Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desire utilitarianism

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.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desire utilitarianism

The topic has not received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore not notable Banno 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless sourced. Lots of references, but all to the same guy, and all to his blog. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. --Haemo 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two new, external, sources have been added. Canadianism 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Michael Shermer recommendation to Alonso's blog martino 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument here seems to be that if lots of people mention it on their blog, regardless of how trivial that mention, then it must be important. But my point, as outlined below, is that according to Wiki policy, blogs are not reliable sources - regardless of how many you can find. Banno 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The main reference is self-published at Lulu.com. The other references, all to a single author with little academic standing, are from a single blog site. The two external links are to other blog sites. The authors have not been able to provide any links to secondary sources over the last few days (One of the authors is a regular editor, the two others are welcome newbies, who came to the article after I queried it. Neither has edited outside of this one article). Furthermore the article reads as if Desire utilitarianism where an accepted philosophical theory, on a par with rule utilitarianism or act utilitarianism. It isn't. Banno 02:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article read as if it was on par with rule or act utilitarianism? I should note that a lot more mudane philosophical theories have been added to Wikipedia, with little or no following or support. Also, whatever your personal opinions on the matter are, self-published works aren't of less value to Wikipedia. Canadianism 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your second point, it is not just my opinion. Clearly self-published works are considered of lesser value. From Wikipedia:Verifiability Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Note that this is an official policy, not a guideline. Banno 03:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your first point, it is nothing that could not be fixed by pointing out the limited spread of this theory in the introductory paragraph. I would welcome such an edit. Banno 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pixnaps 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable weblog, Pharyngula, has referenced the book on Desire Utilitarianism and appears to be quite notable in the blogosphere. NOTE: Edited intenral link Canadianism 03:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point at issue is that the article is supported only by self-published materials and blogs, but that these are not acceptable sources. Adding yet another blog does not improve the case. "If you doubt this, how is it that there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??" ;) Banno 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharyngula has be used as a reference in other articles and I don't see how adding a notable blog doesn't help the cause. Canadianism 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharyngula link you cite above says nothing more than that Myers has placed the book on his list of books to read. Good for him. Banno 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that all the references cited are written by the originator of the theory would seem to make this WP:OR by definition. --Infrangible 19:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Michael Shermer recommendation to Alonso's blog martino 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Single source, i.e., "the originator" of the theory, plus a few blog entries. Not WP:RS. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. --Evb-wiki 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel Guy Podcast isn't a "single blog entry" and Pharyngula is a notable blog. Canadianism 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear as to what point you are making here. --Evb-wiki 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have e-mailed Fyfe to see if he is aware of any sources that might vindicate this page's inclusion on Wikipedia. If he has not returned my message by Wednesday, I will vote for deletion. Postmodern Beatnik 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Fyfe has confirmed that there are no reliable secondary sources on his book or his philosophy in general. As such, my vote is for deletion. However, I would like to note that the topic is interesting enough that, should it ever pass WP:V, I hope it will be resuscitated. Postmodern Beatnik 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beatnik. Another option might be to write an article on Fyfe himself - perhaps he is mentioned somewhere? Banno 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:OR. --JayJasper 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 22:31, 6 June 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.