Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald K. Hoeflin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:59, 21 July 2006

S]] 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep What's the point of an open-source encyclopaedia (so to speak), if it's als

Keep 1) The issue of "junking up lists" seems of little relevance on the internet, where one doesn't have to worry about huge printing costs, huge volumes of paper, etc. One could look at the internet as an electronic junkpile or treasure trove (dependig on one's perspective) of lists - i.e. "links" allowing readers to follow webs of association as far as they want.

2) Proponents of "delete" cite issues of "notability", a term which has also been acknowledged to be ill-defined, its interpretations subject to the biases/whims of the writer or judge.

    2a) Often, the ostensible (surface) motivation behind a decision is merely a mask, hiding deeper, truer motivations. This leads to isues of "political Correctness".  Our society has indoctrinated us to believe in PCness as a virtue and means towards ultimately greater tolerance and humanity; doubters have been coerced into publically pretending belief in the creed.  The underlying dogma - that we really are *fundamentally* equal (vs. "equal in legal rights") assuages many people's fears.  We all know that some people currently seem smarter and/or more talented than us; at the same time, a part of us fights against acknowledging that levels of ability in some areas may be largely innate.  We can save face when looking in the miror by saying "He and I are innately equal; he merely benefited by more opportunities, lucked out in the crap shoot of life."
   Persons and groups whose existence and/or work threatens the ego-massaging opiate of PCness are due for deletion.  Obviously, giants such as Jenson (with lists of respected books and articles in major professional journals) can't be deleted - at least not yet.....but one can start with lesser-known workers of a similarly threatening mindset (ie. those who would haul all the Procrustean beds to the landfill of invalid ideas).Sol.delune 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+S]] 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-===[[Ronald K. Hoeflin]]===
+*'''Keep'''   What's the point of an open-source encyclopaedia (so to speak), if it's als
-Seems to fail notability. Cf. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society]] -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' probable vanity, definitely not very notable as it stands. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 11:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' per Byrgenwulf as nn vanity.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">ets</font></b>]]<font color="grey">[[User_talk:Bucketsofg|<b>ofg</b></font>✐]] 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' Brian[[User:64.12.116.65|64.12.116.65]] 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*Dr Hoeflin is indeed notable. He has been written up in various books, mainstream magazines, and has also been the subject of television interviews. He is one of the pioneers of high-end psychometrics. He was the first -- or perhaps second -- person to create an IQ test that would reliably measure IQ above 3 standard deviations above the norm. These tests were carefully and extensively normed and received widespread media attention. This is especially important because  in the area of very high-range psychometrics -- which can perhaps shed much insight into the nature of minds and IQ in general -- there is virtually no-one at work.<p>For the past ten years, he has been at work writing a book which selectively filters and organizes philosophical concepts. The first two volumes of this book, "Encyclopedia of Categories", have been published. They are almost 700 pages each, and contain much original and noteworthy thought.{{unsigned2|2006-07-21 15:30:48|64.12.116.65}}
-**If that is true, then you should be able to provide us with [[Wikipedia:cite sources|source citations]] for those books and magazine articles.  As things stand, you have cited no sources and the article cites no sources. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep'''  Dr. Hoeflin has been a biographee in Marquis *Who's Who In the World* and Marquis *Who's Who In America* for many years. May-Tzu
-*'''Delete''' promo. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' nn self-published [[User:DaturaS|DaturaS]] 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep'''   What's the point of an open-source encyclopaedia (so to speak), if it's also open-source-delete? You can extend and delete everything there is, as I'm sure you'd find suitable objectors to almost everything there is. Beyond deleting obscenities, what's the use of deletion? Saving something? What exactly?
-*'''Keep''' But DELETION will doubtless be done, and by some hip-hop high school student who has been a sysop for a few months.
-Here is the State of Wiki re deletions:
-"Despite excellent efforts put forth by many of you (and I thank you for the help), the Mega Society article has been deleted. I see that the Hoeflin article has also now been nominated for deletion, and I suspect that this is suggestive of a trend. Coincidentally I was talking with Stephen Wolfram a month or two ago and he commented that he had noted that Wikipedia articles were actually growing shorter on average. When one reads "deletionist" credo on Wikipedia, the main reason given for deleting articles is that too many articles tend to junk up lists. In other words, the world is too complex to fit into a neat categorization, so let's just prune the world to fit. This is reminiscent of attempts to "reform" language. In the end the reason given for deleting the Mega Society entry was that people had never heard of it. So slowly Wikipedia is regressing to the mean, which is something like an eighth grade reading level."
-Perhaps everything be deleted except of course any hip hop articles. And this must be done ASAP obviously, to protect the Wiki notability. SOUTH 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-:While I understand your frustration, your blanket charecterizations of all sysops as teenage hip-hop aficianados is insulting, immature, and patently false. I also note from my associations with various High-IQ societies that there is often a correlation between their members and an inflated sense of self. Not all of us whom G-d has blessed with IQ's significantly above 150 need to broadcast it to the world and preen. Anyway, innate intelligence is more often a gift (although honed and sharpened by use) and not something we should use to foster a sense of superiority. ''Au contraire'', it should engender humility. That being said, we have standards. For better or for worse, and in this I mourn our society's fall with you, ''hoi polloi'' have ascribed a noteriety and notability to people with the ability to run together monosyllabic, mispronounced, bastardized words to some rhythmic structure, and shower them with money and fame. Is it something we should be proud of? No. At this point in history, does that phenomenon exist? Yes. I daresay that the author in question here would be recognized less, be it his work, his appearance, or any other element, than the #500 rapper on some chart. He fails notability in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. Is this “fair”? Doubtful, but it is the case. Also, my personal opinion is that [[Mensa]] is notable for its size and its scope, regardless of the immaturity of many of its individual members. Mega, Giga, Promethues, and the like have nowhere near the membership, name recognition, world-wide dispersion, or influence of [[Mensa]], and all of them, as they stand now, likely fail our standards. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-::Thank you Avi.  I couldn't have put it better myself, and what you said echoes my sentiments exactly.  I would just like to add that I would love to know where that bit that SOUTH quoted came from, since it seems like a message sent out to solicity "meatpuppetry".  [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Keep''' Yes, but this article seems to disscuss an subject of ''importance'' —— [[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]] ([[user_talk:Eagle 101|ask me for '''help''']]) 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 Keep
 ) The issue of "junking up lists" seems of little relevance on the internet, where one doesn't have to worry about huge printing costs, huge volumes of paper, etc.   One could look at the internet as an electronic junkpile or treasure trove (dependig on one's perspective) of lists - i.e. "links" allowing readers to follow webs of association as far as they want.
@@ Line 30: / Line 7: @@
 a) Often, the ostensible (surface) motivation behind a decision is merely a mask, hiding deeper, truer motivations. This leads to isues of "political Correctness".  Our society has indoctrinated us to believe in PCness as a virtue and means towards ultimately greater tolerance and humanity; doubters have been coerced into publically pretending belief in the creed.  The underlying dogma - that we really are *fundamentally* equal (vs. "equal in legal rights") assuages many people's fears.  We all know that some people currently seem smarter and/or more talented than us; at the same time, a part of us fights against acknowledging that levels of ability in some areas may be largely innate.  We can save face when looking in the miror by saying "He and I are innately equal; he merely benefited by more opportunities, lucked out in the crap shoot of life."
-    Persons and groups whose existence and/or work threatens the ego-massaging opiate of PCness are due for deletion.  Obviously, giants such as Jenson (with lists of respected books and articles in major professional journals) can't be deleted - at least not yet.....but one can start with lesser-known workers of a similarly threatening mindset (ie. those who would haul all the Procrustean beds to the landfill of invalid ideas).[[User:Sol.delune|Sol.delune]] 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune
+    Persons and groups whose existence and/or work threatens the ego-massaging opiate of PCness are due for deletion.  Obviously, giants such as Jenson (with lists of respected books and articles in major professional journals) can't be deleted - at least not yet.....but one can start with lesser-known workers of a similarly threatening mindset (ie. those who would haul all the Procrustean beds to the landfill of invalid ideas).[[User:Sol.delune|Sol.delune]] 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune