Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeriaska

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. Core desat 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeriaska

Autobiography of a non-notable writer. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable. Also, no reliable, third party sources to verify an assertion of notability (even though there really isn't one). - Rjd0060 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:COI, bio written by subject. --- tqbf 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though it should be noted that COI is not, in itself, a reason to delete an article. You could say it violates NPOV. - Rjd0060 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero notability and reasons given above. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Writer is notable for bilingual articles and work in transhumanism research found on personal website[1] and Accelerating Future People Database.[2] For third party support of notability, see Siliconera, [3] Destructoid, [4] and Fight Aging![5] Effusive language removed to address NPOV claims. —Jeriaska (talk • contribs) 11:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (obviously) this is the author and subject of the article. --- tqbf 13:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anyone else here think that the citations don't properly verify the text?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was just about to nominate this, per notability concerns. Seriously, he doesn't even get 4000 Google hits. Also, all of the sources are primary statements of fact that don't establish the notability behind them (e.g., yes, you report for this place but is that notable?). Axem Titanium 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: COI is not, in itself, a reason to delete an article. Please cite where it is stated that 4000 Google hits is the lower bound for a notable writer. Third party sources state "author Jeriaska is doing a great job in pulling together video and transcripts of noteworthy transhumanist advocates, entrepreneurs and activists"[6] and "Jeriaska at Square-Haven must have ninja like skills. Somehow he manages to track down people from Square’s localization history."[7] Comments state that the author is performing a unique, notable function.—Jeriaska —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things. First, in AfDs, please only write "keep" or "delete" once (I accidentally stomped on Axem's note that said the same, sorry). You can add comments with pretty much anything else, including "comment" or "for the love of god, please note".

Second, on any discussion, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Third, you are going to find Wikipedia an unpleasant place to write about yourself. As mentioned above, COI doesn't automatically get your article deleted. But in an article that already has other problems, the fact that virtually all of it was written by an author with a COI problem is not going to help.

The biggest objection to this article is that there are no reliable sources to back it up. Instead of arguing why you are noteworthy, can you find a recognizable secondary source that says the same thing? Anybody can argue with you about the merits of your writing, but we will find it hard to refute books, published articles in circulated magazines, or stories in newspapers.

If you can't do that, you may find it more satisfying to write about "transhumanism" in general, instead of yourself.

Best of luck! --- tqbf 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.[8] As stated previously, reliable and independent sources state author is supporting "transhumanist advocates, entrepreneurs and activists"[9] and providing reportage on the contributions of notable participants in "Square’s localization history."[10]. Secondary sources listed are recognizable to readers concerned with the topics of life extension and role-playing videogames per the previous request.—Jeriaska

If there are no reliable sources in the article, and the source of notability isn't common-sense obvious, the burden of proof is probably on you to prove notability. Notability is defined by reliable independent secondary sources writing about you. You haven't established that yet. Blogs are not reliable sources. --- tqbf 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your last edit, Jeriaska, and as a heads up, even if a blog said you were the most important figure in all of "transhumanism", you could still see the article deleted, because blogs are usually not reliable sources. How about books, or magazine articles, or repeated news mentions? --- tqbf 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fight Aging! is the newsletter of the Longevity Meme,[11] a reliable, third-party published source. The Longevity Meme is a non-profit organization founded in mid-2001 with the goal of encouraging achievable technologies in life extension. This source relies upon fact-checking and accuracy in building upon literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. [12] —Jeriaska

This is a passing mention on a blog. It may be an important blog (though you'd have to spend some time justifying that, because "The Longevity Meme" isn't notable to itself be in the WP), but if your whole claim to notability revolves around two sentences in two blogs, you don't have much of a case. I'm not arguing (I don't decide whether your article stays), but I am suggesting that because you (a) wrote an autobiography on WP and (b) sourced it with blog posts, if you're going to spend effort trying to save the article, you may want to focus that effort on stepping up the quality of your sources. --- tqbf 21:42, 17 November 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.