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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamais Cascio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N Lacks notability. Passing mentions in most sources.
WP:RS Lacks reliable sources. Self sourcing from his own projects.
WP:COI Highly probably that the author of the article is the subject of the article.
WP:RESUME Article, aside from above issues, reads like a resume/promo piece.

PeterWesco (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - deleted at PROD twice for much the same reasons. The sources are largely primary and passing mentions, and the article cobbled together from them is a bad article that could do with applied WP:TNT. If there's a better article with better sources I might think otherwise, but this article and its sourcing completely fails to be up to the standards required by WP:BLP and needs to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted this user has recently removed a substantial part of the article for reasons given later on in the discussion. Anyone wishing to view the article as it stood at the time the AfD was issued should see here. Arfisk (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To address the issues raised:legal
- WP:COI - I have been maintaining this page in recent times. While I have been in correspondence with the subject about this page's earlier deletion, I am quite independent of the subject. I am not even in the same country.
- WP:N - Acting in accordance with what I believe to be WP:BLP policy, I have added references from notable sources: people Bruce Sterling, Alex Steffen, and Michio Kaku, and from Foreign Policy Magazine. Being listed in the top 100 list of Global Thinkers is no mean feat.
- WP:RS - Again, acting in accordance with WP:BLP I have been citing independent references. I think this assertion is plain wrong, but am happy to hear what I'm doing wrong.
- WP:RESUME - This is a matter of style, which I am in the process of correcting. If constructive criticisms can be made, they would be welcome. - Arfisk (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG; the first three references alone seem to demonstrate coverage ABOUT the person from independent sources. The article is a little promotional ("and then I wrote" type stuff) but that can be trimmed. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is much more than "a little promotional". If kept, can we please loose the I'm-the-greatest quotes in the lead, move them to the bottom, and rewrite the rest. w.carter-Talk 19:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree the 'promotional' nature of the article needs to be toned down. That was an overcompensation for earlier accusations of WP:N. A bio template needs to be applied. I had hoped to have this sort of discussion in the talk section. Oh well...Arfisk (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert masquerading as an article. Also, the user shouldn't be canvassing the Teahouse for keep votes. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I was canvassing for any comments, good or bad. Thanks for taking the time to respond (really!). WP:ADMASK? What 'solicitation' is being sought? Otherwise, see above comment. Arfisk (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. He's written things, he's been quoted as saying things, his various employers' sites tell us about him. But I see no independent discussion of him. Maproom (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is Michio Kaku's recollection of a conversation with him, and the 2009 listing from Foreign Policy. Both are discussions from independent sources. Arfisk (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Too many of the references are to the subject's own publications. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are 26 references currently, of which 7 could be deemed to be associated with the subject. 4 of those are simply to establish places of work, and the remainder have different authors. To which were you referring? Arfisk (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You need to review WP:RS and WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Trivial mention applies to most of the references and the rest fall under WP:RS. Blogs and websites and similar are not reliable sources. Any sources that remain after eliminating the WP:RS failures are trivial mentions. There is simply not anything quantifiable for references to justify an article for this subject 79.157.250.230 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have just culled the worst of the blatant self-sourcing and trivial mentions. What remains is as sparse as Cascio's notability - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy in the making. While it's permissible to edit an article subject to a deletion notice, I have to wonder why you deemed it necessary at this stage. Why not wait until the final decision has been made? I also call the Adjudicator's attention to the tone of your comment.Arfisk (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Because the terrible sources were making it look like this article was well sourced, when in fact they were terrible sources that were at no time suitable for a BLP. (I remember deleting these terrible sources from other incarnations of your publicity piece.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Terrible? *My* publicity piece (I am not Cascio)? Well, you clearly have opinions and I can't argue with them. I'll leave your deletions as they stand, for now (although I've referred folk to the original version at the start of this discussion.). Frankly, I don't think your action helps the case for Deletion at all. In legal terms it is called 'tampering with the evidence'. It is frowned upon.Arfisk (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're going to appeal to legal thinking, I strongly suggest you read the introductory paragraphs of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I suggest that prompt removal of such terribly-sourced content from an article about a living person is in close accordance with actual Wikipedia policies, and leaving it there would be a gross violation - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I disagree. All online references are, by definition, to other websites. If you followed the WP:RS criteria with such rigor you'd likely end up deleting all wikipedia pages! That said, I have (or thought I had) been rigorous in providing reliable and independent references, and several of the references made have OLPC/ISBN numbers associated with them.Arfisk (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please reread WP:RS. You won't see having an ISBN listed as constituting a source, e.g. to a self-published book on Lulu - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm certainly not relying on a 'self published book on Lulu' as a basis of notability! References are also used to establish the body of work. Cascio combined some of his essays into a book on Geoengineering. I use the ISBN reference to establish a fact: yes, he wrote that book. That is all that particular reference was intended to convey. More substantively, the Cheeseburger footprint references that you dismissed as 'from a blog post'? One of them was to a segment in the National Geographic program called 'Six Degrees Could Change the World'. Is that self-promoting?Arfisk (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I concur with the decision to remove the WP:RS failures. It provides a much clearer picture when solely the viable sources are listed and all of the fluff (WP:RS failures) sources are eliminated. PeterWesco (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm. Well I've provided a reference to the original form for folk to compare, so they can determine the good and the bad for themselves. Meanwhile, when I get a few moments, I'll reinstate the Superstruct section with an additional reference from McGonigal's book 'Reality is Broken', and see what happens.Arfisk (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reinstated both Superstruct and Cheeseburger sections, with what I think are suitable RS sources (ie published, and reliable. The deleted video reference already met this btw, but I suspect it was missed). Arfisk (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reinstated the paragraph about Hacking the Earth. I have retained the ref to that work simply to establish existence. The discussion about it now has a suitable RS.Arfisk (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reinstated the Transhuman Space section, without the Steffen commentary: it *is* a stretch to call a then co-editor's review 'independent'. However, the section was deleted on grounds of 'non-notability of game', even though TS does have its own page, and apparently won an award or two.Arfisk (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', as not meeting WP:GNG. A few minor mentions here and there, and some interesting looking work from time to time doesn't add up to notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
keep He is taken seriously by serious media [1], [2], [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, I understand the impetus to remove sources one feels are clouding the issue, however, in this instance, at least two solid references were removed (Wired and Physics of the Future), especially after another editor (MelanieN) has referred to them as their basis for a "keep" !vote. In addition, as one of the editors who worked on the article pointed out, the other citations were there to verify facts, not to show notability, and as such, trivial mentions are fine. There are so many mentions of him in reliable sources (hundreds, after you get through all the false positives, particularly the Lifeboat blog), that it makes sorting through them tedious, but the two now deleted references alone meet WP:GNG. But more importantly, he clearly passes WP:BASIC, which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". While many of the sources are only brief mentions, they are not simply mentioning him, but mentioning him as "an expert... futurist" (USA TODAY-Oct 29, 2014), "a research fellow at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif., and a senior fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging ..." (New York Times -May 4, 2011), " ...quoted one of our expert participants, Jamais Cascio from the Institute for the Future" (GreenBiz), "a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future" (HuffPo 05/04/2015), etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited as being the basis for fulfilling GNG are actually still there in the article; they were just moved from the lead to the "career" section. However, I agree with your general feeling that it is inappropriate to remove sources during the middle of an AfD discussion. The whole point of an AfD discussion is to evaluate the article and particularly its sourcing. To gut the article like this (User:David Gerard literally removed half the article) is unfair to the discussants, by removing information they might consider relevant. In effect, this kind of thing is an attempt to impose one person's opinion of the sources on everybody else. I am glad to see that some of the deleted material was restored. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a fog of bad sources is always appropriate, particularly in a BLP - this isn't just any article. As BLP expressly notes, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Note also, from the policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Bolding in original.) As it is, the restored material actually has proper sourcing now - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of this material was "contentious"; you just didn't like it. I continue to think that gutting an article while it is is at AfD is inappropriate. It weakens and distorts the AfD discussion, by depriving the discussants of material that they should have been allowed to evaluate for themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially hesitant to make changes for this very reason. However, I accept that David is acting in accordance with BLP policies. With their emphasis on immediate removal of contentious material (even from the 'Talk' section), the BLP policies do not encourage balanced discussion. However, they are what they are, and this isn't the place to grumble about their failings. With the benefit of hindsight, I should have reinstated the Article via AfC. Still, this is where we are, and we may as well let the process run to its conclusion.Arfisk (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion as to notability, but if this is deleted, perhaps creation protection should be considered, because the subject seems to be recreating it after every deletion? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the Subject. 'Curator' might be a more appropriate term to use. As for relisting; should the final decision be to delete, then I will seek its reinstatement through the formal process, as perhaps should have happened previously (Rookie error)Arfisk (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep (see added comments at the bottom of this thread) "Foreign Policy" is not a neutral source; the subject writes for this publication. I can only see "snippit" view, but it appears that the mention in the Steffen book is on the acknowledgements page, rather than an article about Cascio. The ABC source doesn't mention him. McGonnigle lists him as one of her closest collaborators, so that's not independent. Most of the online mentions of his self-published ebook appear to be in his own profiles, but it does have one review from Bob Olson (which he mentions endlessly) and I did find and add a short review by a journalist/policy analyst. Here's the Worldcat report.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into all this. Brief responses:

Foreign Policy is a respected news source. I can't imagine why they'd blot their reputation by touting their own contributors in a Global Top 100 listing unjustifiably, but I'd have to check that in more detail. For now, I'll rely on 'reasonableness'.

Update: Cascio has a grand total of 2 articles published with FP (Jan 28 2008, Sep 28, 2009). I don't think that's enough to challenge independence of this source. Arfisk (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about your point on the Worldchanging book. He was a contributing author in both editions, but had no part in their production (he'd left WC at that point)
Good catch on the ABC Bluebird site. Cascio appears on the credits page. I've added a direct reference to it.
Unlike FP, McGonigal ref is to establish a fact, not WP:N. Independence is not as important.
Self promotion in 'the wild' is no crime. It is to be expected (and avoided in WP articles). I'm already using the Olson review as an RS.
I note you've removed the reference to being on the Ensia Board. I'm not sure why, and may put it back. It's simply to establish a fact. (Incidentally, if you do something like that in future, you should remove the assertion it is corroborating as well.)

Arfisk (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arfisk, at an AfD the main issue is usually notability. Some sources may be okay to have in the article to provide facts, but may not add much to notability if they are written by the subject's friends and colleagues. This is my point about the Worldchanging book. Entries on the acknowledgment page are usually the author's personal gratitude, not neutral information and don't demonstrate notability. The same point about the McGonigal reference - I wasn't suggesting it be removed, but if it's not independent, it won't help establish notability at an AFD. I pointed out the many identical mentions by Cascio of his book and its review as a heads up to others because when I did a Google search these postings significantly increased the number of hits without demonstrating any notability or information. (and actually after checking notability for thousands of articles I have not seen this particular type of promotion before).

I removed the reference to the list of board members for a reason unrelated to the AfD - There are many, many facts about a person which could be included in an encyclopedia article; those chosen should not be what the subject and his/her friends want the reader to know, but instead what independent journalists and authors thought important enough to write about. I considered removing the item of information, but it didn't seem controversial, and it's possible that an independent source for that information may be found later. Policies say that unsourced information may be removed.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a few discussions of Cascio's work in various books and I added a some to the article. I hope they are all independent, but feel free to remove any that aren't I believe that the article should be kept, but scrubbed of the cherry-picked quotes and cross-promotional citations to the work of his friends and colleagues.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Anne Delong. The only thing wrong I find about these is that you've used the Naughton reference twice. Is that intentional? (I can't see p.21- online, so I can't check relevance. You may need two refs, with inline citation. Guess that goes for McGonigal ref as well) About Ensia: I can't predict what a journalist would consider relevant or important. Why remove this position ref, and not others?Arfisk (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Arfisk, likely two citations in the same sentence to a reference aren't needed. As the article develops, and notability becomes clear, these reference numbers would all be moved to the end of the sentence and the duplication removed. YES, exactly right, you can't predict what a journalist would consider relevant, and you don't need to; that's why we have independent citations. Also, and this is important, I and others who work on the article are not doing this to help you or Mr. Cascio; we are building a publication, in which each article has multiple editors and no "curator" is allowed to manage or oversee it. Since citations to closely connected references don't affect the AfD notability issue, let's leave that discussion for the talk page later if the article is kept.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Also, see MelanieN and Anne Delong. Also, I believe there is too much "do not like" here! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:32, 2 February 2016 (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.