Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennady Stolyarov II

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. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Stolyarov II (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)

Flagged this article for deletion because it fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. This is a clear case of self-promotion as the page was created by a username that is an anagram of Mr. Stolyarov's full name.

• As noted below, IP 216.59.118.42 nominated this page for deletion. BITS created this page and responded; I've completed the original nomination request. Ansh666 22:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user 216.59.118.42 nominated this article for deletion on 20:36, 26 August 2014, for the following reason:

"Flagged this article for deletion because it fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. This is a clear case of self-promotion as the page was created by a username that is an anagram of Mr. Stolyarov's full name."

• Keep There is no evidence that user AynRandsGloveToy, the original creator, is Gennady Stolyarov, despite the anagram. It could just as easily be an enthusiastic fan. I suspect that IP 75.141.241.151, that edited the article later (to remove some positive editorializing), is actually Gennady Stolyarov, as the IP tracks to the Reno/Carson area, where Mr. Stolyarov lives.

Additionally, even if Mr. Stolyarov had created his own page (which I don't believe is the case), doing so is not grounds for deletion, as long as the subject is genuinely notable and the content remains unbiased.^[1] :I believe that Mr. Stolyarov is indeed a minor but notable figure in the transhumanist movement, especially with regard to the controversy of his children's book. He has been interviewed and featured on the BBC,^[2] Slate,^[3], Psychology Today,^[4] Vice.com,^[5], Mashable,^[6], and The Future and You,^[7] among others. Agree or disagree with Mr. Stolyarov's philosophy and mission, but he is nearly as well-known an author in the transhumanist movement as Zoltan Istvan. Additionally, several other contributors have worked on the page since its initial creation - while one of them (75.141.241.151) may have been Mr. Stolyarov, the others definitely aren't.

I suggest that the nomination for deletion be removed.

Bird in the sun (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am indeed not Gennady Stolyarov II, and I have never met him, though I understand why someone would think I am – it seems that he is no stranger to self-promotion. Rather, I simply wanted to create a page for him and be anonymous without giving my IP address, so I created an anagram based on his name (and his interest in Ayn Rand because I wanted to be clever). I similarly created the user SamHiggle, whose name is an anagram of Gilgamesh, so that I could edit the Gilgamesh page.

Thank you, Bird in the sun, for making a good case to keep the article. You clearly list Stolyarov's "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", which are the requirements to presume him to be notable.

AynRandsGloveToy (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AynRandsGloveToy and SamHiggle: just a note, please read WP:SOCK - users are under normal circumstances limited to one account. You haven't done anything wrong so far, but to avoid inadvertently getting in trouble, I'd pick one account and stick with it. Ansh666 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thousands have read his book, and millions have read his articles. Mr. Stolyarov is a stunningly prolific author of immensely high quality, as anyone even remotely familiar with him can attest. This is a prominent and notable thinker and creator. He's widely known in economic, libertarian, Objectivist, and transhumanist circles -- to say the least. The general public needs the basic, background information which only an encyclopedia entry can provide. Do NOT delete this valuable article about this relatively-famous and important person! KyZan (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

• Keep. I think notability is supported by the references given. --Ben Best 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbest (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have tried to fix my signature as a result of a complaint. --Ben Best:Talk 15:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Gennady is a supporter of LongeCity (where I hold the Assistant Membership Secretary position) and is a very important member of our community. Not only is he known by many of our 25k+ registered users (and many more who haven't signed up) for his volunteer and advocacy work there, but he is also known thoughout many other related organizations. He is a valued volunteer contributor to an industry with the potential to become the next big investment wave and social movement. What you're seeing IMHO is a "star" on the rise. Please keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.99.129 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — 98.211.99.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • reply - please read WP:NEXTBIGTHING before making such arguments. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't disagree with the arguments for Keep above. Seems okay/good to keep. And I object in principle to an AFD started by someone on behalf of a nonregistered user. There is no accountability. In other noms like this the nonregistered user never comments further or responds to questions or acknowledges that they should withdraw a bad nomination. There is no feedback, no accumulating record of the nominator's performance like can be measured for registered editors by the wp:AFDSTATS tool. I need to open an RFC or something towards changing the general practice. --doncram 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I reformatted several entries above to indicate "Keep" vote, where that was clearly intended, and also to indent. Please fix if i made any mistake, but i think i did this properly. --doncram 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: About I object in principle to an AFD started by someone on behalf of a nonregistered user, there is no way around this, because unregistered users cannot create pages, which is necessary to start an AfD discussion (see WP:AFDHOWTO), and I believe it is policy of some sort (not necessarily WP:POLICY) that we should not force people to create accounts if they do not wish to. We do our best to notify the unregistered user that a nomination has been made, either on WT:AfD if they requested there (as was in this case) or on their talk page if they did elsewhere. Ansh666 20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an element of WP:AGF that comes into play as well, with these sorts of debates. Unless the nomination from the IP is flawed in some serious way ("I nominate this article for deletion because the author is a dick.", for example), then most of the time an editor will assume good faith and complete the process on their behalf. It's just a technical thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The arguments for KEEP above are passable. I have a problem with nom.s done by proxy for anonymous users, and am surpirsed this isn't already against Wikipedia policy. There needs to be accountability, etc. as described above. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jersey92: and I responded above. This is a technical issue, nothing to do with policy. Ansh666 03:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Ansh666, you did comment above. And I and Jersey92 agree that it is surprising that noms being done by proxy for anonymous users is not already against policy. There needs to be accountability, in the view of some. Of course is it a policy issue. --doncram 01:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a policy to ban proxy AfDs would effectively ban IPs from creating AfDs, for a technical reason. That is against the spirit of "anyone can edit", as well as WP:AGF. Besides, many registered users don't check in on AfDs they start, either. When did participating further in a discussion you start become mandatory? Ansh666 02:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, banning IPs from creating AfDs, is what I personally feel would be a good policy change. Yes, that somewhat conflicts against the principle that "anyone can edit", which is a good general principle. Many principles somewhat conflict with other principles. I believe that creating AfDs is a very often a very negative thing, that should not be allowed without some accountability. There is precedent for disallowing non-registered users to initiate negative things: specifically I believe that I.P. editors are not allowed to open arbitrations (and I think maybe that the policy is that I.P. comments in arbitrations are disallowed, and are immediately deleted if they occur). And, if a registered user doesn't respond within an AFD, other AFD editors often contact them and give them feedback or ask them questions ("hey, just wanted to let you know that the AFD on Z that you opened led to great improvement in the Z article" or "hey, just to let you know, the AFD seemed to be taken very badly by the article author, who was offended (with good reason) that their explanation and sources given on the Talk page had been completely ignored in the AFD nom, so maybe you want to check the Talk page next time"). Note, in my view, banning I.P.s from opening AFDs would somewhat support the principle of "anyone can edit" because in practice many new editors are prevented/dissuaded from editing by AFDs opened immediately that kill their ability to get started, that establish Wikipedia is unfair and mean, etc. If there are fewer unjustified / unreasonable AFDs, then more new editors would find that "anyone can edit". It is not mandatory for persons to continue to participate in a discussion that they open, but it perhaps should be mandatory that they be open to receiving feedback, good or bad, about the consequences of what they did. And to be mildly liable for their record: "Person X opened 400 AFDs and every one of them was denied by consensus, per wp:AFDSTATS, so I question their judgment about wp:N somewhat" could be a relevant statement to make in an RFA about person X. An I.P. editor cannot even be contacted, much less held accountable for their record in any way. --doncram 15:16, 31 August 2014 (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.