Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Watner

From 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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Watner

Carl Watner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not WP:Notable in any way. Carl Watner may have written a number of books and articles, but nobody actually writes about him.

Also, I asked on the talk page about his notability in October 2006, and there was no response — which I think further confirms that this person is, in fact, not notable at all, and that the article is merely a promotional blurb. Bi 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable and unverified --RaiderAspect 11:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, WP isn't a source for notability. I was just suggesting that there is Wikipedia precedent for Watner's being viewed as notable within the community. Other non-WP citations of Watner by notable figures include this one by Roderick Long, this one by Murray Rothbard, and this one by David Gordon (different D.G. from the one described here). There are also his fairly numerous peer-reviewed journal articles in such journals as the Journal of Libertarian Studies and his work in the Libertarian Forum. DickClarkMises 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, Hans-Hermann Hoppe lists Watner's work as "essential [anarcho-capitalist] reading" here, a Cato Institute Handbook on Policy (2005) calls his book with McElroy "recommended reading" here, and an Independent Institute work notes a journal article of Watner's here. DickClarkMises 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, in each of these Watner is merely part of a list of authors. Bi 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are lists of works described by the list compilers as being important works in the realms of discourse about which the compilers are noted as experts. According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), an academic is notable if "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources," or if "The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field." The fact that notable, recognized authorities on libertarianism/anarchocapitalism have cited Watner's works as "essential" or "recommended" seems to clearly meet these conditions. DickClarkMises 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Watner is not an academic. He's not Prof. Watner or Dr. Watner, or whatever, he's just Watner. And WP:N says, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Bi 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Watner has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. If you want to argue that he can't be called an "academic" unless he works at a school, I think think you are using an overly narrow definition of the word. The editor (Long) and the editorial board of the JLS are all academics and Watner's submitted articles have apparently passed muster with them. The same is true with other journals. To your second point, I don't think it is trivial for six recognized authorities (HHH, Cato, MNR, II, Long, and Gordon) in Watner's realm of discouse to say that his writings are "recommended" or "essential." To me that means that he is a reasonable subject to cover in an encylopedia that is not paper. And just to add to those above, here is a quotation of Watner by Long in a paper presented in 1995. This academic has notably criticized Watner's theoretical work. DickClarkMises 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would additionally note that Watner's article in the March 1973 Libertarian Forum was seemingly written as a response to some history of thought writing that Rothbard did. This is noteworthy for our purposes here because Rothbard was arguably both the foremost libertarian thinker (for a while anyway) and the editor of LF. This means that Rothbard more or less thought Watner's response to his own work was valuable and notable. DickClarkMises 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NOTE, unverified. Being cited in other Wikipedia articles is not valid criteria for keep, Wikipedia cannot reference itself.--– Dakota 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I think the most notable thing is that he's the editor and publisher of The Voluntaryist. That's a quarterly that has been published since 1982. [1] [2] He's THE major keeper of the flame for Voluntaryism. His journal and his writings are cited many times. Anarcho-capitalism 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked through the "citations" offered by DickClarkMises above. Long's reference to Watner is merely in the context of a summary of a magazine issue — if that counts as a "citation", then by jove, one may as well say that a journal's table of contents counts as a "citation"! Also, it's the references to Watner which need to be peer reviewed; and as far as I can see, Rothbard's and Gordon's essays haven't undergone any rigorous peer review process. (Well, Rothbard seems to be some sort of authority on libertarianism, but he mentions Watner only very briefly, as someone who discovered another work by someone else.) I don't think any of these add up to notability for Watner. Bi 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, Rothbard's essays have undergone extensive peer review. But that doesn't ever matter. That's not required for something to be notable. Watner is extremely notable as THE major voluntaryist of the late 20th and early 21st century. Anarcho-capitalism 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"Watner is extremely notable as THE major voluntaryist of the late 20th and early 21st century." If so, then why do the references to him all seem so pathetic? Bi 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Being the editor and publisher of The Voluntaryist since 1982 makes him notable. Anarcho-capitalism 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is bordering on argumentum ad nauseam. So let me put it this way: the fact that he's the publisher of The Voluntaryist is so notable that neither Long, Rothbard, nor Gordon even bothered to mention this very significant fact? Bi 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether anyone mentions it or not, it's true. He's the editor and publisher of the Voluntaryist.Anarcho-capitalism 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment We're not questioning truth, we're questioning notability. Why does being editor and publisher of the Voluntaryist make him notable? There doesn't appear to be multiple, nontrivial, reputatable third party referrences to it. This is sounding suspiciously like WP:ILIKEIT. --RaiderAspect 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Because The Voluntaryist is notable. There are large number of references to it. Take your pick in a Google search. It's in the mind of the beholder whether those references are trivial. I dont know what you mean by "reputable."Anarcho-capitalism 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Mind of the beholder"? There's a clear difference between an entire essay or an entire web site devoted to discussing a person, and just an occasional, random name drop. Give us a break. Bi 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Public persons are always notable. People(at least I do)want to know more about public persons and wikipedia is the prime source of finding information regarding people of little being published about. Wikipedia can afford to have these articles no one other have because it isn't a paper medium. Hence more information adds to the greatness of knowledge available. Lord Metroid 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT a source for groundbreaking information that's not published elsewhere. Bi 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Other editors should note that the nominator for this AfD, User:Bi, is the proprietor of the this website which criticizes Neo-Tech, an organization with which Watner was/is associated. After presenting a number of notable references (while assuming good faith) I am concerned that this is a bad-faith nom by a critic of the subject. DickClarkMises 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And should I mention that DickClarkMises is a self-proclaimed libertarian, and therefore might have a vested interest in heightening the image of all things libertarian among Wikipedia? Dark accusations of bias such as yours are WP:UNCIVIL and bogus, and have no place in reasoned debate. Don't attack the person; attack the issue. Bi 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I do note my political affinities on my userpage, but what I was objecting to as a Wikipedian is that you are applying what I consider to be an unusual standard to this case. I wasn't quite sure why you would persist in favoring this AfD after the verifiable sources above were known, so I looked at your userpage, where—to your credit—you disclose that you are the proprietor of the site I linked above. I may be a libertarian, but I hadn't read anything of Watner's before, met him, or heard him speak, although I had seen him cited in the literature during my time working as librarian at the Mises Institute. This is the reason that my first sources were from there, because I already knew the guy was mentioned in a few places at mises.org since I recalled having seen his name on the front cover of the Institute's quarterly JLS and elsewhere. DickClarkMises 14:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment So we are all biased. I think that is an important factor to take into consideration of the administrators when they decide the outcome of this nomination for deletion. Lord Metroid 10:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Noteable for all the above reasons. Another attempt by "Bi" to delete anything that has to do with Neo-Tech. He recently tried to get Frank R. Wallace deleted but was unsuccessful. Now he's trying his hardest to keep information out of that article by making frivolous arguments against the sources. He managed to get the Neo-Tech article deleted but it was voted to merge with the Wallace article. From the talk page of Yasuhiko Kimura it looks like he may be going after that one next. And yes as DickClarkMises pointed out Bi runs an anti Neo-Tech web site. JoeMystical 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Complaint JoeMystical is being blatantly WP:UNCIVIL. Bi 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, seeing that Brian Martin devoted an entire chapter to discussing Watner's voluntaryism, I think I'm gravitating towards a Weak Keep. Or maybe a merge with Voluntaryism, since I'm still not convinced that there's much else to Watner's notability other than his involvement in voluntaryism and The Voluntaryist. Bi 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator)
I think merging Voluntaryism and Carl Watner would be a mistake. Watner is a notable scholar/writer who is not the first or most notable voluntaryist. There is no compelling reason why his article, a biography, should be merged with an article about a political philosophy that he supports. DickClarkMises 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Somewhat notable as a libertarian theorist per collaboration with Wendy McElroy and citation by Murray Rothbard. Published in Reason magazine and at least two of his books (the one with McElroy and the one published by Fox & Wilkes) published by non-vanity presses. However - lack of other independent sources on him may be a problem. I'm open to being convinced either way on whether to keep. Seems notable enough but we do have a WP:ATT requirement to meet if the article is kept. Dragomiloff 23:29, 9 March 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.