Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of Cosmic Engineers


 * 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. Notability is not inherited. If and when this organisation becomes notable, the article can always be recreated. See WP:ORG, WP:CRYSTAL yandman  14:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Order of Cosmic Engineers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Proxy nom, for User:Loremaster. This is a non-notable pseudoreligion organisation, which gains zero google news hits and has not been covered in-depth by independent, reliable sources. All independent references within the article are used to reference facts unrelated to the actual organisation, and none appear to even mention the organisation in question. Subject fails WP:N and WP:ORG. – Toon (talk)  20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Although I have worked to improve the article, no improvement can change the fact that the Order of Cosmic Engineers is not a notable organization. If and when it does become notable, I will probably be the first person to re-create this article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Proxy nom? How many people are actually talking here and how many are alternate IDs?  Did Loremaster put the article up for deletion calling it a pseudoreligion and then work on it?  If so why?  He is well known for being against transhumanism in any form and has spent an incredible amount of time trying to paint the ideas in a bad light on Wikipedia.  Anyone know why?  (I can't see why anyone would take it that seriously.)  Keith Henson (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Proxy nomination" means that I asked Toon05 to trigger the Article for deletion debate process because I was too busy at the time to do it myself and I wanted to make sure it was done well since I hadn't done it in a long time. As for my position, despite being sympathetic towards transhumanism, I've created and improved the majority of transhumanism-related articles from a neutral point of view which means providing a balance between the pros and cons. Did you or anyone else notice I improved this article before and even after I supported its deletion (after some anonymous user proposed it first)? That being said, even if I was this "anti-transhumanist conspirator" you think I am, the debate is about whether or not this article should be deleted based on Wikipedia's basic criteria not mine. The perceived bias of the person who asked for this debate is irrelevant since we all have biases. --Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Considering the timeline, your first claim to Toon05 looks questionable, especially since you thanked him in a few minutes.  Filling out an Afd isn't a challenge.  This looks more like using someone else to avoid responsibility or make it look like a mob.  I will say you weren't very good at it having left tracks.  It's also really strange behavior to spend an hour and a half on mostly fiddly "improvements" then ask for the article to be deleted.


 * I don't pay a lot of attention to the transhumanists, perhaps because I was around when a high fraction of the ideas were framed by the extropians back in the early 90s and I have not seen much in the way of advances since then. But I have seen comment that your "improvements" are considered subtle vandalism in the mode of User:Sadi Carnot.  He was finally caught pushing a personal agenda and had done damage to some thousands of articles (for reasons that remain unclear to this day).  As to biased people "improving" some class of articles, it is my opinion that the resulting articles are usually rather unpleasant to read.


 * Then we have the question of why someone would make thousands of edits to a particular range of articles. I don't understand that even if you are who some people claim you are.  Perhaps you could enlighten us?  Keith Henson (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're paranoid. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 22:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up thinking (if you don't already) that every person that wants this article deleted is a sock puppet. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And if you think that there are sock puppets voting in this AFD, shut up about it and take it to the suspected sock puppet's page because you have no proof and AFD isn't for discussion about possible sock puppets. 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * May I remind you:


 * Be polite
 * Assume good faith
 * No personal attacks
 * Be welcoming


 * This is from your user talk page. And, as is noted in the box above, this isn't a vote.


 * Comment: I don't know if it was Keith was the person who wrote the comment above but if it I would like to remind him that accusing someone of being an "anti-transhumanist" or engaging in sockpuppetry isn't being polite or assuming good faith or not making personal attacks... --Loremaster (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Loremaster, I copied the comments from Schuym1's web page. YMMV, but I don't think it is polite to accuse someone of mental illness.  I have not used the word "sockpuppet" though I did ask how many people were posting having never run into the term "Proxy nom" on wikipedia before.  For all I knew it was another log in of you.  I didn't use the word "anti-transhumanist" either, though your treatment of the subject certainly makes the idea seem unpleasant.  As I understand it, you are responsible for the most repugnant element that jumps out at readers of the transhumanist page, the naked dog-mother.  Utterly disgusting.  If you are not responsible for that picture being in the article, let me know.  Keith Henson (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Keith, you are no longer coherent: If you believe that "Proxy nom" was another log in of me, how can you accuse me of trying to avoid responsibility when my username is in the first sentence?!? The notion that my treatment of transhumanism is "unpleasant" is ridiculous when several bioconversatives are on a record as accusing the Transhumanism article of being a promotional tool of the WTA! The article must and does reflect the fact that the idea of transhumanism is unpleasant to many people otherwise it would be nothing more than an ad for how great the idea of transhumanism is to you and your fellow transhumanists. As for what you describe as "the most repugnant element" which is "utterly disgusting" in the Transhumanism article, I am responsible for that picture being there. However, perhaps because of the pro-transhumanist bias which clouds your judgement, you failed to grasp that Australian artist Patricia Piccinini's concept of what human-animal hybrids might look like are provocative creatures which are part of a sculpture entitled "The Young Family," produced to address the reality of such possible parahumans in a compassionate way. You can read her own words on the subject's on the picture's Wikipedia page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have often wondered why that particular image was used in the Transhumanism article, and understand your rationale for including it. It is certainly true that Transhumanists would call for the recognition of self-aware parahumans as persons. So I can interpret the presence the image as a positive message: we should consider them human, even if the first visual impression is shocking. I most certainly agree with this. However, I am sure you see that the very first, immediate, emotional reaction of many people to this image can be similar to that of Keith. The best and deepest art is, often, deeply disturbing at a first glance. Having said this, I would not have used the image on the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism because, as they say, you don't get a second chance to make a good first impression. --Eschatoon (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You said it yourself: "The best and deepest art is, often, deeply disturbing at a first glance." This is the reason I will strongly argue to preserve the Piccinini picture in the article if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia for the rest of my life. However, you also said something quite problematic: "I would not have used the image on the Wikipedia article on Transhumanism because, as they say, you don't get a second chance to make a good first impression." That's the core of the problem between me and the majority of people here: YOU want the transhumanism-related article to make a good first impression. That's not what an encyclopedic article is about. It's about editing a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article regardless of whether it makes transhumanists unhappy because they wish it would make transhumanism look good or bioconservatives unhappy because they wish it would make transhumanism look bad. Can we all try to get passed this problem? --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I have a different approach. An encyclopedic article cannot, of course, be exhaustive. I find Wikipedia extremely useful because it permits getting a quick sense of the zeitgeist's point of view on things, and provides a useful and structured first contact with, say, a new topic. After the first contact, either one is not interested, or one is interested and goes on to read more things, for example jumping to one of the links in the Wikipedia article. So, since I consider Wikipedia as a stepping stone to further explorations, I would not put something which "does not make a good first impression" in ANY Wikipedia article. Of course there is a time and a place for things that "do not make a good first impression", but I don't think the splash page and the first exposure are that time and that place. So, for example, I don't have anything against the image in question, but I would prefer not to see it in the main Wikipedia entry on transhumanism, which is one of the first Google results on transhumanism.--Eschatoon (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although Wikipedia does have rules against adding images that are pornographic, scatological or extremely violent in nature (especially if it makes most people not want to read an article which contains them), the subject, size and location of the Piccinini picture in the Transhumanism article does not violate these rules. As for your opinion that we shouldn't put "something that does not make a good first impression in ANY Wikipedia article", I think it's absurd and I'm quite happy that Wikipedia does not have any such rule since it could and would be used and abused to eliminate any critical elememt from an article. That being said, if you want to continue this conversation, let's move it to the Talk:Transhumanism page. --Loremaster (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let's move it to the Talk:Transhumanism page indeed. One last comment here because I see that I did not make my point well enough. I am not talking of Wikipedia rules, but of my own personal preferences. I would not use that image myself, but I do not object if others do. I do think that every Wikipedia page should look "interesting enough" to encourage readers to explore the subject, but I do not mean its actual, textual content. I may have said a couple of times here that I am happy with criticism and a neutral PoV. Rather, I mean the immediate, instinctive, subliminal impression that images (and not text) can give. The image in question, even if I do appreciate it as a work of art and can intellectually understand it, plays on feelings that most people are culturally hardwired to find disturbing. This is why, in my own edits of any article, I would choose to use "nicer" images. --Eschatoon (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fair enough. However, in light of the fact that the Piccinini picture is not in the Lead section of the article but rather at the bottom in the Controversy section, which partly focuses on discussing the feelings that most people are culturally hardwired to find disturbing about transhumanism, it makes perfect sense for it to be there. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Keith, I want to agree with Schuym1 but I'm afraid you will probably accuse him of being my sockpuppet. ;) But seriously, since Toon05 specifically mentioned that he nonimated the OCE article for deletion on my behalf, I don't see how you can argue that I'm avoiding responsibility. The main reason why I asked him to do this is because he was the one who told me I wasn't following proper AfD procedure in the first place (see discussion)! If I truly wanted to create a mob effect, I would have encouraged people to participate in this debate but I haven't. That being said, the fact that my improvements have contributed to Transhumanism becoming a featured article and made all the transhumanism-related articles I have created more fair and balanced proves that I am not engaging in any "subtle vandalism". As I said many times, the fact that both transhumanists and bioconservatives accuse me of having a slight bias towards the other camp and both find articles I've improved "rather unpleasant to read" proves to me, at least, that I'm doing a good job at editing them into neutral entries. Lastly, I don't understand why my interest in transhumanism-related articles is so mystifying to you: I'm a geek who is sympathetic towards transhumanism and has spare time to waste. What other justification do I need? --Loremaster (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Taking your point in order, Schuym1 says an awful lot about himself on his home page. They are hard if not impossible to verify.  There are only 8 people listed in the US with that last name he claims (in the no charge data bases that is) and none on them are in Iowa.  So who knows? It's hard to believe you don't know how to do an AfD. In any case, the timeline with Toon05 and the article history page indicates you were not doing much else. "Featured article" means an article has jumped through the wikipedia hoops, not that it is objectively accurate, fair, or anything else.  Like I say, I am on the edge of the transhumanist groups and don't pay much attention to them.  But I have heard about this article and not one of them that I know about has said they felt the wikipedia article was a fair treatment. If you think "unpleasant to read" is metric of doing a good job, we are not going to come to an agreement on this subject. Re you being a "geek", I don't see much connection or reason that would motivate anyone to spend an inordinate amount of time working on transhumists articles.  In my experience these classes are almost disjoint.  I understand human motivation from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint, but there is nothing to be gained by discussing it here.  Keith Henson (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since this entire line of conversation is inappropriate for an AfD page, I'm not going to waste my time responding to your paranoid accusations that I'm engaging in sockpuppetry or that I wasn't busy enough to start an AfD page myself. However, I will say this: In order for any article to become a featured article, the Wikipedia community must judge that it is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. I successfully collaborated with User:Metamagician3000 (who is transhumanist sympathizer Russell Blackford of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies) and User:StN (whom Blackford has suggested may or may not be bioconservative Stuart Newman) to make sure Transhumanism met Wikipedia's featured article criteria. Why don't you ask Blackford if he thinks that this article is unfair since he contributed to it almost as much as I did? The real reason why the transhumanists you talk to think the article is "unfair" (way before they even started accusing me of being some infamous "anti-transhumanist" conspirator) is because they have admitted in their online forums that they have always wanted to use Wikipedia articles as a promotion and recruitment tool! So obviously this means that the inclusion of criticisms makes these articles "unpleasant to read" from their perspective. And, as I said before, that fact that both transhumanists and bioconservatives who read the Transhumanism article feel that it is slightly biased towards the other camp means that I am doing a good job of making sure the article is neutral. Lasly, a geek is a person who is perceived to be overly obsessed with one or more things including those of intellectuality, electronics, gaming, etc. It's fair to say that I am percieved by all of you as "obsessed" with working on transhumanist articles. However, my list of contributions shows that I've also been "obsessed" with articles that are aren't related to transhumanism (such the Synarchism). So what's the problem exactly? --Loremaster (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you meant "aren't" in your second to last sentence, didn't you? Amayzes (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes. Thank you. I made the proper correction. --Loremaster (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The posthuman, singularity, nanotechnology, AI future has really unnerving aspects about it. I frankly doubt there will be a physical state human left by the end of this century.  I have written about this for years, including a web published story where AIs effectively exterminate the population of an entire continent.  In my opinion this is an impossible to avoid consequence of advancing technology.  The words ugly, silly, and shallow come to mind before unfair. Re "obsessed", I don't think the wikipedia benefits from obsessed people, at least not now.  But I don't know how that could be fixed where people can use as many logins as they wish.  Keith Henson (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The fact that you have written extensively on transhumanism and related subjects (from an arguably extremist perspective...) only demonstrates that you have a bias in how you would like the Transhumanism article to be written. But if you read the last argument of its Controversy section, the apocalyptic concerns you expressed are summarized there. As Russell Blackford argued when we collaborated to edit the Controversy section, it would become redundant to go and on about all the possible apocalyptic scenarios that emerging tehnologies might produce. If the end result is that you judge the article as "ugly, silly, and shallow" so be it. But I call it being at once full in scope and brief and concise in treatment. Regarding obsessions, I didn't say I was "obsessive". I simply said you perceive me to be obsessive. I'm simply interested in a subject which I confess to having a sympathy for and have the luxury of being able to spend some of my time editing Wikipedia articles on it. However, I am a perfectionist so that's the actual reason why I have made so many edits. That being said, if you want to continue this conversation, let's move it to the Talk:Transhumanism page where it should have been from the beginning. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Loremaster, you state above, waaaaay at the top of this thread, "If and when it does become notable, I will probably be the first person to re-create this article." What would be the minimum amount of verifiable independent coverage for you to consider the OCE notable? Amayzes (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fair question: At least two or more mainstream news articles or, even better, scholarly essays (rather than blog posts). --Loremaster (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's good to know we're closer to agreement than I feared.  From all the comments about your apparently raging anti-transhumanist bias, I was beginning to think you'd want no less than a dozen front-page references on the NYTimes, or something.  So, given this, and given that, further down this page, you accept the Rathenau Instituut article as a reliable source, one more mainstream news article or scholarly essay should be enough for some sort of consensus to keep, yes?  Eschatoon, you mention the Italian references.  Unfortunately, my understanding of Italian is limited to "spaghetti" and "linguini". Are either of them mainstream news articles or scholarly essays? Amayzes (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Amazymes: ref. 16 is certainly "significant coverage by a popular and independent source". Whether or not it is "mainstream" depends on the interpretation of the term. It is certainly a news source, multi-edited by a team of editors with a reputation to maintain, some of them academicians, and exists since many years. It is not printed on dead trees.--Eschatoon (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reports of my bias are greatly exaggerated. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable, not reliable sources, no nothing. Perhaps the sources are in the cosmos somewhere. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: there are some reliable and high profile sources. read the list again and try to forget your ideological bias for a minute, will you.--Eschatoon (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The discussion below is almost entirely focused on one reference. How about ref. 25 (in the current list). It comes from the very well known blog of a very well known author, and the notability and popularity of the blog is demonstrated by its Technorati rank and the hundreds of comments to many articles including this one. The slightly negative opinion of the author should be sufficient proof that he is not associated with the OCE.--Eschatoon (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also, I just added ref 16. It is a well known Italian collaborative technology blog and newsletter. None of its editors is associated with the OCE -- actually some of its editors had significant conflicts with Italian members of the OCE in the past, proof of which is quite easy to find. In spite of past disagreements, the coverage is quite positive. Ah yes, I almost forgot: before someone questions my understanding of Italian, I should disclose that it is my mother language.--Eschatoon (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Toon5: shall I paste here the text that mention the organisation in question in the references?--Eschatoon (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC
 * Comment: Eschatoon, ideological bias can't prevent anyone from observing the fact there is only one source that is reliable. All the others come from individuals (regardless of how high profile they may be) or groups that have direct or indirect ties to the OCE. Lastly, I encourage you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Conflict of interest? The page says "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." Which is exactly what I do - my identity is declared on my user page and I make no secret of my own transhumanist persuasion. Which is not the case, I might add, for some declared anti-transhumanists who frequently edit Wikipedia pages related to transhumanism anonymously.--Eschatoon (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia welcomes anonymous editing therefore I'm not required to reveal my identity in order to protect my privacy. The long history of my edits prove that I am sympathetic towards transhumanism otherwise I would not have worked so hard to make Transhumanism a featured article nor created and improved so many transhumanism-related articles to this day. However, I've always strived to edit these articles from a neutral point of view (which means including criticisms) despite any perceived bias I may have. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I fully support the right to anonymity in Wikipedia (and on the internet at large), so I think we are on the same page. Actually, I was not even referring to you, but to anti-transhumanists known to use multiple accounts etc. in support of their positions. I have acknowledged on the article's discussion page that, for what I can see, you do make an effort to achieve a neutral PoV, but I think sometimes the result is (slightly) biased toward one of the two "camps"--Eschatoon (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: From my perspective there are three "camps": transhumanists, bioconservatives and skeptics. The fact that both transhumanists and bioconservatives accuse me of having a slight bias towards the other camp proves to me, at least, that I'm on the right track. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Or giving another editorial perspective you're against both. I mean its no like life is black and white or there's no other axis to be one. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: uh, that's exactly what I was implying when I said there was 3 rather than 2 camps. I was obviously suggesting that I was in the third one... --Loremaster (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Emphatic Keep: I have already posted a completely rewritten article with independent third party references. If other editors are unable to grasp the relevance of those references that is surely their own fault. The OCE is an organisation of which many members are notable in their own right. Surely such an organisation shares its members notoriety. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is not inherited. Please refrain from making derogatory remarks about other editors. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The invitation to refrain from making derogatory remarks about other editors should be also extended to the editor who made the comment below for using the term "stupid" which, I belive, is not only irrelevant but insulting for the editor who wrote the article. --Eschatoon (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree, even though I side with his less-inflammatory views. (I'm not smart enough to know whether this group is stupid or not. I'm just a sportswriter.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: PlanetNiles, it's been acknowledged that the article was vastly improved after having been completely rewritten (I've even tweaked it to make it better since then). However, almost none of the references meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable third-party sources regardless of how relevant they might be. Lastly, I encourage you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Et tu Loremaster? My interests are openly declared on my user page.  I can't find any such declarations anywhere within yours. I do not consider my interests to be at conflict as I am professional and open minded enough to not let my personal interests get in the way of neutrality.  I cannot speak for anyone else. The OCE is not one of these transhuman groups filled with Underpants Gnomes waiting for someone else to make their fantasies a reality. They are an active group who are, for the most part, actively working towards building a better future. Of course it is still early days as yet; good things comes to those who wait. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can only speak for myself when I say that the history of my edits prove that I'm open-minded and have not let my alleged "anti-transhumanist" bias get in the way of neutrality. When will any of you understand that it doesn't matter if OCE is or will be the greatest organization in the history of human civilization? The only thing that matters is whether or not you can prove that it is notable in the here and now. As of January 2009, it is not. --Loremaster (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Loremaster, sweetie, my grandfather practically invented propaganda and, while I don't use it myself, I am more than aware of how something as simple as the sequence in which sentences are ordered can radically alter the slant or spin of an article. Now I'm charitable enough to presume that it might be a subconscious bias on your behalf but every transhumanist article I've read that you've edited has taken on a subtle negative spin afterwards. I've also become aware of completely spurious elements being added (such as the "golden fez" element you add to the original OCE article when you first edited it) and the removal of positive links and citations. Such behaviour is in no way "neutral" irrespective of you being aware of it or not. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hold on Planetniles - he was not the one who added the "golden fez" element (I just checked). The user who created this page did, obviously as a tongue-in-cheek joke. As much as I might wish to find something nasty to say about our friend here, he is candid like a lily ;-) --Eschatoon (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh? I'd swear that it appeared on one of his edits. Oh well if I'm mistaken then I'm mistaken.  Sorry Loremaster. PlanetNiles (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: PlanetNiles, it seems you learned well from your grandfather since you are engaging in some great propaganda yourself! ;) It is true that I've added criticism sections to many transhumanism-related articles (I actually created many of these articles which led someone to accuse me of using Wikipedia to promote transhumanism!) but I only did so because without criticisms none of these articles would be considered neutral enough to be judged by the Wikipedia community as worthy to be classified as good articles! As for my removing some positive links and citations, I've only removed them when I felt that were added improperly or violated some guidelines. As for your ridiculous "golden fez" accusation, it proves to me that your bias in favor of the OCE and against me is clouding your judgement. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I acknowledge the need for balanced and impartial articles. However IMO many of the articles you've edited have developed a significant negative slant afterwards. I'm not exactly pro-transhumanist myself... PlanetNiles (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not my problem if you misinterpret adding a brief or comprehensive criticism section has a "significant negative slant". However, editing a sentence that said "this organization is not a religion" to read "this organization claims that it is not a religion" may seem like a negative slant but actually is a perfect example of neutralization, which I have repeatedly done and will continue to do in all transhumanism-related articles I'm interested in. That being said, I consider this "debate" over. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: - Promotional, non-notable, not supported by reliable citations, stupid. - Tom Harrison Talk 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable and no reliable sources for what is written. prashanthns (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Though this starting organization is clearly a bit lean, the notiety of its fouders creates a need for the average audience to have an opportunity to find an objective, organized place spot they can quickly learn what this creature is, in a few short sentences. Especially with this OCE receiving such venomous attacks recenty it is important that wikipedia retainsan objective attitude, despite the people actively lobbying to discount and marginalize the OCE. --dagonweb (talk) 9:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue is whether or not the OCE is notable regardless of whether or not it has been or is being glorified or demonized. --Loremaster (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both glorification and demonization imply notability.--Eschatoon (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not if the coverage is insignificant and comes from unreliable sources... --Loremaster (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: interesting group, don't get why you're coming down on it like a ton of bricks. If you want to delete it, nuke half of Wikipedia for consistency's sake as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.148.129 (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)  — 62.245.148.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: If half of Wikipedia contains articles on subjects that are not notable, they should be nuked. --Loremaster (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Provisional Keep: It's not going to hurt to put this deletion on hold for a few months. Not to improve the article, but to see if this fairly notable group does something interesting.  Keith Henson (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  Provisional Keep: The organization's officially been in existence less than a year. It's reasonable to have few references at this point.  Give it a few more months. Amayzes (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To the two above users, see WP:CRYSTAL. We don't keep articles on the premise that in the future they might "do something interesting". Subjects must meet these notability guidelines in order to warrant an article, and both of your arguments seem to agree that the organisation isn't (yet) notable enough. The article can be recreated at any point when the organisation gets substantial coverage from reliable sources, until then it should be deleted. – Toon (talk)  14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:CRYSTAL, and don't think it's applicable. It's specifically about articles about future events, which this article isn't.  Still, point taken.  I'm changing my vote to a non-provisional KEEP.  That Rathenau Instituut article is notable enough for me. Amayzes (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely you can appreciate what I'm getting at though? A similar idea underlies WP:CRYSTAL as does the argument against "future notability". Nobody can say with any certainty that any organisation will become notable in the future, and the claim of such indicates that it is not notable now. – Toon (talk)  18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what you're saying. But as WP:ORG points out, "Notable ... is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."  My previous provision was essentially about "future fame", not "future notability".  Amayzes (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Amayzes, the problem is that only one good source (like the Rathenau Instituut article) isn't enough according to Wikipedia criteria. --Loremaster (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, I don't think that is the problem. I see nowhere in the criteria that only x number of sources are good enough.  In fact, I do see, from Notability/Historical/Arguments, that notability has been criticized as a criteria before for this very reason. If you're granting that at least one source is a reliable, independent secondary source, and if there is a lack of objective standards for the "significant" part of the criteria, then I think this boils down to WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Amayzes (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Putting aside the fact that we haven't definitely confirmed that there is no link between the Rathenau Instituut and the OCE, according to Wikipedia criteria, "a company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's wonderful that Wikipedia says all those things. But nowhere in that passage does it give objective criteria for differentiating "significant" from "trivial" coverage.  Until such time as there are such criteria, I'm sticking to my interpretation that they're notable enough, given that Rathenau's their Board is nominated by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Advisory Council on Government Policy, and appointed by The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and that their audience appears to be Dutch and/or international politicians.  Amayzes (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're entitled to your interpretation but my point still stands that one (seemingly) reliable source isn't enough to conclusively establish notability in light of everything else Wikipedia guidelines say on the subject as well as the extensive history of articles that have been deleted in the past for that reason. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do you have anything to show that Rathenau's isn't reliable? Or can we at least agree that there is at least the one reliable, independent source?  Amayzes (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No since I am currently looking into it but I'm simply wondering whether Philippe Van Nedervelde (or some other member of the OCE) has a relationship with the Rathenau Institute which may be perceived as the reason why they chose to write a (positive) article on the OCE... --Loremaster (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find this quite puzzling. The fact that "you are currently looking into it" does not disqualify the source. For your information, I am currently looking into the reliability of CNN, the New York Times, the Economist, Business Week, and Physics Today. Should I then demand the deletion of all Wikipedia articles which were included because of coverage on these sources? Really now. Of course you are entitled to whatever suspect you wish to entertain, but you should be able to prove it before acting on it. --Eschatoon (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Don't be silly. I only meant that I judge an article from the Ratheunau Institute to be a reliable source until I find evidence to the contrary. Like I said before, the issue wasn't whether it was a reliable source. The problem is that there was only one reliable source. That's what I was acting on. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:Sorry, but this is not the point you made in the comment I replied to.--Eschatoon (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You simply didn't understand the point I was making... Can we move on? --Loremaster (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No. You said No since I am currently looking into it but I'm simply wondering whether Philippe Van Nedervelde (or some other member of the OCE) has a relationship with the Rathenau Institute.... I replied "I find this quite puzzling. The fact that "you are currently looking into it" does not disqualify the source...". Tell me that this is not what you meant to say, but don't tell me that I simply didn't understand the point, which is insulting. I think we are all able to read and understand simple sentences.--Eschatoon (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: *sigh* You asked two questions but I was only responding to the first one. I meant to say "No I don't have anything to show that Rathenau's isn't reliable since I am currently looking into it [...]." Are we done? --Loremaster (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now, yes.--Eschatoon (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a discussion about one source's reliability is stupid if there is only one source with significant coverage. It makes more sense if you find more sources and then discuss it because that source is not enough. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Please see my comment above about ref. 25 which, in my opinion, qualifies as significant coverage by a reliable source.--Eschatoon (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not reliable sources no matter how popular they are. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 05:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, correct me if I am mistaken. You are saying that the very popular, worldwide known blog of one of the best known SF writers is not a reliable source, while third rate local printed newspapers that nobody has ever heard of are reliable sources? Really now. You know that anyone is able to get any coverage published on some local newspapers. Please believe me, I can get tens of articles published on local newspapers anytime, with the content I want. Should I do that?--Eschatoon (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that the writer of the blog is notable (as in passing WP:BIO) and there is no proof that the blog is more notable then any other blog. I agree that minor newpapers don't show notability, but stuff like New York Times, Boston Globe, and BBC News does. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we were to delete Wikipedia articles without sources like the NYT and the BBC, 90% of the content would have to go. You know that. Of course self-published blogs are not acceptable because they are not 3rd party sources, but many blogs are reliable 3rd party sources. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples). I think this particular blog (over) qualifies.--Eschatoon (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're twisting my words. I never said that major newspapers were the only acceptable sources. Like I said before, prove that the owner passes WP:BIO. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on Schuym1. Just google Stross. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stross --Eschatoon (talk) 06:14,


 * Schuym1 - I see that you had changed your vote to keep based on this second reliable source, and then you changed it again to delete because "the other source's reliability hasn't been addressed". But I think it has been addressed - all commenters agree that the source is reliable, but one questions its independence. Note that the only proof of non-independence is the commenter's statement "I am currently looking into it" which, I am sure you will agree, is a bit weak. We are supposed to assume good faith here, aren't we? Idea: should we bet the donation of a significant sum of money to Wikipedia? --Eschatoon (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please Loremaster, are you seriously suggesting that there is some conspiracy between the OCE and the government of the Netherlands to keep the OCE article on wikipedia? Do you realise how paranoid and self important that sounds?  Perhaps you need to take a step back and regain your focus before we continue. PlanetNiles (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course not. My point was simply that if a member of the OCE works at the Rathenau Institute it diminishes the perception that the RI's coverage is independent. That being said, I didn't say it wasn't a reliable source. I only meant that I judge it to be a reliable source until I find evidence to the contrary. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Someone who knows more about this than I do, is the above a distinct person from loremaster? Keith Henson (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about me! I've never had any contact with Loremaster before I stumbled across this page, which was listed as a copy of another website at Suspected copyright violations. I removed the PROD template he restored and advised him to take this to RfA. He asked me to list it because he didn't have time to navigate through the myriad of pages required for such a listing. :) – Toon (talk)  18:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record, Toon05 and I (Loremaster) are two distinct persons. I don't need a sockpuppet to make my case. --Loremaster (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: This organization promotes revolutionary scientific ideas and works towards building a better future for humanity. The article is definitely worth keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.20.57 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)  — 67.208.20.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: The greatness of the ideas and ambitions of an organization is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not this organization is notable. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote changed to keep: I think two reliable sources with significant coverage is enough. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 15:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Good article, well-written, non-biased, neutral point of view, at least four independent reliable references.--Altdotme (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Four? Which ones? --Loremaster (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note:Comments about social dynamics have been moved to the talk page. – Toon (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG now, and saying that it will meet it in the future fails WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2009 (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.