Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.A.Carrano


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 09:29Z

M.A.Carrano

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

has basically created a walled-garden of vanity articles several times and keeps removing the proposed deletion notices. I'm bringing it here. I believe that the material is not sufficiently notable or verifiable to have an article. This article has been speedy-deleted twice, but it does contain an assertion of notability. Wafulz 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The other flowers in the garden are: Being Conscious: The Elements of Imperativism and Imperativism. They are currently redirects but need to be deleted if the decision here is delete. -- RHaworth 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: has made several "save" comments, which I have struck. --Wafulz 02:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Save. This guy is for real and has some very very good points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.108.178 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. -- RHaworth 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The entire network of M.A Carrano articles are obviously someone's joke. -- Endlessmike 888 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Save This argument commits the logical fallacy of The Argument To Intimidation. Dismissing the contents as a joke without proof does not constitute an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, and it's not a very funny joke, either. NawlinWiki 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All per nom. --Haemo 09:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All and salt. The user seems determined to keep the joke going, removing prod templates several times with no changes or justifications.  Hatch68 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the garden and salt liberally, author seems intent on replanting as soon as it's been uprooted.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Save These are reputable arguments, and should not be cut down on the basis of a few naysayers in governmental intel agencies scrambling to dismantle parts of Wikipedia it finds questionable. This is about censorship. Please SAVE these valuable articles! The Chisel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chizzuck9 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Save I've been to a lecture of his. I own a book of his. I went to the same college as he did. Carrano is for real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.152.190 (talk • contribs)
 * Save Let it be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.141.156 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete all per nom. feydey 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Save I say save. The fact that this guy is obscure doesn't make his philosophy any less valid or his insights any less relevent. And if wikipedia has the opportunity to know something first, then like a News Paper it should jump on the idea. And who knows? Maybe he will be massively important, in which case Wikipedia would've blown their chance to be there first. Save all the way. I liked this article. -Mark Holtz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.61.133 (talk • contribs)
 * The validity isn't in question. His notability and the independent verifiability is. Wikipedia should never be the first to report something. --Wafulz 05:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all as non-notable. ... disco spinster   talk  20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Save If outside veribility is an issue, then this discussion is closed: included in the article are outside links to Yahoo interviews, personal web pages - even dictionaries that feature definitions of Imperativism. Otherwise, if notability is an issue, then this issue is still closed. Because if it's not, then you might as well erase all of Wikipedia since the purpose of site is to make its articles publically noticed, hence noted, hence notable. Otherwise, then information publishers such as Wikipedia adopt the contradictory attitude of refusing to publish anything which has not been published. This is obviously absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. 1. M.A. Carrano is not the "intellectual architect behind imperativism"; the term can be found in texts that were written before he was born (relating to ethics).  The definition presented in the article is not even clear of the role of the term itself.  What's imperative?  2. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make the subjects of its articles notable - that is exactly what Wikipedia is not.  If this guy wants to make a name for himself in philosophy, he needs to do it the old-fashioned way: get a Ph.D., get tenure, and write a whole lot of articles.  Q.E.D.  ...  disco spinster   talk  22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Save Disco's argument commits two logical fallacies: 1. The Strawman Fallacy: Disco distorted "intellectual architect BEHIND Imperativism" into "inventor OF the word Imperativism." This is obviously not the case. In precisely the same way that Relativism existed as a term before Einstein developed it into a formal theory - which he is now heralded as the architect of, Imperativism existed as a term before M.A.Carrano formalized it into a new philosophy. 2: Argumentum Ad Logicam: Attempting to discredit the education of an "autodidact" does not refute the validity of his claims in precisely the same way that the syllogism, "1. All philosophers have Ph.Ds, 2. Socrates, Plato & Aristotle did not have Ph.D's. 3. Therefor, they were not philosophers." proves that Socrates, Plato & Aristotle - not to mention dozens more such as Soren Kierkegaard or Ken Wilber - weren't philosophers. Also as evidence in that Albert Einstein did not have a degree - only a teaching diploma, the validity of statements exist independent of institutional acknowledgment. Was Ramanujan not the greatest mathematician who ever lived even though he failed out of college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)
 * No duplicate !votes please. There are no independent independent sources about the subject. Stop trying to fabricate arguments in an unrelated manner. --Wafulz 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Save Wafulz' arguments are not only logically irrelevent, but also fallacious. Wafulz commits a reductio ad absurdum  when he says, "Stop trying to fabricate arguments in an unrelated manner." In conjunction to Wikipedia's decree, "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments." In otherwords, "In order to partcipate, stop participating." It's interesting to note what Wafulz calls unrelated: while conjectures against the article are acceptable, rebutals that refute the logic of the critical conjectures need to be conveniently overlooked. The name of the fallacy Wafulz comitted is Slothful Induction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)
 * Stop pretending to be multiple users
 * The article clearly doesn't meet verifiability policy or notability guidelines. You can go on and on about fallacies and arguments ad _______, but if those two aren't met, then there's no point. Concepts learned in Philosophy 101 don't matter if the relevant policies and guidelines aren't met. --Wafulz 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Save 1. It's impossible to pretend to be multiple users since all IP addresses are recorded on Wikipedia by Wikipedia.
 * Save 2. It doesn't matter how many times I come back to see his article since Wikipedia says this isn't a vote based on the majority but by quality of argument posed.

3. Who mentioned anything about philosophy 101 to a guy who's published a book on the subject? That's completely irrelevant. 4. The guy meets Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines under ** The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.**, in this case the guy originated a new philosophy, and the guy meets the verification guidelines by including links in the site to outside sources of verification. So not only have the policies been met, but the old arguments are just as spurious. So bro, it's not your fault. If anything blame wikipedia for having ambiguous policies that allowed a relatively unknown to earn mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.83.4 (talk • contribs)
 * The "quality of the argument" doesn't matter if you don't present multiple independent non-trivial sources. In other words, you would require multiple articles from reliable independent sources with editorial oversight with the Carrano as the primary subject. Starting every comment with "save" and not signing your posts creates the illusion that multiple people hold the same view. Use four tildes to sign your posts. --Wafulz 02:58, 8 April 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.