Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Yarvin

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Yarvin

Curtis Yarvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I started looking at this article with the hope of expanding the sourcing, but quickly found...well, that there basically isn't any.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of coverage of Yarvin, but it falls pretty much exclusively into one of two categories:

The only real exception is this blog entry on The Baffler, which is, well, a blog. A blog on a notable site, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. That's the only coverage I can find absent "he got banned from being a racist" that's more than about two lines long. Essentially it's quintessential WP:BLP1E, and should be deleted on that basis. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A similar event happened on March 2016, where Yarvin's participation in LambdaConf generated much controversy. It seems to me that as this is the second controversy WP:BLP1E no longer applies. Man thinking —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The LambdaConf ban was directly for the fame of his neoreactionary views, so is part of the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't much enjoy writing about Yarvin, but he's unlikely to go away just because we don't like him. I'm surprised to see Ironholds holding this out as BLP1E (Yarvin? He's everywhere, from geekdom to the fruitloop politics of the affluent geek's playpen).
Sad to say, because he really is unspeakably obnoxious, he would have been an interesting speaker at LambdaConf. No-one is more "lambdas everywhere" than Yarvin. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; where is the everywhere, then? I'm looking for coverage >2 lines outside Strange Loop and not seeing it. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You listed a fair few yourself, in the nomination (a rather unusual departure for AfDs). If someone makes it to the lowbrow redtops like Buzzfeed, then they really have entered the public consciousness. Not that Buzzfeed is a journal of such repute that you'd wrap your chips in it, but it does refute the notion that Yarvin is only of note in some Randian ivory and monel tower. If you want a readable explanation of Urbit and why the tech geeks are paying interest, then try the Popehat link. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem for this being a separate article right now is that at present, there's basically nothing that's an RS for this stuff. Even Urbit is rather lacking in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I listed Strange Loop references and one-line mentions. If someone makes it to the lowbrow redtops like Buzzfeed, they've entered the public consciousness. If they do it twice, and not in an offhand way, well, then we care. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's an additional potential source: NYTimes column mentioning his name Sycron (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sycron: as you say, yes, it mentions his name. That's not what WP:GNG calls for; it has to be substantive coverage. Ironholds (talk)
  • Merge and redirect to Dark Enlightenment. He's marginally notable, but it's entirely for the DE/neoreaction stuff (which the LambdaConf ban was directly part of). The rest is marginal fluff at this stage. This shows in the article, which has turned into a fancruft piece made of references to his own blog because the third party sources to support a BLP article worth keeping as a separate article don't seem to actually exist. So add what little in Curtis Yarvin actually has third-party RS verifiability to that, and redirect there - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose a merge to either a political or an Urbit article. The problem is that Yarvin has two aspects to him: political and technical. Only by having a stand-alone article for him can we really represent this stuff. As he has already been canned from two conferences because of this overlap, the overlap is one of the most significant aspects about him. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but of those two things, on a practical basis only one is notable. Has there been any coverage of Urbit outside the "...and he wanted to speak on Urbit but was blocked/churned up drama for being pro-slavery"? He has two elements, yes - only one of those elements, practically, has generated coverage, and it's not his code. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wasn't first invited to LambdaConf because of his political views, but because of the architecture (or deliberate lack of) for Urbit. I first encountered him through the discussion groups around Google App Engine and Amazon Lambda. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is nice, but still not coverage. There is (fortunately or unfortunately) a gap between being able to point to things people have done and a sort of general gestalt, and notability for those purposes. Ironholds (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but there aren't RSes talking about Urbit as a significant thing. It has some techie buzz at the blog level because it's "interesting", in the special techie sense of the word "what the hell even is that" or "I ain't even mad, that's amazing". But it's had zero RS coverage actually about Urbit that I can find. Same for his career in WAP browser development, which I looked quite hard for and found almost no traces of. Blog buzz is not WP:RS material. Please produce coverage of these things in WP:RSes that would meet the "every fact has to be demonstrated notable" aspect of WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Two separate controversies means that BLP1E doesn' apply. The fact that both controversies are very similar doesn't alter that. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoshuaZ: where's the RS coverage of the second controversy? Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ironholds: I take it JoshuaZ is referring to the Yarvin's role in the NRx/DE movement as the "second controversy". As far as RS coverage goes, how about Gere, Charlie (2015). "13Media". The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory. 23 (1): 270–290. doi:10.1093/ywcct/mbv012. ISSN 1077-4254. which says "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this kind of thinking can be found in what Nick Land calls the 'Dark Enlightenment', or, in the name coined by Mencius Moldbug (otherwise known as software engineer and quondam poet Curtis Yarvin), the 'Neoreactionary Movement'...". (Surely an academic journal published by OUP is a high quality RS.) SJK (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge he's not, no, he's referring to Yarvin being disinvited from a second conference for being, well, a bigot. Again, I'm talking about substantive coverage, not one-line mentions. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom has noted a number of reliable sources covering the StrangeLoop dis-invitation controversy, and mentioning his role in Dark Enlightenment/NRx. RS exist on both topics, and I don't agree that RS covering NRx mention him in the form of "Fragmentary quotes or namedrops in general articles", since it is generally acknowledged that his blog is one of the instigators of the NRx movement. While the dis-invitation and NRx are related, they are separate things (one is a single event which received coverage in RS, the other is an ideological movement which has also received coverage in RS) so I don't think this is BLP1E. SJK (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another RS mentioning him (under his "Mencius Moldbug" psuedonym) is Charlton, Bruce G. (2010). "The cancer of bureaucracy: How it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything else". Medical Hypotheses. 74 (6): 961–965. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.038. ISSN 0306-9877.. That's an Elsevier journal, so again should be considered a good quality RS. SJK (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or how about – Dyga, Edwin. The future of Australian conservatism: Mainstream or sidestream? [online]. Quadrant, Vol. 58, No. 10, Oct 2014: 46-58. Availability: <http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=629207990052763;res=IELLCC> ISSN: 0033-5002. [cited 26 Mar 16]. – which discusses the “Neo-Reactionary” movement (chiefly popularised by the work of Curtis Yarvin. Quadrant (magazine) is noteworthy as arguably one of the major, if not the major, intellectual outlet of Australian conservatism. SJK (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SJK: can you quote the excerpts mentioning Yarvin from both, in their entirety? Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ironholds: those articles are all paywalled, I don't have access to the full text, but I found them by searching for "Curtis Yarvin" or "Mencius Moldbug" on Google Scholar. But even supposing you are right that they are all "passing mentions", if a wide variety of RS independently mention someone (which is certainly the case here), I'd argue that makes him notable. They all mention him in the context of being one of the leaders/instigators of the DE/NRx movement (I don't believe any of them are talking about the Strange Loop or LambdaConf episodes), and hence they support the position that he is notable in that context. SJK (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ironholds: Actually turns out the Quadrant magazine article is available here. To cite the relevant part fully it says (my emphasis) This reactionary trend has created fertile ground for a host of political sub-currents on the right which explicitly identify away from what has come to characterise mainline conservative politics. Indeed, “conservative” and “conservatism” as political descriptors are becoming increasingly unpopular within what John Derbyshire designates as a broader “Dissident Right”.[2] This is particularly true among the young members of what is sometimes also referred to as the “Orthosphere” (perhaps best exemplified by the work of James Kalb[3]) or the “Neo Reactionary” movement (chiefly popularised by the work of Curtis Yarvin[4]). Their critique has gone beyond that of paleoconservatives, who see the contest within the political establishment as a battle between two wings of liberalism: laissez faire, globalist neo-liberalism on the nominal Right and statist, neo-Marxist social democracy on the Left, both of which paleoconservatives view as corrosive to traditional society and the complex identities and liberties of its constituents.[5] Neo-reactionaries of the Orthosphere broadly agree with this assessment, however they seem to be forming a critique of modern liberalism that is both oppositional to the status quo as much as it also affirms a positive worldview centred on notions of traditional identity. Some of these notions involve a regionalist local patriotism and the celebration of men and women as distinct, complementary sexes. This “identitarian” view is favoured over the abstract universalism of utopian “one-worlders” who see everything traditionalists value as mere “social constructs” to be bureaucratically redesigned at will.–now, you might say that this is just a "passing reference"; but the article is arguing that NRx is one of the chief currents in the contemporary non-mainstream political right, and that Curtis Yarvin is its chief populariser. That's an assertion of notability right there. SJK (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can argue whatever you want but that doesn't match the notability guidelines. I'd agree, actually, that the Quadrant reference counts (although I disagree that "chief current in non-mainstream political right" is, in and of itself, notable. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why "chief current in the non-mainstream political right" would not be notable. WP covers non-mainstream politics, even extreme right or left politics. If something is so fringe that it doesn't even get any attention in reliable sources, then that would be non-notable. But something non-mainstream, even far from the mainstream, which receives attention in RS, is notable. SJK (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly; it's the reliable sources that matter, not the importance of the terms used to describe the subject. See "in and of itself". We're in agreement ;). Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Accepted papers in Medical Hypotheses prior to May 11, 2010 are not a reliable source for anything, because until that time, that journal was not peer-reviewed, and indeed was involved in a controversy for publishing AIDS denialism. That article was accepted on November 26, 2009 so it did not get peer-reviewed.--greenrd (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken but I'm not sure how it is relevant here. All I am suggesting we use that cite for is to establish notability of Curtis Yarvin, not to establish any factual claims about him or anything else. I don't see how presence or lack of peer review would ultimately change that, since I think peer review would be primarily about validating medical/scientific statements and research methodology, but mentioning Curtis Yarvin doesn't fall under either of those headings. SJK (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the absence of peer review and the fact that it publishes AIDS denialism would suggest it's not a reliable source? Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we both seem to agree that Quadrant magazine is a reliable source for the purpose of establishing Curtis Yarvin's notability (but not for other purposes.) Well, Quadrant magazine is not peer reviewed, and while I'm not aware of it having published AIDS denialism, it has published climate change denialism aplenty. But, while that would be a problem if I was proposing to use it as a source for the claim that "climate change is a hoax", it isn't a problem if all one proposes to use it for is to establish Curtis Yarvin as notable. In the same way, if one was proposing to use Medical Hypothesises as a source for the claim that "AIDS is a hoax", its lack of peer review is a big problem; but, if all one wants to do with it is establish Curtis Yarvin's notability, I don't see how it is any less reliable for that purpose than Quadrant magazine is. Reliability is not an absolute, but context-dependent; a source might be woefully unreliable for some purposes, yet perfectly reliable for others. In general, the standards of reliability required of a source to establish notability are a lot less than the standards of reliability required to justify other assertions of fact. (And I don't think anyone here is trying to justify Yarvin's political views as correct – I certainly am not.) SJK (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've tagged all the self-cites, blog cites and stuff without a third-party RS cite on the article. Don't be fooled by the little blue numbers - the sourcing on this article is absolutely terrible and not up to BLP standards. (I would have just removed them all if the AFD weren't in progress.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support trimming a lot of the self-cites. I don't think self-cites are necessarily inappropriate in a BLP, but this article has them to an excessive degree. I don't see doing so as necessarily pre-empting the AFD process. SJK (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At present @Carlylean: is just putting a lot of removed stuff back without discussion. I've asked them to come to the talk page to discuss better sourcing more - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a bit stub-y, but the LambdaConf controversy is being fairly widely discussed. The call for secondary citation for things like date of birth is a much higher standard than I've ever seen for any other article about a living person. Drcchutch (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen no actual RS coverage of the LambdaConf kerfuffle, and I've been looking. The most I've seen is some Hacker News threads. Are you claiming there are RSes that are up to WP:BLP on the topic? - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the from-the-horses-mouth version, from one of the LambdaConf organisers. http://degoes.net/articles/lambdaconf-inclusion What is your and Ironholds' reason for excluding it going to be? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPREMOVE (a reason like "supports slavery" is a very strong claim that needs better-than-primary sourcing about a hopelessly obscure conference); WP:BLPSOURCES notes that "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Frankly the whole section should be removed barring the StrangeLoops cite to an actual verifiable third-party reliable source, insofar as an Auerbach opinion piece counts as one. You should know these two rules already, surely - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who's talking about slavery? I'm talking about LambdaConf and his exclusion, not making SYNTH judgements as to why. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're also pretty explicitly failing to assume good faith, so I'm gonna drop out of this discussion and go pack for my holiday. Have fun. Ironholds (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a WP:RS-quality source that backs up the assertion that LambdaConf and Yarvin's exclusion is notable? I note again I've been actively looking and haven't found a one as yet - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the best we can do to source coverage of the guy is a column reviewing a book which mentions him in passing and nothing else, there is not reason to have an article. The article is a mess and no sources exist to move it past that point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: when you say "the best we can do to source coverage of the guy is a column reviewing a book which mentions him in passing", which specific source are you referring to? SJK (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curtis_Yarvin&oldid=1078180459"