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 Oh, I'm going to catch hell for this deletion.. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hedonistic Imperative[edit]

The Hedonistic Imperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The Hedonistic Imperative reads like a sophomoric philosophy essay and does not meet encyclopedic standards. Mnemopis 02:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The article is 5 years old and has been edited by many different editors. There must be some reason it has survived this long. - Big Brother 1984 02:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - David Pearce may be a notable subject, but his manifesto is not. The article cites no commentary or criticism on the manifesto from non-self-published reliable sources. -- Schaefer (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Look up deletion policy before you add a deletion template and before you vote "delete" please. A poorly written or cited article does not warrant a deletion template unless its complete nonsense. Rather it warrants a clean-up tag. I'm tempted to remove the template because it is such an egregious misuse of it. Please read the policy on nominating an article for deletion before you use the template.

I didn't nominate for deletion just because it was a poorly written essay on a great idea. The concepts behind the essay are sophomoric and lack originality. Mnemopis 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the essay is irrelevant. There are plenty of essays and manifestos that aren't very good but certainly deserve Wikipedia articles because they're famous, oft-cited, influential, etc. This manifesto appears to be none of these. The article does not make any claim that any one of any importance has ever critiqued or even considered The Hedonistic Imperative. Most of the article violates WP:NOR by drawing novel comparisons to other essays by other, more notable people that will need to be removed if the article survives deletion. The article shouldn't exist because there are no third-party reliable sources to cite on the topic of Pearce's manifesto, and thus the article can never have any content. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Any Joe Blow can write a "manifesto". N0n1in34r 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redir to David Pearce, or maybe abolitionism (bioethics). A founder of an international organization very notable in its field isn't exactly "Joe Blow", but this work isn't yet notable on its own. ~~ N (t/c) 03:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. I agree with Nickptar. --Loremaster 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brainsynth 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. The Hedonistic Imperative is mentioned in a number of published works on transhumanism--see Google book search on "Hedonistic Imperative" +"David Pearce". Hypnosifl 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, also take a look at this Google Scholar search on the same thing, showing that the HI has been discussed in a number of scholarly journals and websites. Hypnosifl 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, to make the matter clear. Also see the discussion page for additional info. Note that The Hedonistic Imperative is not even a published book. It's only an online post, similar to a blog post. This is not notable and should be promptly deleted. Mnemopis 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an online "post", but a book-length work published online by a philosopher. And it is discussed in published books, as I showed above. Hypnosifl 07:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blog post. It's only 6 pages long. Most New York Times articles are longer than this. Mnemopis 08:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a blog post, because it was not published on a blog, but rather on his website. And there's no way it would be six pages long, unless you are misleadingly comparing a "page" on an internet site (which can be arbitrarily long, thanks to scrolling) with a printed page. Most New York Times articles are definitely much shorter than this, just do a word count...I put the complete text of the HI into a text program and got a word count of 54,183 words, by comparison the current NY Times top story, New York to Test Ways to Guard Against Nuclear Terror, had a word count of 1,257 words, less than 1/40th the length. For a few other comparisons, The Communist Manifesto is 4,567 words (without the footnotes), Edgar Allen Poe's short story The Pit and the Pendulum is 6,186 words, and the H. G. Wells' novel The Time Machine is 32,134 words--all significantly shorter than the Hedonistic Imperative. In any case, length is not relevant to notability, and the fact that it has been discussed in a number of published books and academic journals is sufficient to demonstrate its notability. Hypnosifl 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, it is 6 pages long, and it's 6 pages of the sort of drug-induced ravings that you will find in abundance at deoxy.org. We should be asking ourselves, should Wikipedia be endorsing drug use? The Hedonistic Imperative, besides being insignificant philosophically, endorses drug use, and is the result of drug use. You think this is significant? Hardly. Again, go to deoxy.org and you'll see the same type of crap there. It's not notable. It's commonplace. Mnemopis 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to your strange criteria, H.G. Wells' book The Time Machine is only 12 pages long, because when put online in HTML form each chapter is given a single scrollable page. In any case, both the length and the your personal assessment of the quality or moral value of the work are completely irrelevant to the question of its notability--you should not be using nominations for deletion as a way of expressing your personal qualitative judgments about a work, perhaps you should review the criteria for notability again, particularly notability is not subjective. Hypnosifl 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that The Hedonistic Imperative has not been cited in any peer-reviewed journals (check Google Scholar) and it has only been cited in 3 non-notable books (check Google Book Search). This is not notable. Mnemopis 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books, Citizen Cyborg, is notable enough to have its own wikipedia entry, and another, Enough, is by a notable author, Bill McKibben. In any case, the Wikipedia:Notability entry does not specify that the "published sources" must themselves be notable (although they should be reliable and independent of the subject itself), the definition is fairly wide: What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. As for the google scholar results, are you certain that the journals Australian Biologist and Northwestern University Law Review are not peer-reviewed? Hypnosifl 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your criteria validates blog posts and is hardly acceptable. Neither the Australian Biologist nor "Northwestern Univ Law Review" are internationally recognized journals. Show me a widely known news source that has cited the Hedonistic Imperative, or an author in an internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal that has cited it. There aren't any, and that is one of the things that makes it not notable. Mnemopis 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indenting) When you say "your criteria validates blog posts", what criteria are you referring to? If you're talking about the statement What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc., this is not my criteria, it is wikipedia's official policy as expressed in Wikipedia:Notability (and I don't see how it would validate blog posts). There is no requirement that the subject be mentioned in "a widely known news source" or "an internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal", I recommend that you review wikipedia's notability policy carefully and then explain why you think the published sources already given do not meet wikipedia's criteria. Hypnosifl 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why The Hedonistic Imperative does not meet notability guidelines ad infinitum. Your windbag approach to discussion is not convincing. Reread the guidelines yourself if you don't understand. Mnemopis 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not given any explanation that specifically refers to the notability criteria given on wikipedia, instead you have given a lot of your own personal criteria that have nothing to do with wikipedia's criteria, like that the journals must be "internationally recognized" or that "widely known news sources" be used or that the books used as sources themselves be "notable" or that the "page length" be above a certain number or that wikipedia should not include what you believe to be "drug-induced ravings". Can you quote a section of Wikipedia:Notability that justifies any one of these? And can you quote a specific criteria for valid sources from Wikipedia:Notability that the sources I mentioned fail to satisfy? If not, then you are using your own subjective notion of what it means to be "notable", not wikipedia's. Hypnosifl 21:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. A passing reference to the Hedonistic Imperative in 3 non-notable books, and no references in notable peer-reviewed journals means that it is not notable. For some reason, you are setting the bar for notability far too low. Mnemopis 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see where the criteria given on Wikipedia:Notability say anything about it being important whether the sources are notable or non-notable themselves (although if you think the book Citizen Cyborg is non-notable, you should ask for references for its notability on its discussion page), nor does it say the sources must be "peer-reviewed journals", nor (as far as I can tell) do the sources have to discuss the subject in great detail, at least not when the subject is an idea or manifesto like "The Hedonistic Imperative" as opposed to a person. If you think any of these requirements are present in Wikipedia:Notability, please provide a specific quote. Hypnosifl 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So having 2 or 3 citations from non-notable, possibly non-independent sources makes a subject notable? This does not meet encyclopedic standards. Mnemopis 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the "possibly non-independent" part (and if you have evidence of that, please present it), then I'd say yes, 2 or 3 citations from non-notable but reliable sources is enough to make a subject notable according to wikipedia's policy. If you disagree, please quote from the policy to support your case. And incidentally, as I keep pointing out Citizen Cyborg is in fact considered a notable source. Hypnosifl 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So because it's mentioned in passing in Citizen Cyborg, it's notable according to you. That's weak, and it seems few people agree with your opinion. Mnemopis 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're mischaracterizing my argument, I've said that I don't think it matters whether a source is itself notable according to wikipedia's guidelines, but since you keep saying all the sources mentioning the HI are "non-notable" I just wanted to point out this was incorrect (and incidentally, although the three references in Citizen Cyborg are indeed fairly brief, on p. 270 Hughes does refer to the Hedonistic Imperative as 'the principle transhumanist thinkpiece on hedonic self-determination'). As I said before: yes, 2 or 3 citations from non-notable but reliable sources is enough to make a subject notable according to wikipedia's policy. If you disagree, please quote from the policy to support your case. Hypnosifl 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the back and forth of those other guys and the lack of external citations. If there is some external reference to this thing shown that's notable, i'll change my vote, but it'll take alot, I get a WP:OR vibe on this puppy. Just H 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Has not demonstrated nontrivial citations from nontrivial and independent external sources. Medlat 09:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per the above searches that indicate plenty of hits, but very few, if any, non-trivial mentions. Addhoc 11:02, 12 February 2007 (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.