utah. Rob Malda, 28, was an underperforming undergraduate at a small Christian college in Michigan. Denis Dutton, 60, was a professor of philosophy in faraway Christchurch, New Zealand. Today they are some of the most influential media personalities in the world. You can be one too."[18] When a Time article calls a person one of "the most influential media personalities in the world", that fact alone closes the case regarding whether or not that person satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. But in this case there is more. There is a NYT article that I cited above that calls DD "a minor media celebrity, a cyberpublishing prophet who is invited to speak at e-book conferences from Los Angeles to New York." [19] Again, it is quite irrelevant if the judgement of the journalist who wrote this is correct or if DD has earned it. The fact that they wrote it is what counts for determining notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. A few other quotes from mass media. USA Today: "Human beings, by and large, don't know what they're interested in," says Denis Dutton, a professor in New Zealand who started and edits the highly acclaimed Arts & Letters Daily, perhaps the most eclectic, serendipity-driven Web site out there."[20] Here is another one from Guardian: "Arts & Letters Daily should be, Prof Dutton promised, "the place people would like to look at every day, just to see what was new in the world of the arts or ideas". The popularity it now enjoys would suggest he has been good to his energetic word. Today, the site claims more than 2.5 million page views a month - with Britain supplying the second-most users after the US - and a name recognition second to none among the internet's cornucopia of sites cobbled together by other academics, a majority of whose weblogs would typically measure reader numbers over an entire year in the high hundreds at best."[21]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "To judge by what we personally think of the work would show ignorance of encyclopaedic [proportions]. We are laymen, and we accept the demonstrated judgment of the experts in the field (just as we accept the judgment of reviewers for books, of critics for actors). and What anyone here may think of his political or philosophical or literary views is irrelevant."

My points exactly, and what I have been consistently arguing throughout. Where we differ is on who we think are experts. Journalists are not experts simply by virtue of being journalists. They may be experts for other reasons. Newspapers, magazine, and various other media are by no means authorities. Although their believability does vary, even the best contain fanciful nonsense and are regularly deceived by those who have an agenda. Plenty of people earn a very good living principally for the services they provide in deceiving the media. I must admit that when I was young and more callow than I still am now, I used to think "if it is in the newspaper it must be true".

As for the often pseudo-scientific methods used to evaluate citations... They are, indeed, laughable. Eight or nine years ago a friend and I decided to have a look at which economics journals the Social Sciences Citation Index ranked as being the best. We were most amused to find that the clear and easy winner, based on their formula, was The Economist magazine! Now although The Economist is a good read, it too frequently contains nonsense and, more importantly, it is not even a journal. Any citation in The Economist should be given a relative weight close to zero. Following this discovery, we took the data on citations from articles in one journal to another (including those involving The Economist) and we used what appears to be the best method for numerical evaluation of citations to estimate weights of journals based on the implicit hierarchy in the data. In the journal ranking based on this, The Economist had dropped from sight. The ranking of journals at the top made sense and were relatively consistent with the ranking evaluations of experts. Unfortunately, even this apparently best numerical method is not foolproof. We tried it on some other disciplines and found that there were cases where the ranking results were complete nonsense.

On a similar point, in the past, when I have had to do a literature search, I tried, a couple of times, to use our librarian (I always prefer someone else to do the work where possible). The results were several inches thick of printouts, almost completely dross and the few nuggets found not worth the effort. As a consequence, if I do need to do something like that now I always do it myself. When people who don't know what they are doing try to evaluate things where they don't have the requisite skill, or knowledge, or capacity, the result is always amusing. Once I had the pleasure of watching someone who is colour blind sorting bottles into green ones and brown ones. Unfortunately, the bottles he was attempting to sort had already been sorted. They were all brown. He had seen other people doing similar sorting, and, although he is colour blind, he thought he had worked out how to do it. Most amusing!

As for who I try to convert, I don't try to convert anyone. I don't try to convince my opponents and don't try to convince the audience. Whether they are convinced or not is not entirely in my hands and if convincing them was my objective I would use sophistry, not rational argument, as sophistry is more effective. That said, I do hope to convince any independent, intelligent, disinterested person. Debate can be fun, as long as you don't take it, or yourself, too seriously. --203.214.3.114 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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.
More