Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Deletion discussion

This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in the past. See /deletion for the discussion archive.

  • It was repeatedly claimed that the article was a vanity page. That claim was subsequently used to justify the deletion attempt. This claim is manifestly false, as I wrote a substantial part of the article, and as I am neither David Pearce nor an "associate" of his. Since the claim is false, the deletion attempt was, and will remain, unjustified. Please consider this before taking further action. Sir Paul 14:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. He's notable enough for Hedweb and Herbweb to merit a wiki article. Rad Racer 17:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note that the article itself seems to state that Sir Paul (who's personal webpage says he is Pablo) is an associate of David Pearce. Also note with subject's 2000 self refrential websites which are essentially spamdexing, its more then unlikely that this page itself can become the target for further spamdexing by the person.
I wasn't an "associate" of his at the time the accusations where made, nor for that matter when I wrote the comments above. The key issue here is that claims to delete the article were made without anyone taking the trouble to verify them. If you are going to remove an entry, at least make sure you get the facts right. Sir Paul 16:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am always amazed that when someone attempts to write an article about people who have contributed real culture to the world such as this brilliant one (doctors, writers, philosophers, scientists, etc) gets accused of being authors of a vanity page. Where as D list "celebs" pages like Jade Goody, Etc are fine and left alone. I do think Wiki editing and deleting policies should be looked at again. "Celeb" articles are after all written by associates too (usually PR agents) so why the snobbery directed at articles like this?

Good point, anonymous user. --Loremaster 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, excellent point, I have noticed this as well. If you're on TV, even for five minutes, that's considered inherently notable as far as most deletion discussions go.--Gloriamarie 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from BLTC Research

BLTC Research is not notable enough to stand on its own as an article, and should therefore be merged into this article. There's just not enough out there about it outside of the gazillion websites operated by this guy (and related people) which all have the same basic information which sounds like a press release. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since BLTC Research is a project of Pearce's, it does make sense that it be merged into his article. Pearce, his sites and his research are all very important as has previously been established (and can clearly be seen from reading the article) and should not be belittled. Google also operates a gazillion sites; this is not a bad thing. As can clearly be seen from visiting any of the sites in question, they are filled with helpful research and information and no advertising at all.

Adding BLTC Research strengthens the page. Gloriamarie 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources?

Could we find more in the way of reliable sources for this article? I certainly think it's worth having, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the extent to which it's sourced to material from Pearce or closely related entities. Thanks, William Pietri 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)