Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsieur Dupont


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Monsieur Dupont

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparent BLP failure. The article has existed for some years without unequivocally establishing notability or addressing the unsourced original research or self-promotional POV text the article primarily consists of. There seems little reason to expect these issues to be addressed with primary independent quality sources in the near future. I find no evidence of notability in Google News or Google Books. Fæ (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A new edition of Monsieur Dupont's book was published in the United States last year: http://ardentpress.org/nihcom.html
 * That a publisher in the US would reprint their work speaks to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.162.45 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition it should also be noted that Monsieur Dupont's book Nihilist Communism is the subject of an internet discussion forum at this address http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=273, a section of the book has been republished in the most recent edition of the journal Anarchy AJODA (issue 68/9) http://www.anarchymag.org/ (see the contents page) as well as numerous other internet discussions/references which may be accessed via a google search. Monsieur Dupont's article, 'Revolutionary Organization and Individual Commitment' has been translated into Portuguese http://salon.lettersjournal.org/viewtopic.php?id=1249 and Russian (http://free-people.pp.ru/zhzh-informatsionnaya-lenta-uchastnikov-ada/monsieur-dupont.-revolyutsionnaya-organizatsiya-i-lichnaya-otvetstvennost-3.html).
 * The above represents interest in the subject matter by a geographically diverse group of people and the record of this only needs to be included in the Monsieur Dupont page to prove its suitability to remain within wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.211.169 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Oh dear, oh dear, wikisoapboxing at its worst. Every one of the references cited in the article is self-published, as are the references mentioned in the argument above. The only exception a tiny niche publication called "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed", which seems highly unlikely to qualify for notability itself. Fails WP:BIO by a mile. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-promotion lacking in independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Above someone claims that publication by Ardent Press and Anarchy Magazine is evidence of notability. Ardent Press is one person. See: http://aragorn.anarchyplanet.org/about/ "My name is Aragorn! and I spend a LOT of time at the keyboard. I work in IT, I write, I used to publish a magazine, now I publish a site-to-be-a-paper, I publish books, and I distribute them." The phrase "I publish books" is a link to the web site of Ardent Press. One person's self-funded publishing operation is not evidence of notability. This person's blog here http://aragorn.anarchyplanet.org/2010/06/12/letters-of-insurgents-1-the-great-lesson/ writes that she or he has until recently been the published of Anarchy Magazine: "“Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed” which I have until just recently been a publisher of. My five years of publishing Anarchy magazine." Ardent Press and Anarchy Magazine are both self-published ventures, published in fact by the same individual. The article includes a citation of a review by Mute Magazine. Mute Magazine is an open publishing web site: http://www.metamute.org/login-to-post


 * Not notable. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellabaker (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect to state that: a. Mute is simply an open source publishing organisation, it commissions reviewers and pays £80 a time, the review in this case was commissioned b. It is also a fallacy to state that because a single person runs a publishing operation that this somehow does not constitute a publishing operation; c. Of course it is possible to discover underlying previously existing links in any small milieu, I don't see why this should be evidence for non-notability – despite its enormous reach even mainstream publishing is controlled by a relatively small number of people, many of them familiar with one another ... in that case 'notability' is probably even more 'arranged' between publishers, newspapers and other media outlets; that is the nature of the publishing game... ahh, your eyes glaze over.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frere z (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic notability criteria are given in WP:GNG. These are a consensus definition for Wikipedia that should be met by all articles unless there is a local consensus for a particular article or article type. If the case cannot be made that the article meets the notability criteria or is a valid exception in this deletion discussion, then it seems highly unlikely that the article would ever be suitable for Wikipedia. Fæ (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this like Inherit the Wind?
 * Of course, notability is based on a consensus but the interpretation of whether a particular page meets the criteria of notability is not based on consensus, it is decided by a very small group of individuals who have in effect come to constitute an editorial oligarchy. It is impossible to know whether this group of interested individuals is simply upholding the definition of notability at the correct level at which it should be applied, or whether the idea of non-notability or negative notability has gone into a state of runaway. In other words, the application of the letter of the law appears very rigid, and yet it also seems highly selective, this is not a happy situation and as far as the function of Wikipedia goes, such a rigid application of the notability rule will do more harm than good in that interesting, experimental material will be lost whilst the integrity of the rules that are being defended will become more and more abstract and incomprehensible.
 * The number of individuals involved in making the case for non-notability does not exceed in magnitude the number of individuals who have joined the above mentioned study group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=273) and who find that the matter under discussion is notable. At what point does the interest of one group of individuals counteract another's? It seems that despite evidence of notability I have given above, this is never sufficient and yet how could such a small matter ever achieve notability when the world is not a natural environment but is the product of endless editorial conditions? In other words, the decision concerning notability now comes down to the interpretation of a few individuals made against the interest of a few other individuals where one argues for a general rule whilst the other argues for a special case. It seems to me that this set up of the disagreement causes more harm than whatever benefit is gained.
 * The very fact of this continued discussion and its circulation also marks the point at which your condition of non-notability itself passes recursively into an objective condition of notability. Sobeit, my final summing up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frere z (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, deletion is based on the General Notability Guideline, which you seem to be ignoring. The purpose of deletion debates is to give people the chance to argue why an article does or doesn't meet this guideline, and I have to point out that neither posts to forums nor self-published web pages count (or pages on Wikipedia, for that matter). Wikipedia is not a public service for people to publicise their pet projects, no matter how interesting and experimental they consider them to be. That is the way Wikipedia has always worked, those were the rules on which Wikipedia built its reputation on, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2010 (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.