Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Radin

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dean Radin
The page for Dean Radin was created by Dean Radin himself, and he has "copyrighted" the page to himself, as evidenced on Talk:Dean_Radin page! So, he's done an Autobiography, which is generally frowned upon here, and upended the Wikipedia copyright policies by placing his own copyright on this article. Two violoations of Wikipedia policy in one. Thanks for your attention. I vote for deletion. --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:48 (UTC)\
 * Delete - Vanity. Econrad 5 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. Jaxl 5 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 02:27 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity: the edit summary for the first edit even says it's an autobio.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, seems relatively NPOV. The only problem is verifiability, which can be provided with evidence of verifiability and a degree of impact, then I will change my vote. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
 * Comment - the copyright notice isn't invalid. Submitters always retain copyright, they just agree to license their work under the GFDL. In fact, he did exactly what he's supposed to: letting us know that this isn't a copyvio of the text on his website, since he's the copyright holder and therefore is allowed to copy it into Wikipedia. Isomorphic 5 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment - Apoliogies if that is true. And, if true, then the only remaining problem is with the policy on autobiographies/vanity edits. Can you, or someone else, please provide a link to where that "submitters retain copyright" policy is spelled out? Thanks. (Unsigned comment by NightMonkey)
 * Reply to comment Please see Contributors' rights and obligations. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I dropped a note on the discussion page pointing out that the fine print on the bottom of the editing page states "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License", and that it remains a highly questionable matter whether, having thus submitted this information, any enforceable copyright interest can be retained in it. -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 21:30 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. vanity. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
 * Grudging keep - Yes, it's an autobio, which is bad. However, he has had a book published by HarperCollins, has press coverage in the Las Vegas Sun, and gets about 11k Google hits, which all look relevant.  -- Jonel | Speak 5 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ranks  #8,872 on Amazon.  A pretty high number compared to some we see.   Seems notable.  Info is from his website, but he is the author, so if he puts it here he is releasing it.  Wikibofh 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
 * Keep. Generally I would prefer to see someone other than the subject himself start a biographical article but once the article exists, I think the same notability standards should apply without regard to how the article began.  Here, I think he is notable and the informations is verifiable, so i would keep the article. DS1953 5 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm voting because I'm an end user who hoped there would be an entry for him on Wikipedia. I saw several references to him in some consciousness studies literature, and looked him up to get a better idea of who he is. So he is notable enough that a Dean Radin entry could be more than a vanity entry. If this is deemed a vanity entry just because it's an autobio, keep it unless there's something comparable written by a 3rd party. stripmind 5 July 2005
 * Welcome to wikipedia, Stripmind Pedant
 * Keep, as this person is somewhat notable, passes my Bajoran wormhole test. Wikipolicy doesn't preclude notable persons from writing NPOV articles on themself.  Adding more info to this should be easily done, as we can contact the Radin if there is something on his website we'd like to use, and he's likely to allow it.  It's not customary to write about oneself but about 1 in 3 wikipedians who commented  on the subject oppose any rule against writing about oneself, and there is in fact, no such rule that I am aware of at this point.   I think that these criteria}] should apply to this article, and those criteria suggest that [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics|these criteria] specifically apply to academics, as an alternate to notability criteria applied to more mainstream folk. [[User:Pedant|Pedant 2005 July 5 20:04 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which criteria at [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics are you using? The heavily disputed proposal at the top of the page, the more restrictive proposal in the middle of the page or MarSch's very simple but even high standard that tossed into the middle of the discussion?  Rossami (talk)
 * Keep as per Stripmind's comments - FabioB 5 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
 * Move to his userpage if he wants it but delete from the main article space. Based on the available evidence, he is an average academic.  A business person with similar experience, exposure and credentials would not generally get an article.  (One published book is not, in my opinion, enough to tip the scales to inclusion.)  I'll also note that while some did oppose a strict rule against autobiographies, a strong majority supported it.  It's not an absolute rule but it's a useful guideline that we should break only as a rare exception.  Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
 * Comment - moving the text is a good suggestion, but he apparently doesn't have a user page - he added and edited the article's talk page as an anonymous user :( . --NightMonkey July 7, 2005 09:33 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although an autobio, seems sufficiently notable per the evidence above. A few parapsychology Wikipedia articles link to the page, suggesting that he is known to others who know about the subject. HollyAm 6 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Some notability. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
 * Delete content, list on requested articles Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 6, 2005 13:29 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. RoySmith 6 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Arcadian 7 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promotion. CDC   (talk)  23:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity and self-promo. Gamaliel 23:04, 11 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.