Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Klein


 * 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 ignoring new users and WP:COI votes. Actually, this has already been deleted - for some strange reason. -Docg 11:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Klein

 * — (View AfD)

It's not clear that this person is significant or notable; although a documentary film and a book are mentioned, no details are given, and the implication is that they're produced either by the company that he runs (which would give them something like vanity status) or by one of the organisations for/with which he works (which isn't much better). There's no sign of any sort of peer-reviewed publication or widely available or known work, or of anything significant that he's done or produced. Earlier versions of this article were speedily deleted as they made no attempt to claim significance for him. As it's just being recreated each time, I thought it best to bring it here to see if others shared my view or not. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete (just to make things clear). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In my opinion, Klein is less notable than his colleague Ben Goertzel, whose article has also been repeatedly deleted on the grounds of non-notability. I don't see how we could keep Klein but not Goertzel. —Psychonaut 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable, and I don't really see a direct assertion of notability, so might even be speedy deleted. Jayden54 14:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable because he is 1) CEO/President of Novamente LLC, 2) is the director of the Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute, 3) is co-founder of the Immortality Institute, and 4) has produced a film and edited some books that are in semi-wide circulation. Any of these four things by themselves would likely make an individual notable, but together they undoubtedly make an individual notable. (Cardsplayer4life 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC))
 * The first three don't demonstrate notability in themselves; much depends upon the notability of the otrganisations concerned (and they're not very notable); the last would only count if the book and film were genuinely widely (not "semi-widely", whatever that means) circulated &mdash; and there's no indication that that's the case. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would contend that the organizations are very notable, if a quick Google search showing pages mentioning them is any indication. On the point about how widely the books and film need to be circulated, both have been viewed several thousands of times. (about 33,000 views for the film on Google videos alone which is just a quick statistic not taking into account the DVDs and other ways the film was distributed; I would assume the books have been similarly widely read) I personally would consider that fairly widely viewed. (of course no where near as much as blockbusters, but a healthy amount compared to other similar types of documentaries and books) (Cardsplayer4life 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Keep - This individual seems notable with accomplishments. Also, agree with Psychonaut's comment above on Ben Goertzel; both individuals deserve pages. Liveforever22 02:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Note. This is the twentieth edit from this account; twelve of the thirteen edits immediately before this were to AfDs [the thirteenth was the the account's User page].)
 * Don't mischaracterize my comments, please. I never said that both articles should be kept. —Psychonaut 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. Not significant.  As was noted above, Bruce Klein has no peer-reviewed publications and has made no significant contributions to society that are worth writing about.  Should everyone with a website be entitled to their own vanity article at Wikipedia?  Publishing an unpopular ebook is not only not notable, but it's trivial in the internet age where free publishers abound and will accept anything for online publication. Unless it's on Amazon best seller list or equivalent, the ebook publication is not notable.  Similarly, being the owner/administrator of a website forum that calls itself CEO of non-notable or otherwise questionable organizations is not basis for a wikipedia article.  Like I said above, Bruce Klein owns a website, just like millions of other people, and that is not basis for a wikipedia article.     --Mnemopis
 * He doesn't simply "own" a website as you contend. He is the co-founder of one institute, is the director of a fairly large research institute, and is the CEO/President of moderate sized company. He also has websites and such, I am sure, but that was not expressed as a reason for his page to be kept. I do not personally know how much the book was distributed, so if you have statistics to back up your claim that it was "unpopular", I would be interested in seeing them, but if the distrobution of the movie is any indication (it may not be, but they are the only statistics I could find) then it is fairly popular. (as stated earlier, over 33,000 people watched film) (Cardsplayer4life 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
 * He does simply own a website and his finance degree is not even related to immortality, life extension, or science at all. Anyone can setup a website forum nowadays and label their forum as some institution or company; that is not notable.   I labeled his book as "unpopular" because it is not on any best-seller list and also because no-one I know has ever heard of it, nor of Bruce Klein's company. Like I said above, anyone can produce ebooks nowadays.  It's as simple as producing a pdf and uploading to a web server.   Anyone can do this.  And about his "movie" on Google Video, are you kidding?  Do you know that anyone with a webcam and video editing software can make these things?   Do you know how many people upload movies to Google Video and YouTube every day?  Uploading a home video to Google Video or YouTube is not notable.   I still have not seen one notable accomplishment from Bruce Klein.  I'm still waiting for someone to provide this.  Mnemopis 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As you say, anyone may produce ebooks these days, but the book you are referring to, The Scientific Conquest of Death is a published printed paperback available for purchase at places like Amazon, and contains chapters by Ray Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky, and Aubrey de Grey amongst others. --Saigyo 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but note that it's ranked #246,564. Not exactly a best-seller or even popular.  Producing an unpopular book is not notable.  Mnemopis 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bruce Klein is President of Novamente LLC, an active AI software company with a dozen staff and contracts with major customers. He also was founder of the Immortality Institute, which organized a large conference last year; and organized a conference for the AGI Research Institute this year, which included a number of prominent AI researchers in attendance.   By the standards of wikipedia's other entries it is VERY VERY OBVIOUS that Bruce is sufficiently "important" to merit a Wikipedia entry.  I believe this attempt to get Bruce, Ben Goertzel and Novamente LLC removed is simply an attack by someone who is angry at Bruce Klein due to internal Immortality Institute politics.  I note that in recent weeks Bruce's colleagues have been spammed by some particular person angry at Bruce due to ImmInst politics, and the AGIRI wiki site has been vandalized.  It is a shame that this attack has spilled over onto wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.44.37 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
 * First, running a company with twelve employees does not make for notability. Secondly, anyone can form an institute and organise a conference; it doesn't require, nor does it create, notability. Thirdly, being a conference organiser doesn't make one notable (do you have any idea how many conferences there are every month?  I've organised conferences myself; I was co-organiser of an international philosophy conference held in London when I was a third-year undergraduate.  It didn't make me notable).  Finally, the implication that those who are arguing for the deletion of this page are doing so in bad faith is objectionable, and likely not to help the cause about which you clearly feel strongly, and with which you are personally involved &mdash; whoever you are. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This person who posted the above comment with IP address 69.140.44.37 is Ben Goertzel who also had his vanity article deleted. Both the Bruce Klein and Ben Goertzel vanity pages linked to each, which suggests to me that they are both working together to attempt to create their Wikipedia vanity pages.   Thus, Ben's suggestion to "Keep" the Bruce Klein vanity article should not be given any merit since this person has questionable ulterior motives that does not include doing what's best for the Wikipedia community.  Mnemopis 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was present on IRC when User:Alkivar announced his intention to delete Bruce Klein, Ben Goertzel, and other related pages. Alkivar is a musician who has absolutely no connection at all with either of these individuals or their associated institutes; there was no conflict of interest. —Psychonaut 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete does not seem to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject himself. CEO of a 12-man company is no kind of claim to notability at all. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Bruce Klein founded the Immortality Institute, which until just a few months ago owned the top rank for the word "immortality". In effect, it has been a hub for immortalist movement for the past several years. The Immortality Institute has attracted notable scientists in the aging field, including Aubrey de Grey and S. Jay Olshansky, as well as other prominent figures in the areas of artificial intelligence and cryonics. The institute's first book, while not a national best seller, included big name authors. The movie may be available for download, but that hardly makes it a "home video". It's a documentary stitched together from dozens of hours of footage of scores of individuals across the country. As for ulterior motives, who is this Mnepomis? His position shows a familiarity and disdain for Bruce that should make his position as irrelevant as he asserts that Ben Goertzel's should be. My "ulterior" motive? I have nothing to hide. I'm a director and former chair of the Immortality Institute. Unlike Bruce, I don't think my accomplishments deserve a page at wikipedia. Bruce, on the other hand, formed a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and secured the support of authors, scientists, and financial donors, and put the Immortality Institute on the map within the immortalist and life extension communities. We have multiple ties with the Methuselah Foundation; Aubrey de Grey is an Advisor at our institute. Bruce now leads the Novamente team, building upon the connections and experience gained in building the Immortality Institute. I say Keep. Jaydfox 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaydfox, the reason you don't have a Wikipedia page is the same reason as Mr. Klein; neither of you are notable. As for my motive, I am trying to ensure Wikipedia standards and to not have any 'John Doe' feel like they're entitled to post their vanity pages at Wikipedia.  Maybe this isn't just a vanity page, but may also be a marketing ploy to direct visitors to the Imminst forum to try to get money from them.   Whatever it is, I can tell you what it definitely is not: It's not an article over a notable person.  You think it's notable that Bruce Klein's website used to have top rank at Google for the word, "immortality"?   Are you kidding?  Show me peer-reviewed publications, or a Nobel prize or Field's medal, or just anything that's considered "notable" or otherwise a significant contribution to society, and I'll be happy to change my vote.  The desperation of the Imminst forum staff to have this page suggests it's partly a marketing ploy and a lame attempt to get visitors to Bruce Klein's forum.  Sorry to burst your bubble. Mnemopis 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the Jaydfox's above "keep" vote is the user's only edit on Wikipedia and thus should not be counted. -- Schaefer (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - but out of curiosity why do you have a humble wiki page as you call it Mnemopis, since every argument you have asserted against Bruce is just as relevant with respect to your own page? In fact even more so since you claim no notability and demonstrate none. Why haven't you deleted your own page due to its lack of merit? Is it perhaps that you don't have sufficient *notoriety* to warrant even this much debate over your page as I have read so far on this page and perhaps envy the interest? His page should be kept for his apparent notoriety if not his still nascent notability.  He certainly garners sufficient interest and support to warrant it. Your disdain for the topic of Bruce's sincere interest and demonstrated commitment to the promotion of human longevity is "noted". Nevertheless it does not require peer reviewed publication to warrant a page as apparently you have such a user page and present no such credentials to support having it.  It also doesn't require unanimous approval of the individual. What I see listed on Bruce's page are verifiable facts.  They may not be noteworthy to some but they are to others and ultimately it is the interest that they hold at all that matters most as criteria to keep a Wiki user page. Also the interest shown by many of the members of the forum to keep this page is not a "marketing ploy" since the institute doesn't "sell" anything as a product.  It is however a legitimate method of attracting interest in an idea that is at the core of the institution's purpose: to promote longevity through learning and action. Bruce's efforts are noteworthy in that his efforts have yielded some small global organizational result already toward this goal and he shouldn't have to die to be made notable for taking the idea mainstream. Wikipedia should keep his and even keep yours in my opinion Mnemopis. 08:46, 7 January 2007 69.119.142.107 08:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Ken Sills
 * No matter how many sock puppets vote to "Keep" the Bruce Klein vanity page, it doesn't matter because the real Wikipedians have already overwhelmingly voted to "Delete" it.   It's nothing personal.   It's just standard Wikipedia policy.  If everyone was free to post their vanity pages, then the quality of Wikipedia would go way down.  You have your own personal website, so post your vanity pages there. Mnemopis 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you admit Mnemopis that some people are allowed vanity pages and this is the class of *true Wikipedians*; of which you also apparently define yourself as one as opposed to Bruce, who you declare isn't. What is the class of true Wikipedians and who are the members of this class? This is not only a form of unfair discrimination by definition if true; it also sounds like you certainly are making it personal. 69.119.142.107 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Ken
 * I'm finding it difficult to follow this rather ranting set of accusations. What "vanity article" are you accusing Mnemopis of having on Wikipedia?  Surely you don't mean his User page &mdash; the page that every registered editor has, and which isn't part of the encyclop&aelig;dia? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they are talking about user pages or not, but getting to Mnemopis's points: 1) Everyone is a "real Wikipedian" as you put it, that is the point of having an open encyclopedia. (and they are not sock puppets, that would infer the same person every time with different accounts, if I understand the term correctly, which is most definitely not the case) 2) Bruce's page isn't a vanity page, that is the whole point of the previous points made on his notability that you have not yet countered. (Cardsplayer4life 17:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Cardsplayer, the problem I have is that the Bruce Klein page is a mere 4 sentences that contains nothing notable, nor that anyone considers a significant contribution to society. The only people who are voting to "Keep" are either anons, sock puppets, or members from Bruce Klein's web forum who were exhorted to come here and vote but who have never used Wikipedia before.  This last part is problematic because these forum members who were exhorted to vote seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a free-for-all and that practically anybody and everybody should have their own vanity page here.   That's not what Wikipedia is about.  Show me something notable.  The absence of anything definitely notable about Bruce Klein is reason enough to delete this 4 sentence vanity article.  Bruce Klein might have good intentions with his Immortalist movement; that's fantastic. I, myself, would like to end world hunger and bring world peace; but good intentions are not notable.  And neither is having a web forum that is designated an "institution", nor is producing home videos and uploading to Google Video or YouTube, and neither is producing pdf's and making available on a server.   You may be under the mistaken impression that a person with lots of non-notable things makes for a person that is notable.  Well, a bunch of zeros still add up to zero.     Mnemopis 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that everyone is a real Wikipedian, though in fact that isn't how I put it; editors from anon IP addresses count for little in this sort of debate, and are barred from voting in many debates, precisely because they're not accounted sufficiently part of the Wikipedia community. And the page is vanity (though that term is, I admit, used nonstandardly in Wikipedia). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said I was responding to Mnemopis on that. I agree that they should probably register for an account and get involved in the community, but to say that they aren't "real Wikipedians" is incorrect. (Cardsplayer4life 18:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, so far one "keep" has been registered by an account that has more than twenty edits behind it; the others are either from anon IP addresses, or in all but one case an account whose one and only edit has been here (the exception has nineteen previosu edits, of which twelve were made to other AfD discussions in the minutes before the edit to this one). In my book, none of them count as real Wikipedians for the purposes of taking what they say seriously, or counting them in closing the AfD.  I think that I can fairly say that that's an almost universally held view among regular editors and admins. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 00:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it humorous that you get to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't since you are the one who nominated the article for deletion. I suppose it doesn't really matter, because I feel confident that Bruce Klein will be "notable" in even the most skeptical of eyes in the next few years as he continues to accrue accomplishments. (Cardsplayer4life 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Just FYI for everyone, I just put in lots of edits to the page (lots of additional info) with the hope of further displaying notability. (Cardsplayer4life 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Still does not meet the guidelines at WP:BIO for living persons. For example, Mr. Klein has not been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.  I find it rather odd that you classify Mr. Klein as a "social activist", which by definition, is someone who uses intentional action to bring about social or political change, because Mr. Klein has never brought about any significant social or political changes.   Like I've said before, merely running a relatively obscure and unpopular web forum and being the editor of an unpopular book are not notable by any stretch of the imagination.  Mnemopis 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is evident that I disagree with your assessment, but I will say it anyway. ;) (Cardsplayer4life 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Keep - Bruce J Klein is a well-known and important person in the life extension scene! DMSmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.32.78 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 January 2007  (Note: first and only edit from this IP address.)
 * Keep - Bruce Klein is a prominent social activist for life extension and artificial intelligence research.  As a scientist working in the life extension field, I can categorically assert that his activities are moving this area forward.  Trying to delete this entry in innapropriate.Antonei Csoka 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: first and only edit from this account.)
 * Keep - Bruce Klein is not just another website founder. He is unique.  The website he founded is also unique as would be revealed if one spent some time looking through the history and the posts.  The movement he represents and has pushed forward with his efforts is becoming mainstream with many of the individuals who gravitated to his website becoming heavily involved in their own pursuit of ways to increase healthy lifespan.  To brush-off the accomplishment of not only a website which has impacted individuals to transform their lives, but also a film, and a book, dealing with a subject as taboo as the pursuit of physical immortality, does not do the person who reccomends deletion any favors by illuminating their inability to see the significance of Bruce Klein's contribution.--Kevinperrott 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: first and only edit from this account.)


 * Keep - the which Bruce Klein has co-created and run has been a major force in the world of life extension. The Institute formerly occupied the top spot for a, but (of course) Wikipedia has now driven it to second place. The Immortality Institute on-line forums are well-utilized and active discussion areas in the subcultures of life-extension, immortalism, nanotechnology, transhumanism, cryonics, etc. The website is currently ranked at about 142 thousand on . This can't compare to Wikipedia, but it is a high ranking in the context of websites in the world which probably number in the millions. More important, however, is the influence Bruce has had through his organization both in the website and his many other projects in which his profile is much lower than what he deserves. His book  is published in the name of the Immortality Institute, and yet it is really the product of his effort. Similarly, his DVD/video  was not created under his own name, but the interviews were almost entirely produced by him. (He is not even mentioned in this notable and valuable contribution to documentation of the life extension movement.) His last  was attended by over 150 people, a respectable number for a scientific conference. Bruce has been too much of a "behind the scenes" man to get all of the credit that he deserves, but I believe that he well-deserves to be credited and noted in Wikipedia. --Ben Best 12:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben you evidently did not read any of the above because you simply rehashed the same spiel without addressing any of the criticisms. Namely, that having a website forum ranked #142,000, and being the editor of a book that ranks #246,564 are not notable at all.  It's abysmal in fact.   Or of a conference that he helped organize that brought in a whopping 150 people.  Are you kidding?  Most conferences I've heard of bring in at least over 20,000.  150 people is hardly a conference.  I know you're trying to help out a friend, but it's time to face reality.  Mnemopis 16:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.