Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman

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. No closing rationale can give justice to the bizarreness of both the article and this discussion, so, just to summarize: apart from the subject himself and his WP:SPA colleagues, whose WP:TLDR walls of text I have skipped over, almost all agree that the subject is not notable and that the content fails nearly every policy in the book, as explained by Agricola44.  Sandstein  06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles S. Herrman

Charles S. Herrman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No referenced assertion of notability, sources are subject's Web site or VDM publshing imprints, Google Scholar mostly turns up a WWI-era pediatrician who is not this person.--Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I am the one who contested the prod, but not because I think the subject is notable. My reason for wanting it to go to AfD was http://www.csherrman.com/images-tables-and-charts-for-wiki-documentation/ I don't see any permission for Wikipedia to use those images. If, as I suspect, there is a copyright violation, the images need to be dealt with in all articles that use them. Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Spam, though limited, and a life's share of original research. The references are used to support the essay so there's no point following them, and while i didn't read the bibliography it seems to be the same. No news, no books, no scholar, and six pages of dry search hits. But copyvio was just grand - frankie^MR (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The hyperlink to the images refers, curiously, to wikipedia, most of them are original content, but the case isn't that, the article is filled with POV and also the subject is closely tied to its contributor, and even though the article is written by a very intelectual person, it is extensively filled with personal reflections and there is no verifiability on the sources as denoted by other user that wrote that in the article's talk page. I think this is a major hoax or some kind of small philosopher who thinks he can garner attention by starting an article in wikipedia. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am deleting my comments here due to my misunderstanding of the rules and policies here. Many apologies to all who had to wade through them. I hope it is OK to delete all of this junk I made.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(UTC)

Please don't make legal threats - frankie^MR (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Warned user using Template:uw-legal. Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by nominator - Facebook pages are not reliable sources for notability. There's no witch hunt, there's just a lack of multiple significant reliable sources that validate anything in this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep -

Before progressing to the main course, a note on the methodology being employed in this charade – and yes, a charade it certainly is. First, we have a notice to remove, with language describing how anybody can take it down provided an explanation is offered. Which was done, whereat a new remove tag replaces the original, less the information re removal. So apparently there’s ‘removal’, and then there’s ‘Removal’. Right. So there may be some fancy and Wiki-correct maneuvering here; but to an intelligent observer it smacks of unprofessionalism. The first remark in my defense was also abreast of the rules, yes, let’s admit that straight up. Let’s also understand the guy is no fool and you’ve royally pissed him off on account of one little unnoticed factoid: your provocation was thrice his error, so don’t be too supercilious with your rules. In fact, you’d best tread lightly. Enough said for intelligent folk, K? Third, I am dumbstruck by the clubby atmosphere on this page. You act like you can half talk as if in a public forum and half muddle with cant specific to some Wiki potentates presuming themselves beyond accountability, to wit—

"Spam [which is what in this instance?]”, though limited, and a life's share of original research [true enough and it’s not over by any means]. The references are used to support the essay so there's no point following them [in addition to supporting the thematics they support specific statements of fact calling for references], and while i didn't read the bibliography it seems to be the same [boy are you lame]. No news, no books, no scholar, and six pages of dry search hits [and where did the Wiki reliance on politeness disappear to?]. But copyvio [and this cant refers to what, precisely?] was just grand."

Well, dear Sir, methinks your history may speak for itself in this instance as in another recent one:

[Line deleted. Please do not insert statements and sign them with another editor's username]

BTW, real scholars go to the effort of doing actual research. And finally, the uncanny presumptions of seeming bullies – What do Wiki rules suggest about presuming a ‘hoax’ prior to the facts, or a ‘little philosopher’ looking for a stage…isn’t such grandiosity getting a little ahead of the game, dear boys? You dudes need to catch your breath.

We progress without salad to the entrée…(French style, salad is the last paragraph). True to my style I speak hereafter in the third person.

So you required a full year to discover the obvious. Congratulations. Great job one and all. Yes, your suspicion is correct, Mr. Man 1951 IS Charles S. Herrman. And perhaps you now require to understand why your puritan morality is getting in the way of a scholar’s efforts and possibly also muddying Mr. Wale's ultimate objectives.

The object of an encyclopedia, if we must be reminded, is to disseminate accurate information of relevance to presupposed interested parties, be they the public or any specialized subsection thereof (academics, politicians, government officials, what have you). In the present instance we have several significant contributions from a theorist in as many separate fields. Before we go further down this path, please consider how many others of whom the same might be said. How many in any encyclopedia have accomplished so much? And you deem this present author as other than notable? You could best begin by explaining yourselves with far greater credibility.

Let's get straight a piece of relevant logic. The credibility of an encyclopedic entry has little if any relation to the number of degrees or journal articles of the writer, but instead and primarily of the presence and quality of references and citations. But more even than those (which of course are not unimportant!) the evidence of your own lights. The entry under Charles S. Herrman is not so recondite that intelligent folks can't reasonably follow along. It isn't so offbeat or off-putting that a scholar or academic can't appreciate wherein the content is novel, worthwhile or otherwise. The only tag raised on the page that made any superficial sense was thus the request for an expert in the area. But a question: Why was that necessary? Its relevance lies not as to whether the content or source is 'notable' but whether it is itself a significant contribution in the relevant field of scholarly study. We know from experience that intelligent people once introduced to Mr. Herrman's numerous contributions have no trouble understanding that these contributions are weighty, regardless whether others have partially contributed to their existence (where Mr. Herrman has been accountable and transparent, to the point of defending ‘hard’ academic scholars against the publicity-seeking ‘soft’ scholars in which category he places himself, with the implication that soft scholars have a higher level of stewardship duty).

For you to challenge the authority of Mr. Herrman as if he could not possibly have significant material of interest to millions of good people, indicates less a dearth of sources than a dearth of responsible intelligence. But then, we live in a society where few accept the slightest accountability for assessing anything but self-interest. We have come to expect outside authorities to warrant all facts and settle all disputes, so that whatever finally crosses our transom shall never require the slightest lifting of a finger of our mental muscle. We have enough effort only to reach for the rubber stamp. Just to be completely hypocritical, we proceed to take all or most of the credit! Is it really up to Charles Herrman to cough up all of your desired justifications? Not less than half of what you are actually requiring (aside from or included in actual requests) should have come from inside your own minds had you but understood your true responsibilities. If you can’t come to the conclusion a commoner can attain to, what are you doing there apart from mending the tightness of the barbed wire in a mental prison-house?

People go to war over considerations upon the existence of God. We manage somehow not to fault folks for failing to adduce an authority acceptable to Wikipedia editors, and yet billions upon billions of people use their own lights to decide on these matters, never mind the godly foresight of Wikipedians. You have reduced me to a schoolmarm, at which I am uncomfortable because I am unaccustomed to treating adults as children. The Enlightenment found Kant shouting Sapere Aude! = dare to know. He might have added, ‘dare to challenge authority predicated upon your own lights’, and finally, this: ‘determine its validity likewise’. Reread that last part for good measure. The reason we are still in need of this lesson (oh, geez, the general idea was mentioned in the Charles S. Herrman article – for shame!) is that at present we are living as slaves to credentials of dubious validity and still we have yet to appreciate the elements for determining true authority in a truly respectful manner. You Wikipedians have a few things to learn, and you should start forthwith by rereading and rereading again Mr. Herrman!!

When Catherin Drinker Bowen wrote her biography of Franklin she titled it "The Most Dangerous Man in America." Perhaps we might say the same of Mr. Herrman. Because he is an independent scholar making the majority of academics look a tad brittle by comparison, he is truly a dangerous person who doubtless should be executed for his impudence at examining, explicating and disseminating truths others can hardly dream of without a whole lot of professional assistance. Mr. Herrman is a dangerous human being because he spotlights the failure of human beings to hold themselves accountable, individually or collectively. He has single-handedly created the undercarriage of much of the political science of offices and office-holding, and of the entirety of stewardship studies, to say nothing of the concepts of authority, prerogative, and the legal issues bearing upon each of these. Yes, others have addressed aspects of field, as for example Weber and recently Sennet. Only Herrman has tied them all together with intercalated principles and then demonstrated their practical applicability. And we are only just warming up! So for all that these anonymous editors refuse to countenance, we are graced with seven tags itemizing faults made to appear as if God's holy sanctimony were violated.

After a year in which the page was peaceably accepted, two Wikipedians, perhaps spurred by an outside source, failed to so much as consider the precedent established by thirty or more others having added to the page without complaint. One, as recently as December of 2010, at a time when the page was essentially complete, added over ten minor but necessary and helpful additions without once challenging anything, without asserting any god-given right to crusade against dangerous geniuses amongst us. In law this is all dealt with by precedent. Bear in mind that many an expert has surely passed over the Charles S. Herrman page, apparently without feeling any need to challenge it. Furthermore, there are a number of related technical sites that refer back to this one, and again, we can scarcely suppose no professionals or experts having been made aware, all without apparent challenge. Precedent speaks volumes as a modality of assent, credible even in its silence. For editors in a public forum such as Wikipedia to ignore that as if baseless is just not a credible claim. One naturally wonders if these editors fathom how perfectly awful this looks to many of sound judgment, who may well see a vendetta of unseemly proportion

Then an additional tag was placed atop the Biography section, declaring the absence of any sources or references. In point of fact, they were absent only because a moralizing loose cannon elected to remove them all himself! The rationale given was that the personal website to which they originally pointed could not be accepted as genuine (in the sense of authoritative). The first tag to be removed was apparently the one referencing Mr. Herrman's recommendation by Professor Hartshorne. Now here is a little fact that will shed much light on the process as a whole. That reference was to a digital image of a signed document, on the professor's personal stationary. It did not dawn on anyone that such a source is valid regardless where it is stationed (i.e. which server for whichever site – naturally the original is available to anyone who wishes to check it out). Furthermore, that personal website was employed not merely for convenience (though it was and remains that) but because it was in concordance with Wikipedia rules! What it did ultimately do, however, was to correctly suggest the identity of self and shadow, of Herrman and Mr. Mann (the translation from the German of the proper noun). Perhaps our high-minded encyclopedists are more concerned to fine-tune rules and exemplify them emblematically in test-cases than to assist scholars in properly utilizing a public forum by which to make them available to the broadest audience.

Here is the nub, in brief: A remarkable thinker considered as such by "the world's greatest living metaphysician" (Britannica, 15th ed.) is impliedly dangerous because symbolizing a failure to dutifully conform to practices that, however well-intentioned, are anachronistic in areas of significance. The requirement that we Google a scholar for peer-reviewed articles is the truest example of blind and thoughtless conformity such as Christ alluded to in the parable of the fisherman's request to attend his father's funeral. Herrman’s work is so astounding that a person of average lights can comprehend the significance of it never mind any expectable ignorance of the professional literature.

It was claimed that VDM is a vanity publisher. It is not. What is valid is the claim of an absence of peer review, economics governing the end result. The publisher was asked by Herrman to republish at a lower price especially for the American market. They are apparently as stubborn as certain Wikipedia editors. As for their imprint AlphaScript, these are titles taken from Wikipedia and are accordingly as credible as the source they have in common. Perhaps the editors are unaware of the Wikipedian copyright policy…perhaps they would argue that, rule or no, the practice is illegitimate. Fine, but while making your point, please be aware that others can make similar claims, somewhat after the fashion of these very remarks.

It was claimed that SSRN (Social Sciences Research Network) does not peer review. Again, correct. But what is the issue of such a complaint? The fact is this: solid authors, even of top-rated articles, cite SSRN working papers within their peer-reviewed publish articles. No, not always, of course, but sufficient that the blatant implication surrounding the claim is simply not valid. Mr. Herrman has been asked by experts requesting he send articles because the download from the site failed. He was asked permission from a major law publisher in India for reprint permission on a major SSRN piece (“Common Denominators in White Collar Crime”). He has received a compliment from a Ph.D. student asking him to finish the series on “Fundamentals of Methodology” because the first three had been so helpful, and that he wished the set would make for a text that he would be the first to purchase. Now seriously, must we record or digitize such comments in order to offer evidence for what an average intellect ought to comprehend with a small amount of effort? What is your problem? You are trying to impugn a notable scholar and theorist. How, pray tell, does that jibe with the stewardship of your office(s)?

Here is what should be demanded of the editorial staff at Wikipedia. The Charles S. Herrman page deserves 'protection' from future marauders. It deserves to be updated in its rating and deserves a very high rating indeed. An advocate for Mr. Herrman has wished it be known that the Charles S. Herrman page is the most impressive anywhere on Wikipedia! Surely there are others of like opinion. This page deserves to be given notable status if only to demonstrate that competent scholarship need not presuppose formal education or publishing, and certainly does not deserve what clearly is a vendetta. If it be true that Mr. Herrman has breached ethical norms, how about showing your hand and delivering the evidence? No evidence as to content has appeared; we have been treated to some Wikipedia norms that certainly seem solid when flowing from the lips, but a philosopher goes deeper and brings reservations to bear.

Salad

It is Mr. Herrman’s understanding that the founder of Wikipedia valued knowledge for its own sake, for its content, more than its source. Yes, sources require to be present as necessary or as reason may dictate. But in an open source medium where all add credibility to a page, how does that square with enforcing so much from the major contributors? I venture to say most errors and issues are the work of minor contributors, at least in my experience. If Mr. Wales values broadly informed input, I should think he can hardly ignore the logic of broadly credentialed major contributors. By that we obviously include independent scholars or the merest of ‘experts’ who bring credentials of a slightly different sort, and where, like any article, the readership bears a large responsibility for acknowledgment of quality or the lack thereof. Should he disagree, I certainly would enjoy hearing from him. In fact, here is a challenge. Show him these remarks side by side the complaints. Let the Emperor speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr man1951 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone has a TL;DR moment and missed it, a key quote from the above: "So you required a full year to discover the obvious. Congratulations. Great job one and all. Yes, your suspicion is correct, Mr. Man 1951 IS Charles S. Herrman." Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that I wasn't clear about the concepts used. Spam refers to content that endorses or advertises a certain product, work or individual. Original Research means that most or all of the content was researched by the contributor, instead of being a work that has been reviewed by reliable, independent sources. That is the reason most of the references cannot be used, since they are used to support the content of such original research. Copyvio is short for copyright violation, and it used to say that the content's licensing status may not be in compliance with Wikipedia's criteria. The concern about it was raised because of the images used in the article, and I will add that it may apply to the text as well if it has been published in this form elsewhere. Finally, the comments about no news, no books, no scholar meant that there were none or very few results from Google's News, Books, and Scholar services, and that weighs in the matter of whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards - frankie^MR (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - User Istheleftright is probably a sockpuppet of Mr man1951. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we may have to look at all the contributions across Wikipedia from User:Mr man1951 and User:Istheleftright and verify the contributions are appropriate. It might also be wise to search for all articles using VDM Publishing or Social Science Research Network as sources. Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dusty shelf claims the authority to release copyright on some of the images in the article and so may also be affiliated with the subject. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment — While you are all evidently concerned with scheming the removal of an irritant, you might ask yourself how all of this might appear to Mr. Wales were he to pay a visit here. And BTW you apparently know no more of my sockdolager (not really a sockpuppet) than you know of me, and for the same reasons. Since you argue that I haven't the qualification of a scholar, you could at least come to the table with clean hands. One does that not by acting like ingrates, but by doing your jobs. Your immediate concern should rather be to work with us to find a desirable outcome. Because of your obstructionist and high-handed manners and your apparent incapacity to acknowledge where you have been deficient (by comparison observe my recent intent to forward transparency), this is the last you will hear from me until or unless you demonstrate that you are here as much to resolve an honest controversy rather than to exercise your testosterone production. You might - what a concept! - try to address some of the issues I raised above. I don't mean to foment discord, but to remind you that your conduct leaves much to be desired and had best be modified if you expect to claim the moral high ground here.Mr man1951 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be quite helpful if you were to give us a list of all the accounts you use to edit Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I started a Sockpuppetry investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_man1951, and the conclusion is that in fact they are the same, however the other accounts I provided that were probably sockpuppets and some IPs don't show conclusive proofs. BTW I can't understand a word he says, it seems to have no cohesion at all. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Aside from the merits of the particular article, it is interesting to see criticism of how the Wikipedia processes appear to relatively new contributors. We do use a lot of short-hand jargon here, and the processes are rough and ready. Perhaps this material would be better off in Wikibooks. Wikipedia has to rely on "notability" in the sense of multiple independent sources, precisely because we have no "editorial board" - we have to borrow editorial discretion from others, so we're severely limited on what we can report on here. For example, I have no knowledge of current leading edge mathematics, physics, or philosophy - but I can look at citations and verify they are relevant to the point that they support. Analyzing the contributor accounts is beside the point; the article went to AfD on its contents and paucity of reliable sources. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep ~ "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." And, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" ... In my humble opinion, Charles S. Herrman is worthy of an article in its own right. Did you guys read the whole article? I edited it a few months ago, but I had forgotten how "big" this article is. Yes, certainly there is much work still to be done, but I think and hope that we all together will make this article a good article, and fully compliant with Wikipedia. Happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator - But why is this particular person considered notable enough for an article? Wikipedia:Notability (academics) seems pertinent. We are given 9 criteria there, basically showing how the general notability guideline would be met by showing influence on the field, awards, positions held, and citations to publications. None of that is evident so far. Maybe the article should be userfied? The article also needs to be refactored to segregate the biographical information (which is what this article should be about) from the subject matter of his work; but that can be done after AfD finishes, if still necessary. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Those reliable, independent sources that feature the subject are precisely what we are missing in order to assess its notability, which is the main issue concerning the deletion. Also note that it isn't the same an article about Mr. Herrman than an article about the subject that he works on. Both are plausible as long as the content is verifiable and notable as per reliable sources. After that the content must comply to other considerations (such as no spam, no original research, neutrality), but those are normally resolved through cleanup and discussion at the article's talk page - frankie^MR (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. This case has almost every warning flag there is: article full of WP:OR, no WP:RS (only numerous unpublished white-papers), COI (WP:SPA-created by Istheleftright – likely vanity), WP:CRYSTAL ("Herrman has had three sizeable unpublished manuscripts on number theory circulating for some time now amongst a circle of friends and readers/editors. As he makes it ready for a broader audience (before 2011) we will report of it here"), WP:COATRACK (most of the art is on his metaphysics), AfD socking, legal threats, prolix wikilawyering, and on and on! But if we cut through all of that, the main problem is a glaring lack of notability. This reminds me a little of 2 other recent cases (here and here) in that the article paints the subject as an intellectual whose great achievements have not yet been recognized by the mainstream, i.e. he has numerous intellectual works, but they're all in the form of unpublished essays. I agree that the problem isn't so much that he doesn't have academic credentials or a formal position. The problem is that there are no legitimate works that demonstrate notability: no publications, so not citations; no independent articles about him, etc. To some of the commentators above, I emphasize that, because his entire scholarship appears to be unpublished (e.g. 0 WoS hits), he is not recognized as an authority on any of these subjects by other people, even though he clearly views himself as such. Even GS, which slurps in lots of unpublished material shows nothing! I can only gather that any citations discussed above are self-citations that even GS seems to be unaware of. This is the crux of the notability problem. His only claim seems to be on a short letter of introduction written by Charles Hartshorne when the latter was apparently 100 years old (available here), but this ephemeral piece is far from sufficient. I'm sorry to say that this is an absolutely uncontroversial "delete". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
• Delete per nom and Agricola44. Also, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 22:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

(Moved here from my talk page -Guy)

Re Charles S. Herrman removal: You have now identified both identities, i.e., Dusty Shelf and Mr. Man 1951. BTW it appears that the language and attitude are improving, for which I offer my thanks. Pass it on...Mr man1951 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be sure, those are the only two identities? Istheleftright is not one of your identities? And you haven't been using IP address identities (in other words editing without logging in)? Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Again I am deleting my comment due to my misunderstanding of the material here. Hope that is OK.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just some very friendly and well-intentioned advice. Additional threats of this kind are certain to get you blocked. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

That's twice that you have made a legal threat. Making legal threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. It addition, you revealed personal information about another editor (which I removed and deleted from the page history). Revealing personal information about other editors is also strictly prohibited, and editors who reveal personal information about another editor may be blocked. You might also want to ask Charles S. Herrman whether he approves of your WikiBullying on his behalf. Most academics do not tolerate such behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment −I do have to admit to chafing under circumstances in which ignorance, ‘attitude’ and/or agenda stand in judgment of my work. Let me simply address most of my issues with a single item, a single piece of reality-testing exemplified in the following excerpt (to be cited momentarily):

Although some quantitative measures of evaluation may be employed, excellence in performance is of primary importance; that is, the quality, significance, and impact of accomplishments are of greater importance than their number. In addition to meritorious accomplishments, a high potential for continued excellence is required for promotion….

First, a lesson in methodological analysis: “quality, significance and impact” in fact denote a cascading series, a graded transition from what is internal and conceptual, to what is external and empirical. Or, to be still more forward, they translate from one end or kind of notability to another polarity of the same. You all are trying to gauge my work strictly on the notability dictated by established impact. I have been arguing that notability stemming from quality (and which an intelligent person - without ‘attitude’ or agenda - will usually discern) must also enter into the equation. Based on the excerpt, I suggest that I have the better of this argument. Note also the remarks above of Pjoef, the same progression.

The middle term, ‘significance’, straddles the two, and in analytical work must be taken as two distinct, if closely related concepts. It is this awareness and the ability to apply it so as to develop understandings not before observed that makes such work special both in quality and in both aspects of significance. I happen to be the stoop who has done the most to develop this methodological theory, to ground and apply it. It is substantially the reason why I, and not you, make varied contributions to knowledge (in case you care to know the unpleasant reality).

This is also a good example of two additional analytic points (truisms, actually). The first is that true metaphysics requires a four-part logic and that the three-part syllogistic logic is an empirical reduction of the deeper metaphysical. Syllogisms are actually four-part whether Puritanical conformist types wish to assent or not. Second, it is another of countless examples to demonstrate a deep truth, namely, that careful thinkers think paradigmatically. But that is way beyond your pay grade, I fear. But of sufficient “significance”, nonetheless, to be in the Charles S. Herrman page…

The excerpt comes to us care of the 1991 University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure. It is the approved recipe for establishing tenure deservedness. So let’s take the upshot as it pertains to the Agricola-type ingrate sitting in judgment of their intellectual superiors. We see, first, that as significance can describe a potential of quality such as to impress both thought and ultimately empirical elements, the other aspect describes one of the reasons enabling a finding or achievement to progress to point of impact. It is the lead consideration in the last part of the excerpt where we are enabled to predict future achievements predicated on prior. The progress of my work through forty years is a nice exemplification of that.

Independent scholars suffer at the hands of conformist ingrates who cannot comprehend the value of what they read or who have an agenda against independent scholarship. At any rate, that needs to change, and Wikipedia could be the ideal place for inroads to develop. There is simply no reason why an “independent scholar” status cannot be developed and implemented for Wikipedia entries. It would not radically alter notability requirements, for obvious reasons, again the Wiki policy above offered by Pjoef. And then, we can always cite the example of Einstein when told his work would require to be peer reviewed. Talk about an unhappy camper. And despite the errors in that paper, it was his repute and no one else’s that properly lain at risk. The academic press has the requirement simply to keep out ingrates, those who believe that their earned degrees or levels of professorship qualify them rather than evident contributions, where by ‘evident’ we do not mean to restrict notability so narrowly. It is time to see change. I and others like me are that change. We are the future, like it or not.Mr man1951 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• You continue to push the "bias against independent scholars" angle, but we all already recognize that as a red herring. The real problem is utter lack of demonstrable notability. You're right, we do not take "notability" in the sense you want, i.e. what is little more than a self-proclamation of "quality". We instead take it in its conventional (and WP policy-based) sense: "notability" means "having been noted" by others. Moreover, this is not a borderline case where the question is whether the subject has been noted enough. Here, there clearly has been no noting whatsoever! Not even by GS! I'm sorry to be so frank, but the problem, recognizable to anyone familiar with the workings of the academic/intellectual enterprise, is that all of these scholarly papers listed in the bibliography have never seen the light of day in publication form, so they've never been examined, scrutinized, or noted by anyone else. I'll not venture to speculate why. What matters simply is that WP policy is very clear on the point of notability, and this article conclusively fails all the notability tests we might apply. You may continue to call me an ingrate, or whatever other names you wish. But statements like "The academic press has the requirement simply to keep out ingrates" do nothing more than give the perception of being an angry poser. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

• delete. No independent verification of notability of this person. All references are either from his or to support the statements whic are not directly related to him. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry Comment I believe that we have now resolved all sockpuppet issues (I thank Mr man1951 and istheleftright/for their candor) and now know who is who. I see no deliberate attempt to game the system, just some new users who don't know the rules. I suggest that we no longer discuss sockpuppetry here (talk about it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr man1951 instead) and and instead focus upon notability. Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, someone who actually came back and admitted a truth lol. Thanks Guy Macon for seeing we are not the same two people.

• Comment Mr man1951, please click on the following links: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Study them well Those are the policies we follow. You following those policies is the only way you can possibly win this fight. Bloviating about how Jimbo Wales would allegedly support you will get you nowhere. Jimbo Wales has absolute power to change those Wikipedia Policies, and again and again he has supported them - in many cases he invented them. So your assertion that somehow Jimbo Wales would approve of your not following the policies I just listed is factually incorrect. Likewise, your assertion that we have something against you is incorrect. Why would I have anything against you? I don't know you and my interests are in the area of engineering. Please consider the possibility that you are wrong and that I and others are just following Wikipedia policies. Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment I made now deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete + Comment (Delete added after original comment). fails WP:NOR, WP:NOTWEBSPACE, WP:SELFPUB, WP:N, among others.

Also, the following pages that redirect to Charles S. Herrman should probably also be included in this AfD: Mildly Mad^T_C 20:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Exposure Theory
  • Belief-Reliance Systems and Belief-Reliance System
  • Archetypal hierarchies
  • Fourthness
  • Trait-Based Nosology
  • Cultural Typology
  • Honor-Dignity Typology
  • Paradigmatics

If the result of the AfD is to delete, I will place speedy deletion notices on those pages under rationale "G8: Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page." and they will be nuked within hours. Unless, of course, Wtshymanski‎ wants to do it; IIRC he is keeping a running total of how many pages he nominates vs. successfully deletes, and this would improve his stats - deleting articles is easy and fun! If the result of the AfD is to keep, that means you accidentally logged in to Encyclopedia Dramatica ("Wikipedia's Evil Twin") instead of Wikipedia. <grin> Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm not too familiar with AfD, apparently I need to have more faith in the process :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 03:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you want Wtshymanksi to delete a page

Wtshymanksi cannot delete a page. He isn't an admin. He can nominate pagees for deletion just like anyone else.Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

because it will improve his stats and because deleting is FUN?

Yup. In the scenario I described somebody is going to nominate those redirects to nothing for deletion. Might as well be Wtshymanksi - he thinks it's fun, I think it's boring clerical work.Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted another comment per talk with Guy Macon.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is only clear to you, and only because you refuse to read the pages describing the policies you are violating. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true. If you had bothered to read the guidelines you would know that speedy deletes are not done for notability issues. If you had bothered to pay attention you would have caught on to the fact that I described deleting redirects that have no page to redirect to. Coming here with a chip on your shoulder and picking a fight is bad enough, but at least get your facts straight. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have (or desire) the power to delete a Wikipedia page Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again you exhibit willful ignorance and a deep unwillingness to learn how Wikipedia works. The history tab has a complete record of everything ever written. I couldn't delete it if I wanted to. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Not properly sourced. Not in appropriate style. No evidence of notability. Little evidence of intelligibility... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not an admin. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort, and all contributors can comment in deletions discussions, as elsewhere. Secondly, I note that the article suggests that Hermann "places language in the ‘bio-social’ category, mooring it to the realm of tool use". Language (in this case, written language) is supposedly being used as a tool for communication. Is it not possible that the fact that I find it unintelligible might be an indication of the inappropriate use of said tools? Though I'm not sure I'm educated to a higher standard then others in this discussion, I'm sure I'm educated to a higher standard than the majority of Wikipedia readers, and as such am qualified to at least offer an opinion on the appropriateness of such incomprehensibility. This is an encyclopaedia, not a learned philosophical journal, and it is up to us, as contributors, to write in a way that can be understood by those who are likely to be reading our articles. This is why we are here. This isn't supposed to be an exercise in vanity publishing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "The hypocrisy of admins on this page is amazing", stop engaging in personal attacks or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been warned (and the people you are complaining about are not admins).Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment– To whom it concerns, "bio-social" is that category of activity in which a biologically sourced and driven act is evoltutionarily devised to effectuate changes in the social network. Nothing too untoward or difficult here, is there? Speech, according to Searle, is a "speech act" (a position I also favor), meaning the kind of act referred to here. But I seriously doubt that Searle was brought up in that context since there was no need for it, the comment stood on its own two feet. Don't frankly comprehend your statement that the material is unintelligible. It is not See Jane run, true enough. Real philosophy is not too simple, especially metaphysically grounded such as office and stewardship later on in the article.

As for Istheleftright utilizing Wikibullying. That rather reads to me the antics of those having exercised that very conduct that is then attributed to others upon the slightest provocation. Let's be clear at least morally if not entirely in regard of rules: in acting as you have you have in jural terms somewhat lost the right to be protected from the same. Most folks grasp that simply by the process of living life. Where did you lose out on that lesson? Most honest folk reading these exchanges must surely wonder how you can complain at anybody's anger after what you have wantonly perpetrated on your intellectual superior(s). You are a sorry bunch IMO. And I am sorry to feel it necessary to so say. Very sorry indeed.Mr man1951 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just remember: on Wikipedia, there is no cabal, it's just a figment of your imagination :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 03:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr man1951, shame on you. Defending a WikiBully who attempts to intimidate other editors with legal threats is contemptible, especially when your only justification is "two wrongs make a right." BTW, you are NOT my intellectual superior. Not even close. Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr man1951, If your only response to a suggestion that you cannot communicate is to provide a further demonstration of the same, I feel sorry for you. And if you really think that communication is something you do 'at' people, rather than 'with' them, I'd also question your claims to intellectual superiority. In any case, none of this is of the slightest significance here, as even (as unlikely as it seems) were your theories to be later shown to have been of merit, we cannot take notice of them until they receive recognition by outsiders other than vanity publishers who will willingly print any old nonsense in exchange for cash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Something that I think needs to be emphasized is that Wikipedia editors are not judging "the work", at most we are judging "does this article conform to the policies and guidelines for a Wikipedia article?" We don't (absolutely) rely on editor's technical judgment or knowledge, we rely on citations to assure that what is in an article is verifiable, in the sense that other people have written about the topic in certain qualified forms. I'm certainly not educated in philosophy, but I can recognize when an article has no sources and when a search using the tools I have available doesn't turn up anyone else discussing the subject matter. Hits on Google Books don't guarantee notability (in the special Wikipedia sense) but make it a lot easier for our self-selected editors to validate that the source exists. The only reason I stumbled upon this article in the first place was that I was following up the sources listed in User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources. After tracking down al the references to absoluteastronomy.com and removing those places where this site had been used as a reference, I started looking at the VDM imprints and articles that used those publications as their only sources. Although not listed in that user essay, I think the SSRN site also appears to lack peer review and editorial controls sufficient to make it reliable in the Wikipedia sense; unless SSRN is being used as an archive to access papers that have subsequently been published in peer-reviewed or editorially-controlled publications, I think it's dubious to use SSRN pre-prints as the sole source for facts in Wikipedia. A Wikipedia AfD is not supposed to be a seminar on the worthiness of a field of human endeavor, it's a collection of scribbled notes between editors deciding if a particular 3 x 5 card belongs in the card catalog or not. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment − I would point out a difficulty in the Wiki concept of ‘notability’. While it is evident that every care has been taken to acknowledge the relevance of kinds of topicality on notability, the general (or core) concepts do not entirely agree with the spirit of certain specific topic areas. Under Notability qua notability we find that: “Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.” The initial criterion for the notability in the specific category of people has been mentioned above by Pjoef, and details what I have also remarked 'on: “The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.”
  

Now let’s notice something about the second element in each of these, where ‘famous’ and ‘popular’ are mentioned. These both refer to external verification no less than for academics, the only distinction being the kind of such third-party notice. A point not to be lost here is that in these two examples a composite of worth and verification coexist that we observe in few other areas, and assuredly not the category of academics. We note as well that whereas not all categories have the worthiness criteria, they all have verification criteria that flatly contradict the fact and spirit of the worthiness content.

None of this is calculated, I am afraid to say, to make for a happy day at the logic factory. It needs clarification so badly as to invite errors and false interpretations such as we have been observing throughout the exchanges on this talk page. I would explain all of the facets of the logic and what can be done to get around the problematic here, but perhaps we should first allow the experts to explain themselves and how it is they feel they can pick and choose whatever locution they prefer while ignoring the criteria under which Herrman’s work might easily qualify. They might explain, for example, why we don’t speak of the notability of Einstein when it isn’t the physicist, for example, and why it is that we might treat physics differently than, say, poetry or music or art. The latter are sub-categories of content and are actually what define the topicality of the individual practicing said content. Why can Wiki rules detail worthiness for some sub-content but not others? Why does the core principle appear to entirely erase the merit of worthiness as a criterion?Mr man1951 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

All of which is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. If you wish to propose a revision to established Wikipedia policy regarding notability, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

All of which is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. If you wish to propose a revision to established Wikipedia policy regarding notability, this isn't the place to do it. Were we arguing the merits of equal opportunity prior to Brown, the Court would tell us that our best legal minds were “of no relevance whatsoever…if you wish to propose a revision to established law regarding rights, try a legislature.” Were we arguing the merits of political opportunity since Citizens United, the Court would tell us that our best legal minds have become “of no relevance whatsoever…if you wish to propose a revision to established law regarding rights, try impeaching a few of us or pass a constitutional amendment.”

We began, and recently returned - not a few with and without legal knowledge might conclude - to the latitudes of the legal Middle Ages, and it would appear that the same process is at work right here, to which, Congratulations. And as to my history lesson, you can doubtless complain that it smacks of opinion rather than fact, and that the principle of neutrality forbids we allow such a travesty bearing upon what many good folk might well conclude to be a dearth of sensitivity, intelligence and ethical wherewithal, to which, again, Congratulations.Mr man1951 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law. Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and standards, arrived at largely by the consensus of its contributors. If you wish to contribute, you will be expected to adhere to such policies and standards. You are of course also entitled to argue that such policies should be changed,though this isn't an appropriate place to do so. Either accept the way we work, and comply, or chose not to contribute. Unless you have anything further to add regarding the notability of Herrman according to Wikipedia's criteria, I suggest you stop wasting your time on this matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me expand upon the above.

Re: "You are of course also entitled to argue that such policies should be changed,though this isn't an appropriate place to do so.", Be aware that even if you convinced everyone here that wouldn't change the policy. You truly are wasting your time arguing that the policy is wrong here.

Re: "Either accept the way we work, and comply, or chose not to contribute", I would add that in the case of your recent personal attacks against other editors, either comply with the policy or you will be banned from editing Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment– Thank you for that clarification and expansion Andy. Again, please recognize that I am not Mr. Herrman, rather the guy who pointed him to Wikipedia in the first place, and the guy who is defending him and his enormous work as best as I can. While I may have flown off the handle here a few times, it is not something that I wish you or anyone else here to take personally. I am naturally defending a friend and compatriot here, and wish to see that the work and time he spent on this page be defended with all dispatch. You all have made it clear enough now your arguments or policies. I have of course chimed in with my interpretation of what was done here with my comments. As a side note toward those rigorously defended policies you have stated many times here, he was accused of many things, and not once has anyone apologized to him for those baseless accusations which are or should be violations of policies as well. And this just inflames me to no end here. You all act as if when someone of my standing comes in and says something illegal or wrong or in violation of policy, but when you all do worse, no one can say or do anything about it. Anyway, I have pretty much said all I can say.Istheleftright (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your assumption that I have confused the two of you. I am the person who posted the research about the IP addresses each of you used (See [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr man1951] strongly suggesting no deliberate sockpuppetry (just my opinion, not an official ruling), but both of you did by your own admission post under multiple identities.

BOTH of you have engaged in personal attacks. See the warnings posted on [User talk:Istheleftright] and [User talk:Mr man1951]. In addition, you have made legal threats and posted personal information about another editor. There is a very good chance that one or both of you will end up banned from Wikipedia for this behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted another comment.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate. Suspected, not accused, and it still has not been established one way or another that this isn't a hoax. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

deleted another comment.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You were accused of sockpuppetry which was later refuted.

Factually inaccurate. Suspected, not accused. I am the one who posted the evidence strongly suggesting no deliberate sockpuppetry (just my opinion, not an official ruling), but both of you did by your own admission post under multiple identities. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment deleted.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You were then accused of copyright violations, which was also refuted.

Factually inaccurate. Suspected, not accused. I am the one who posted the suspicion. We still lack clear copyright permission, and the copyright question will be revisited if the page does not end up deleted for other reasons. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your notability is what they stake most of their arguments on, and even if you could get beyond that issue, you will be deleted over poor sourcing and or references.

True. Which is why you should focus on notability instead of accusations that are Factually inaccurate Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And still another goneIstheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

The "stats" you mention are (were) simply a count he keeps on his talk page. You are reading way too much into an innocent comment, and are assuming bad faith. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Gone..Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Check your user page for warnings based upon the above personal attack. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The hoax, sockpuppetry, copyvio investigation are not untrue or refuted, they are still going on. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Mr. Herrman's work here is a substantial, positive contribution to the Wikipedia in keeping with the spirit of its mission and principles. The primary topics addressed in the article are surely notable. Those with serious interest in the primary topics addressed in this article would feel strange disputing their notability or significance. (I don't see that this in dispute; perhaps I've missed or misread some of the discussion). As for Mr. Herrman's own "notability" status I think he qualifies based on this criterion: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." (He seems notable enough among the 1100 or so scholars who have downloaded his work from SSRN, where he is among the top 10 most popular authors.)

I'm sure almost any article can be improved, especially one this large and complex. It might be better organized. Maybe the material belongs in more than one article. Perhaps the parties in this discussion would be interested in letting the (properly) vaunted Wiki collaborative improvement process address their concerns. Looking through the history of revisions to this articles I do not see any challenges at all to specific content begging for citations or references. All I can see is that editors have visited before and made minor format improvements. Trying to improve the article would be preferable to the role of censor (at least permitting others to attempt to improve the article, for those of you who are too skeptical or disinterested to participate further in the process).

Although I have used Wikipedia for many years I have not had occasion before now to become familiar with the article vetting process. I delayed weighing in on the current dispute until I had time to review Wikipedia's mission, principles, policies and guidelines (all that have been raised in this discussion). I grant that the proponents of this article's deletion sincerely feel that strict interpretation of the guidelines protects everyone's common interest in guarding the general worthiness and quality of the Wikipedia. Yet this seems a case which should be considered under one of Wikipedia five pillars, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules...the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule". When researching the reason (and in some cases the historical events) behind the guidelines I found nothing that would lead me to believe they should be applied in this case. (No "tin foil hat" material here. No conspiracy theories. No one claiming to have received personal messages from God. No venom directed at the hated Others.) The overall high quality of the material presented and its importance in several fields of human endeavor put it firmly within Wikipedia's purview. If it has defects which need addressing then those interested (including myself!) should address them in the collaborative process (assuming we are permitted to do so). Jcasey23 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— Jcasey23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"He seems notable enough among the 1100 or so scholars who have downloaded his work from SSRN, where he is among the top 10 most popular authors." You sure about that? A search on SSRN reveals that Herrman's most popular paper has been downloaded a total of 117 times, while the most popular papers there have been downloaded well over 5,000 times. Mildly Mad^T_C 23:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My apology for the typo in my comment, regarding the SSRN ranking. That should have been written something like "where he is in the top 10 percent of the authors with the most downloads." Jcasey23 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That figure should have been stated as a percent. Top left of every author page on SSRN there is a ranking. On the search page there is the parent figure for the number of current writers on board. The division results in the percentage. My percent is ca. 8% of the cumulative total (16 years of SSRN postings).Mr man1951 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no clause in WP:Prof that indicates that downloads contribute to notability. Downloads are easily gamed. Only citations contribute. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

The 'percentage' you cite is meaningless. You cannot divide a ranking based only on eligible contributors by a total based on all contributors. See here for how the ranking is derived. Also, citing yourself isn't much of an indication of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been a busy couple of days...have their been any actual comments about this article's merits buried in all the drama? It needs refactoring and reliable references, and the usual sources aren't turning up any helpful citations for the biography of Charles S. Herrman. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment and point of order − That page to SSRN to which we are referred [AndyTheGrump] not only does not explain how to compute a comparative ranking but does do something I am happy he has allowed us all to observe, as per this excerpt:

SSRN provides rankings based on a number of measures. These rankings are meant to complement other measures of an author’s scholarly impact.... SSRN’s rankings can inform your thinking about the popularity and scholarly influence of an author’s work. They provide valuable data not previously available.

Now it seems to me this makes matters fairly clear. These data are intended as a component of notability. Not going to be easy to challenge this interpretation... But hey, go for it. Mr man1951 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of establishing notability for Wikipedia the source has to be independent. Blog entries and letters to the editor? You can create those yourself. Papers on SSRN? No peer review, so you can get as many ppers on there as you wish. Non-peer-reviewed book? You can put as many of those on Amazon.com as you can afford. Downloads fron SSRN? You and your friends can download the same paper again and again.

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than you and your friends think you are notable? Nope. Not a shred. Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So what is all the grumbling about here? Mr. Herrman is quite notable, and in the very nature of what he is notable for, paradigmatics, he has already gotten a giant head start over everyone here. Not to toot his horn for him but when was the last time you all have bothered to do a looksee into the history of western culture, especially in its philosophic foundations (which underlies its subsequent scientific/mathematical ones, all of which were originally considered part and parcel of the self-same philosophic tradition, which is also still their constant guardian and reformer)? Yes Charles, it is me, the pupil of yours who ever-fails to control the structure of his sentences, both written and spoken, and who ever-exceeds you in eccentricity of expression wherever it happens to count against his written papers, yet has gotten A after A regardless, though often with your help. I write thusly to differentiate my writings from yours lest I awaken tomorrow with the odd feeling of being a sock.

Charles is a man who has earned quite a bit of respect from many whom I have witnessed first hand to be men who give respect not lightly at all, and this as far back as I have known him from back where I met him first, in Oklahoma City, my home town. I was constantly and still am constantly searching for the ultimate nature of reality (beyond the intimations of the obvious details we all commonly surmise with our astute five senses...), and in that process I have had to put up a sort of ever-evolving filter on my efforts so that my limited time and ability can wrest the most truth out of one lifetime for the greatest benefit, which happens to be an aesthetic benefit. In that process I spent many years reading voluminously in subjects most central to my interest, namely philosphy and psychology, religion, law, and economics. By Mr. Herrman's insistent persuasion I finally did finish four years of college with a 4.0, but didn't find the education that I received at UT to be worth nearly as much as the studies I had previously undertaken with Mr. Herrman personally, although the degree that formal studies at the university may endow one with would carry more weight when looking for a job. In the search for the beautiful and good truth that has been the actual philosophic tradition of the west since Socrates and some many before have shown it, I say in that grand and happy search that I have found no other man deserving of the notworthy and rarely applicable title "philosopher", either living or dead, if Mr. Herrman is not himself to be included in the top ten among them. But that perhaps should only be taken in the "light" in which it is best appreciated, which is my own light, the light of my own experience of the man and his work. I'll be damned if you can trot on his name and his work and say it is not noteworthy.

But my understanding of what makes Charles Herrman's work in philosophy "noteworthy" is not limited to my personal opinion. I did not make high marks in philosophy under some rather strict professors for four years at UT just flippantly offering my opinion, nor was my work unreadable to them, nor is Mr. Herrman's work (or other writing) "incoherent". Mr. Herrman's Paradigmatics fills a necessary and gaping void in so many areas besides pure philosophy precisely because it does so in philosophy itself. It is likely that after so many centuries of metaphysicians proclaiming all future philosophers' thoughts answering to their grand presentation of "how reality really is", that finally someone might actually make some progress in this particular area. It would not be unlikely that this area of progress in philosophy would be a very narrow road to walk, with very great ramifications if walked correctly. It would require a very exacting and detailed methodology. It would have to answer to all the history of philosophy, east and west, in a coherent manner. It would have to explain much within and beyond philosophy, to include why its own existence as the preferred method of explanation took so long to come about. It would also have to have some hard-hitting practical applications, immediately, both in the hard and softer sciences. Mr. Herrman's work does all of this and he has already made clear just how he has done this in many sources which were disconnected rather unethically from his entry to Wikipedia. This should be redressed.

Ranging from work in pure metaphysics and "metalogic", to ethics and aesthetics, Mr. Herrman has created a systematic way to present thoughts in these areas which are very difficult to present, not to mention within areas of thought which by their nature are extremely difficult to cogently understand and present at all. His work is a direct and unique, and VERY noteworthy contribution to these areas and not only did that distinguished Professor Hartshorne think so, so do I. My work in these areas is not yet made public, but I can guarantee you that in order to solve the "Problem of Evil" you will not be able to casually walk over Mr. Herrman's methodology for synthesizing a coherent presentation of many-faceted and complex relationships between unity and plurality, among other metaphysical principles, nor can you overstep his analysis of the primary physical expressions of power and their relationships to numericity and increasingly to certain constants which unfold those relationships in a way that points right back to metaphysical relationships already well developed in Mr. Herrman's system. It cannot be casually dismissed merely because it is not plastered over some arbitrary number of your favorite mainstream science or philosophy magazines, tucked away in this or that peer reviewed journal, or so forth. It is also not decided by whatever meets someone's criteria for "Gabriels Horn". While yes, if the APA suddenly came to their senses about what this man is doing and gave him the gavel long enough to hear him out and even interact with him instead of ignore him it would be a lot more like Gabriel tooting his horn to announce the arrival of the philosophic apocolypse (and that might be appropriate), but that is not required, and often truth steals its way into the world more like a theif in the night. The point is that this matter is not fundamentally decided by recognition from others who often are too caught up in their own perilous relationship to academic success to be bothered with recognizing "another" genius working right next door to them in the same field, much less possibly towering over them in his contributions. This has happened before in the history of many fields, and this would not be the first time an independent scholar has done great work and been relatively ignored by the mainstream. That challenge is a non-challenge.

Content decides the matter here, as well as his value to others, and if these have not been substantively challenged by anyone, and I don't see how those points have, then Mr. Herrman's Wikipedia entry concerning his work as a philosopher should remain to be properly edited by all those lights who have something worthwhile to illuminate concering those noteworthy contributions of his, and should otherwise be left alone by others except for whatever benign assistance they may have to offer as to protocols of proper presentation in the open source that is Wikipedia. I haven't seen any of that helpfulness here so far, and that is an indication of a spiteful, antagonistic spirit in the proceedings.Saltylemon (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltylemon (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Saltylemon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And once again, a newly-created account turns up here to tell us how 'notable' Herrman's work is, utterly ignoring the fact that we don't give a rats rear-end hoot about their opinion - Wikipedia establishes notability based on criteria which rely on published reliable sources - and for an article of this nature the criteria are clear enough. Unless Herrman's work has been published in properly peer-reviewed independent sources (and evidently it hasn't), he isn't 'notable' by the only criteria that matter - ours. Regardless of the number of 'keep' postings we get, policy trumps opinion - especially the opinions of multiple newly-created accounts all using remarkably similar language to tell us what a marvel Herrman is. This isn't a vote, and we couldn't override policy if we wanted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that Saltymon understands what I have elaborated above 'till blue in the face and without anybody bearing up to the reality of the implications, perhaps simply because they are afraid of those implications (certainly many academics are scared witless of Herrman and are happy to take him as a test-case against the desires of those loopy and clueless independent scholars). Both of us apparently understand, as others here do not or care not to, what Charles Hartshorne long ago said —

"One thing I've decided is that ordinary people always know when a philosopher is a great philoso¬pher. Ordinary people can sense this person is important. They always do that with every great person. If you asked them to explain just why, they'd have a terrible lime. That always happens. All the great people have been recognized. It is never clear what makes this person great but people know." (The Good Life, 1998, "Philosophy (at) 101")

The notability in Wikipedia guidelines that in several locations specify criteria of worthiness and significance, etc., are what we all are trying to beat home to folks here who praise themselves following rules but only those they deem worthy of their personal accommodation. The FACT REMAINS - get this through your noggins, one and all - the Wikipedia POLICY (does anybody know what that word means?) includes, mentions, cites, references, declares, notes, says (have we gone far enough for the slowpokes?) that these notability criteria are valid even if other criteria are acknowledged and more rigorous still.

NO ONE here has presumed to be a wanton lunatic. All we have requested is that the facts be honored, which decidedly that HAVE NOT BEEN. We argue simply that there should be a category for the 'Independent Scholar' and that it be provisional for a few years in order that third party verification can be offered and adduced. There is surely nothing wrong with that. To say that we can garner that while the page is torn down rather misses the point that proceeds all others. Were it not for the impossibility (nearly so) of gaining notoriety where academics maintain a monopoly on scholarly resources, there are no remaining routes for the rest of humanity with quality material to show to a broad public. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to be first and foremost to deal with the material that is worthy and significant and THEN worry, within prescribed guidelines, how to determine whether full notability will have been attained? To deny this is to deny the facts both of sensibility and reality, and that there are too many here willfully willing to do that does not say much for their humanity any more for their attention to facts to say nothing of their own stated guidelines. Whereat, I am frankly disgusted, as I have every reason and right to be.Mr man1951 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just the thing, though. The method Wikipedia uses for determining "material that is worthy and significant", is the notability criteria. You write, "We argue simply that there should be a category for the 'Independent Scholar' and that it be provisional for a few years in order that third party verification can be offered and adduced." However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion or showcasing, and Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Since these are your stated objectives, you should find another venue to post your material; GuyMacon posted a few good candidates. If you wish to try to get an "independent scholars" category in Wikipedia, you are free to propose it at Wikipedia Talk:Notability. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No sir. With all due respect, this is precisely where your assumption is wrong. Mildly Mad is correct. Essentially, the burden is upon the topic itself (person, thing, event, etc.) to be demonstrably notable before being allowable fodder for Wikipedia, not the other way around. You are clearly frustrated by what you perceive to be barriers excluding you from the academic enterprise and for that I'm very sorry. Be that as it may, WP is nothing more than an encyclopedia. It is decidedly not a means to publish research that its author feels has been unfairly kept out of mainstream academia, even if that author testifies as to its "high quality". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Fact (incontrovertible, dudes): Wikipedia has a dual tier of notability criteria confused by an overarching conception that ALL things should/must have third-party verifiability. DO NOT bother arguing with this unless you enjoy being called a moron. The problem is not so much with sincerety on either side of this divide (hopefully) but with the construction of very poorly delineated guidelines that invite confabulation and interpretations that serve specialized interests at the inadvertent (best case scenario) of others, myself included. Now either the blanket statement is intended to cover all bases or it isn't. If it is, then the statement above that the lower tier IS dependent on the other can be said, BUT NOT LOGICALLY. Logically, you CANNOT have a statement at top in categorical diagreement with a sub-statement. That doesn't fly in any textbook of logic I have ever seen or ever expect to see. Since I am the philosopher here, how about trying to take my word for it.

I am NOT trying to be an asshole. I am not trying to self-advertize. I am tgrying to get you folks to understand that it is in your best interests - in Wikipedia's best interest - to permit certain categories of material to enter into at the lower tier of notability (which is clearly stated as permissible) on condition that the canopy doctrine is held up as the myth -- which I define as an ideal rarely attained in reality. Yes, it can be interpreted in a negative manner as offering advetising space, but then again, isn't that common to everything here? At stake in what is worthy/significant, and by any lights that need not and usually does not deppend on a canopy regulation admitting only a higher tier of criteria.

It's a little like allowing slavery to be in the constitution 'till somebody like a Lincoln comes around. Only in this case it is yourselves who denigrate my work to the parallel with slavery. That's fine with me, each to his own. But either you tell your administrators to eliminate the lower criterion or use it intelligently. You cannot logically have it both. Further, what on earth is your real problem with an important thinker having noteworthy material on Wikipedia on a provisional basis? You cannot put forth a truly reasonable argument except the selfish one that we are special and want what we want and will selectively apply the rules to get what we want. But notice something here that could land you all in significant difficulties down the road. What you imply is a willingness to forgo existing guidelines (logically considered, admitting that the other is a possible if unlikely view) and permit the result of what? Of a monopoly of academic people here as already exists elsewhere. That may be comfortable enough for you, but what of others? What is it here you cannot or will not see? Nothing here hurts Wikipedia, it only can bruise some egos. Can't you forgo your egos long enough to allow others the same real rights to that lower tier threshold? Apparently not thus far. I hope that changes along the way.Mr man1951 (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You may not be trying to be an asshole - indeed, I don't think you are one. You are however being somewhat foolish in arguing here that Wikipedia should change its notability criteria. This cannot happen. Policy changes aren't arrived at in article deletion discussions. We cannot ignore policy, even if we want to. As for 'forgoing our egos', after you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This page will not be deleted because "Everyone that defends him (Mr Herrman) is useless and or another sockpuppet because its a new account or some new people that you never heard of." Yes, some here have expressed those opinions, but those are ordinary users, not the deleting admins. The only reason to delete the page is because it fails to meet Wikipedia's clearly-defined notability standards. Given your own history of personal attacks, legal threats and revealing personal information, you are hardly in a position to criticize others Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Mr. Herrman has already admitted to deception in the service of his article ("However, in desiring to get the site built up to the point where I could defend my principles, it was necessary to practice some deception", posted here). Rest assured that the closing admin will recognize all these socks for what they are and will also weigh the many policy-based "delete" arguments against the seemingly endless special-pleading. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Factually untrue. You have posted as User 70.125.148.34 as recently as two days ago. Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• We were primarily speaking about the most recent puppets, Jcasey23 and Saltylemon. I feel sorry for the closing admin who is going to have to wade through all of this nonsense. Nobody here, including myself, has any intention of taking up with you off-wiki, so it's best just to drop that too. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Comment Gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should read your talk page. Your belligerence is about to get you blocked. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

I personally am going to stop responding to Istheleftright and Charles S. Herrman, on the grounds that the "conversation" is one way. They say something, someone refutes it, and they say it again as if nobody replied. At this point, all we are doing is making more work for the closing admim. Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Gone. This concludes my own deletion of my comments stated here on this page which I was wrong on most of them to say. I violated Wikipedia policies, violated Wikipedia standards, and violated the general netiquette here. For that I am truly apologetic and sorry to all who had to wade through my posts. Many apologies to all concerned.. Good to talk with you too Guy. Thank you and all for the help here on this page and with Mr Herrman's work. Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per Agricola44. --Crusio (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of other editor's comments

I'm not entirely clear what has happened, or of who is responsible, but it appears that somehow comments by contributors have been deleted by later edits (e.g, one of mine: [1]). this is totally unacceptable, if done intentionally, and if accidental needs to be rectified immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Strike the above - it does however appear that comments have been moved around, and no longer appear in the order they were entered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for Mr. Herrman's supporters

The Internet is a big place, and there are other Wikis where this material may be welcome. Many Wikis exist that don't have the same notability criteria as Wikipedia, Here are some suggestions:

Biographicon: http://www.biographicon.com/

Scholarpedia: http://www.scholarpedia.org/

Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/

Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Philosophy (for Mr. Herrman's books, not his biography)

Also see: Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.

You may wish to cut and paste the Wikimarkup for this article to a text editor such as Microsoft Notepad and save it in three places along with the images from the page. That way it will be easy to submit it to one of the above Wikis.

Just because a page does not meet Wikipedia's standards, that is no reason why it should disappear from the Internet. Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. A spelling flame. How original. Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The user who I was responding to contacted me off Wiki (which I have no problem with, that's why I use my real name and give out my mailing address and phone number) and apologized, and he deleted this and other comments that violate civility guidelines. We had a nice talk about finding Mr. Herrman a good place to host his material, including how to run your own Wiki. I consider all issues between us to be resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And now I see that Charles S. Herrman has been editing my user page (not my user talk page - my user page). It's almost as if these two are going through the policies and seeing how many they can violate before getting themselves banned. Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My dear Sir I wouldn't know the difference between a user page and a talk page if the two were at opposite poles of the universe. Not only am I dyslexic, I am well meaning (at times, lol) and was only trying to send Guy Macon some notability material. I don't think I was entirely successful because I had to resort to asking another person for advice. I am a philosopher and evidently not a Wikipedian editor!! Please forgive/excuse the inadvertent trespass. The only thing that might surpass the disposition to assign negative motives is the refusal to appreciate that using the facts of your guidelines need not mean that you have to change them in the slightest. I very much approve the general framework of these guidelines and the obvious intent to be both complete and fair. It just nonpluses me that a fact can be so disturbing and unsettling to obviously well meaning and intelligent folks. No one need change a dot in you guidelines, only CLARIFY them so as to maximize their truest utility. No one is advocating that Wikipedia suffer the death of a loved guideline.Mr man1951 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and let me say that, looking at the above, I was way too harsh. Sorry about that. I apologize for my rude tone, and for not assuming that it was a simple error. Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we request that this AfD be closed prematurely?

Given the repeated violations of WP:NPA, the complete lack of evidence that Herrman meets our requirements for notability, and the insistence of his supporters on inappropriately using this page as a forum for advocating changes to Wikipedia policy, it seems to me that the most sensible approach to prevent a further escalation might be to request that the AfD be closed prematurely, and for the usual assessment be then made - there seems little likelihood of any new input that could materially affect the outcome. What do other contributors think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been no notability claims, other than by Herrman himself, and a few (?) supporters who clearly either don't understand the meaning of the word 'notable', or don't care. As for 'talking sense', I've seen precious little of that - just vacuous puffery and meaningless arguments about things that are of no consequence to the debate. That isn't 'talking sense' by any reasonable criterion. Since you have nothing to add which relates to the Wikipedia deletion discussion process, I suggest you go troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. I feel for the closing admin who has to wade through all this WP:TLDR discussion but the absence of reliably sourced material about the subject in Google news archive, Google books, and Google scholar is very telling, as is the mass of citations in the article most or all of which do not appear to be reliable sources that are actually about the subject. Does not pass WP:PROF, does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment ~ "a few (?) supporters who clearly either don't understand the meaning of the word 'notable', or don't care." — AndyTheGrump
  Andy, we are so glad to know that there is people like you who understand everything. This would be great, but it is a pity that human knowledge is at least 5% of the whole. Who supports who? That's your POV. I fear that the argument here is not whether the person in question is notable or not, but I see some "editors" who want to win at all costs.
  Anyway, there is an entry about Charles S. Herrman on the 15th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "[...] is a structuralist philosopher making his home in Austin, Texas, U.S.A. &#147;Mr. Herrman is a brilliant thinker and writer&#148;, said Charles Hartshorne, 'the world's greatest living metaphysician'" — Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed.
  Isn't this enough? Pay attention that Charles Hartshorne's quote about Herrman has been tagged with {{citation needed}}.
  Again, "CHARLES HERRMAN is a theorist who has developed a cultural typology to replace the shame-guilt thesis of Ruth Benedict." —The San Francisco Sentinel published by The San Francisco Publishing Co, LLC.
  And again, "As a philosopher and behavioral theorist, Charles has written hundreds of essays and contributed to a variety of disciplines, including law, sociology and psychology. All this despite having autism, bipolar disorder, dyslexia and Asperger's Syndrome. He has made learning about his illnesses a major focus, which he says has enabled him to manage them as well as he does." —KOOP (91.7 FM) (aired on July 14, 2010)
  I would like to add that Herrman is one of the few Structural Metaphysics Philosophers in existence (a well known luminary in his field). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I think this is the first time someone has brought forward any evidence of reliable sources that support notability . I think I speak for several editors when I say we were/are skeptical of the notability claims because we could really only find self-published sources on the subject, while editors involved in the article were basically (pardon the over-simplification) just claiming "he's really smart and deserves to be recognized" without providing any supporting Verification. In short, I think a lot of us smelled WP:MASK. The article still needs a lot of work (lots of WP:OR, WP:OFFTOPIC, and WP:NOTMYSPACE), but in light of Pjoef's sources, I'd be comfortable with Keeping the article, and perhaps splitting the content off in to separate articles (if it's notable, that is!). (withdrawn in light of below discussion 14:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC) ) Mildly Mad^T_C 11:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is good to actually have external sources regarding Herrman, but I'm less than convinced that they actually establish the notability required. Herrman apparently does not show up on Google scholar, appears never to have published peer-reviewed articles, and otherwise seems to be only notable for his absence if his work is of the significance claimed. Neither the Encyclopedia Britannica nor the San Francisco Sentinel will necessarily have any specialist knowledge of 'Structural Metaphysics Philosophy', and as such can only be considered tertiary sources. If it can be established that Herrman's work has received recognition by others in the field, then perhaps an article might be justified - not however the long-winded and weasel-word filled present text though, which is anything but encyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this statement--it's reassuring to know that Herrman's not just 'zis guy, you know, but we should have some concrete indication (citations, reviews, etc) that his work is recognized by his peers as a contribution to the field. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see that the Britannica ref has been added to the article. Given the circumstances, I'm sure I'll be forgiven a bit of skepticism. Pjoef, could you please furnish the specifics of this reference (e.g. article title and page numbers) of the reference you are describing? That way we can quickly have a look and have a proper, substantive discussion regarding its merits. Likewise for the Sentinel article. My view would be to forget about a community radio station broadcast because that reaches a bit too far into the world of ephemera and would be difficult to verify. Parenthetically, I can't accept at face value claims such as he is "a well known luminary in his field" if nobody is aware of his work. Seems to be an obvious contradiction. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

• I've found the SF Sentinel one here. This is an op-ed written by Herrman. The quote given above by Pjoef, is nothing more than the byline of the article. In full, it is this: "CHARLES HERRMAN is a theorist who has developed a cultural typology to replace the shame-guilt thesis of Ruth Benedict. Email Charles Herrman at [email protected]." A few other op-eds in SFS carry the same byline. These are not articles written by others about Herrman – these are basically Herrman showering praise on himself. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC).
• The specific quote offered above by Pjoef about a Herrman bio in Encyclopedia Britannica seems to actually come from Herrman's book "published" by VDM (essentially a vanity publisher, according to our own article here). Specifically, it is Herrman again on himself. Amazon reports this as: "About the Author is a structuralist philosopher making his home in Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 'Mr. Herrman is a brilliant thinker and writer,' said Charles Hartshorne, 'the world's greatest living metaphysician' -- Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed." So, it seems the world's greatest living metaphysician is Hartshorne, not Herrman. This is borne out by several other websites, e.g. the Google-cached version of Charles Herrman's Facebook page here, having the quote "Charles Hartshorne, once considered 'the world’s greatest living metaphysician' (Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed.) called Herrman 'a brilliant thinker and writer'." Tracing back one step further, Hartshorne's only pronouncement of Mr. Herrman as "a brilliant thinker and writer" seems to exist in the form of a short, polite letter of introduction written by the former when he was 100 years old, as I already described above (see letter at Herrman's personal website). In summary, I now believe Pjoef's claims of documentation in Britannica and the Sentinel that demonstrate notability are baseless. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

• Addendum. I'll note how the VDM blurb "About the Author" is very cleverly worded to imply that the quote comes from Encyclopedia Britannica. It would be easy to be taken-in and perhaps that was the confusion. FYI: The 15th edition was first published in 1974, when Herrman was 23 years old. I would second Andy's motion to close this. We've now explored every nook and cranny of this case, in the end finding only puff. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

It is customary for commercial houses, whether print or web, to ask any author for a suggested bio. Naturally, therefore, they take and modify what they are given, but they also have their own fact-checking when they are reputable, and if memory serves me, the owner-editor constructed his own take from the material given him. I might also add that a credible publisher does not desire to have its reputation sullied by fabrications any more than the holier-than-thou academics who complain viciously the moment an independent shows them up without third-party peer-reviewed references. It is largely an ego and status game and a whole lot less agreeable a source of credentials than it is made out to be, as any real scholar has long been aware. Agricola may fool some of the folks some of the time but he is out of his element in present company. Sorry, but oh so respectfully yours...

And I might also add that closing matters at this point is somewhat premature, for reasons brought out above. Perhaps someone wants things closed down before the evidence gets embarrassing. So while I have collected some material I cannot figure how to conveniently make it immediately available except as a file to be emailed, and that doesn't sound likely. So let me summarize the prospects that other people and sources can later verify: 1) Newspaper account listing Herrman as "Philosopher and Behavioral Theorist"; 2) NEH proposal backed by Peirce scholar Joseph Ransdell (late); 3) Notable law book publisher requesting reprint permission for, of all the cotton-pickin worthless items to show interest in, damn(!!) an SSRN article (NO!!!!!). The actual email transcript is available; geez, it's really terribly official, almost officious; 4) Reliance on Herrman's theoretical work in offices, stewardship and ethics, Master's thesis; 5) Mention of Herrman in a "Capture your Flag" interview with a 'notable' Austin entrepreneur who mentions he learned what he knows of stewardship from Herrman (see Bijoy Goswami; 6) Lecture for a local ethics/religious group, recording available; 7) Letters asking Herrman to give lectures for college classes by a significant microbiologist who worked with Norman Anderson of centrifuge and proteonomics fame; 8) Letter indicating great praise for works on stewardship by the long-time proprietor of "Stewardship Resources", once upon a time of Oklahoma City; 9) Herrman works with Panagiotis Stefanides, an aeronautical engineer with patents and publications who works in number theory and whose communications with Herrman are revealing to say the least; 10) Letter from a superadministrator of an academic website asking Herrman for a recommendation for a position developing ethics guidelines for the entire research of a major university; 11) There is more, I just really don't recall everything because, frankly, I don't use them much except askance references. Some are mentioned in the Charles S. Herrman page, some not.

I am confident of two things: People who are aware of my work will not infrequently use words like 'luminary'; second, those not willing to suffer competition with their intellectual betters will NEVER cotton to anything except peer-reviewed sources. Let the administrators and public vote as they will, perhaps with traffic figures (yes, do check them out as of late); and don't forget either than other Wikipedia articles where Herrman's work is of notability have received nary a negative remark. That Herrman dude must be a fake, don't you suppose? Or is there some element of pique racing about these exchanges? But all delivered here in the greatest sincerity and respect as language befitting a very civil - but wrong-minded - academic crowd and the Wikipedia folks wanting to share some of that ego testosterone on behalf of what I doubt not is a sincere desire that Wikipedia be the best it can be. And I am all for that, as anyone who knows me will attest. Mr man1951 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Mr Herrman, more than one bona fide professor has weighed-in here, giving reasoned, evidence-based arguments of how this article fails to fulfill the WP notability policy, while you continue to pontificate in stilted language about your intellectual superiority over the entire academic enterprise and shake your fist for being shut out of it. Frankly sir, I'm embarrassed for you. Please continue your name-calling and bombastic speech. I'll now join some of the others on the sidelines and watch as this AfD winds down to its predictable conclusion. Over and out, Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

• Comment Is there any area on Wikipedia, comparable to WP:Lamest edit wars, for listing "funniest AfD discussions"? If so, may I nominate this one? Oh, and of course, Delete as not meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability and verifiability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  and still one day to go, anything can happen - frankie^MR (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: The Encyclopædia Britannica reference comes from Amazon. The radio interview is available here (listen). For the San Francisco Sentinel visit this link. In my humble opinion, Sentinel's quotes are not so important, but the fact that he has published on it is. On the other hand, the Britannica entry should be very important because it is an encyclopedia and that quotation is used in the article. So, I hope to visit a library very soon and to check out the reference to the 15th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Herrman and "his supporters" (isn't the term "supporters" offensive?) to provide this kind of references/sources and to post all of them into this discussion, but I'm not sure they have understood me correctly, probably because they are "new" to Wikipedia. I know Mr man1951 was or still is in contact with Guy Macon. Probably, Guy Macon knows more than me about those evidences of notability. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As Agricola44 has already pointed out above, the Encyclopædia Britannica quote isn't about Herrman, and the San Francisco Sentinel quote is merely a blog byline almost certainly written by Herrman himself. Please read others' responses before reposting the same links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Hermann has not contacted me off Wiki. He has posted to my talk page and (by mistake) to my user page, but none of those posts contained any actual evidence of notability, just the sort of "I am superior, you are all in a conspiracy against me" you see from him here. User Istheleftright did contact me by phone (which is fine with me, that's why I use my real name and publish my mailing address and phone number) and apologized for his behavior, which I accepted. Not that I was particularly offended - I do understand the frustration that comes from making the transition from the total anarchy of the rest of the internet to a forum where one is required to be civil.

The claim is that Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition called Charles Hartshorne “the world’s greatest living metaphysician" (Britannica makes no mention of Charles S. Herrman) and that Hartshorne called Herrman "a brilliant thinker and writer." The latter claim is documented on Hermann's web site at [ http://www.csherrman.com/charles-hartshorne/ ] and appears to be a letter of reference. All very interesting, but even if confirmed, not evidence of notability.

On amazon.com, The "About the Author" section of Herrman's self-published book [ http://www.amazon.com/Office-its-Stewardship-Professional-Conduct/dp/3639190084/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1%20Amazon ] says "Mr. Herrman is a brilliant thinker and writer," said Charles Hartshorne, 'the world's greatest living metaphysician' -- Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed." This paragraph (which like every other public mention of Herrman, appeears to have been generated by Herrman himself) is, in my opinion, a purposeful deception worded so as to confuse the reader into thinking Britannica called Hermman brilliant. Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Two Tiers argument, reprised - Clearly I am frustrated. Pjoef's assessment of the Sentinel material was correct, the rest of the recent remarks are caviling and will not be dignified with further comment. Because the site has given me serious problems recently with posting, I regret to leaving everything 'as is', no cleaning. Too much work for a redo.

Mr. Herrman has already determined the validity of a fact, namely, that there is a two-tier standard for “notability”. Evidently that finding has received neither direct verification nor presumptive indirect verification, at least not amongst certain editors and academics.

But by having thus characterized the matter we restate not only a useful methodology adopted and justified by Herrman, but one that he previously demonstrated as useful in assessing the contribution of Charles S. Peirce to metaphysics (no references will be given for evidently they will be denigrated). That is to say, Mr. Herrman concluded that the Peircean system involves two processes, each a method consisting of two different but related modes of reality-testing. The first determines the "validity" of the attributive sign for a given referent; the second determines "verification" of attributes of the referent independent of the sign. Thus there is a determination of fact or truth amounting to "validation" of a sign or label so that what we say is actually what we refer to (or what we refer to is actually what our statements refer to), and then there is, as it were, third party "verification" of/for defining (and other) criteria. (It was this explication that led Peirce scholar Joseph Ransdell to tell Herrman in a private communication - which probably can be located - that the latter was very probably making a significant contribution to Peircean studies.)

Of course, verification processes are of two sorts, namely, direct and indirect. Should indirect sources be sufficient in number and/or quality, a third-party observer can reasonably rest assured of true verifiability, meaning s/he can presume truth predicated upon the indirect verification as opposed to requiring direct verification. "Thus where we either validate or employ direct verification we determine truth or facticity; where we rely on indirect sourcing/referencing we are permitted the luxury of a presumed truth or facticity". The relevance of this point is found, for example, when we look back on Van Gogh’s works, understanding that while they were validly brilliant at the time, such artistic merit took a while to receive indirect verification. We would say, in retrospect, that had matters been correctly conceived, his art work certainly "deserved recording by others" for being worthy or significant (to those with sensitivity to recognize talent by their own lights) and thus ‘notable’ even if not by the criteria of today’s exhaustive take-no-prisoners peer-review process.

If I may (by way of apology for a long introduction) now demonstrate the argument, to wit –

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

Now suppose, in light of the introductory explication, we take the operative word in the above excerpt to be, precisely, ""ꞌpresumed""ꞌ. Note that the "Wikipedia" guidelines consider it the same –

“"Presumed"” means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion [my emphasis]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability (General notability guidelines)

We will accordingly take this as denoting "indirect verification". We are now reasonably permitted to inquire whether we find Wikipedia guidelines that we can interpret as regulating "validation" by determination. We wish first to determine wherein Mr. Herrman falls in the broader classificatory schema. We find that there is a matter of possible dispute as to whether he be considered an ‘academic’ or something else.

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0 (under ‘Academics’)

While this suffices colloquially, "Wikipedia" appears to discriminate more carefully as between academics and others, whereat we shall attend to the following by preference -

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right ( = listing as follows: Academics, Books, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, Sports and athletes, and Web content). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

We shall follow the sub-category ‘people’ and there find ‘Creative professionals’ (Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and others), where we can classify Mr. Herrman as, for example, an author. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0

We repeat what has before been excerpted -

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0

Again we selectively assess the operative terms: to deserve attention or [deserve] to be recorded. From the Van Gogh example we recall the discussion of "determination of validity", noting that it need not imply what is "presumed verifiable/verified". In this connection it was earlier determined that such guidelines go beyond merely suggesting – they clearly elucidate - a two-tier level for notability regardless what agenda-seekers pontificate from the rooftops. We have just observed a quoted guideline stating a doctrine of notability via worthiness, where select criteria of verifiability (as between ‘popular’ or ‘academic’, "fame" and "popularity" are different not in kind but only in degree. Separately or together they speak "not" to validity but only to verifiability).

Creative professionals obtain notability by numerous avenues, the two of relevance to our discussion being –

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Will any fair-minded person deny these to Mr. Herrman? Does anyone have the slightest rationale for denying that these criteria are of "validity" (the lower tier), but are nonetheless stated "Wikipedia" criteria for “notability”? A parallel in the present scuffle over notability is with freedom-fighters waging revolution over and against arbitrary authority. The unverified credibility of their "validity" rests within their bosoms until the rest of us ‘get it’. According to certain academic dictates of methodology, the dictatorships will win every time. What are the indicants that authority has become arbitrary, capricious, fixated, encrusted or rigidly paradigmatic (in Kuhnian terms)? Three signs tend to predominate: 1) Claims are made "ex cathedra" so that opposition is not brooked, and disagreement is ridiculed instead of confronted with evidence; 2) Rules govern over reason, for rules are generally favorable to the powers able to interpret and enforce them, and 3) Disputation, when it occurs, proceeds with accusations that others exemplify or instigate what they in fact represent as an agenda, with the corollary that accurate accusations to them are rebuffed as ‘red herrings’.

Does anything just enumerated remind anybody of anything? As for Wikipedia guidelines:

Note 14: Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the "existence" of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0 (Failing all criteria)

Mr. Herrman has had advocates making note of a problem here, one that the guidelines declare valid and verified. Mr. Herrman only yesterday completed a listing to assist in such normative accountability but for want of time and ability did not proffer all available citations and evidences. Has anyone stepped forward to assist the process or extend its time? Even more important for the administrators to consider is the crass discrimination against independent scholarship that will be vindicated if the Charles S. Herrman page is removed. It isn’t that independents should get a free pass; it is instead that they deserve equal rights to research and recognition, and aren’t getting it; they deserve validation which cannot and will not happen so long as vested interests in cupidity and narrow-mindedness dictate the fact and degree of verification methodology; in short, unaffiliated scholarship cannot pretend to accountability if validity is denied them via unaccountable rules of verification. Worthiness deserves the opportunity for verification. Put otherwise, what is reasonably validated as worthy is owed the consideration of a public airing. No less than with art, other gifts of the intellect are deserving of display, remark and comment, which is what most of us thought "Wikipedia" was largely about.Mr man1951 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

N.B.— Attribution of Hartshorne in 15th Britannica attested here.Mr man1951 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As for that last reference it only goes to confirm a statement from a body of reference about Hartshorne, who isn't in question. It also isn't actually in question whether Hartshorne did expressed praise of Herrman or not, because it requires for the matter at hand to be settled before it requires verification. The matter at hand whether that praise and any other information about Herrman put all together add up to something that has a mark that bears recording. The reason there is no research is that we are not qualified to elaborate on any of the subjects we keep, and even if we would think we had the proficiency, any material produced would be subject to the same burdens of fallacy, subjectivity and deviance that normal production is subject to, which invariable tips the scale of neutrality astray, even in those cases where it actually doesn't. And even in the case that we were to accept our own production as qualified, then we would have a situation where the information references in cycles, of varying sizes. The same body would have had produced and validated one same item. It is a simil with having an opinion or not. WP doesn't. What is recorded is not the subject but someone else's opinion of the subject, which is why care is taken to identify the three burdens mentioned and release them. Reality is indeed what happens, but we cannot afford to listen to reality. We listen to the echo, and then again, the loud echo - frankie^MR (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankie does really try. The convolutions do not beget accurate translation. But say what you will, this Frankie's brain is more engaged (like, in gear for the moment) than all the rest of you combined throughout this process. So let me do him some justice and try to tease some clarity from the morass. What he seems to be saying is that we might want to address the matter of whether material has valid worth but were we to attempt so we would ineluctably violate the tenets of neutrality. Now THAT, little ones, means something, but not entirely what you might think it does. Again I am reduced to the schoolmarm. The matter is now reduced to this, in fine: We have a tier one guideline that is fully valid and requests authorization to post based upon valid worth. The fact that this exists cannot be taken away or ignored even on the creds of an academic. The distinction now to be laid out is that between neutrality and a declaration of value. It will thus be argued, ho hum, that one cannot assess value without invalidating neutrality. Wrong. Neutrality is necessary in order to protect value, not the other way around. When neutrality is violated, others will be enabled to enlist valuations that cannot correctly be gainsaid or correctly verified, if only because there is no coming to the table with clean hands after a violation like that - which is of course why we value it so. But you simply cannot be lazy and avoid your fundamental responsibilities just because you can shout a rule from your caves. You have to learn that correctly assessing value is simply a guide for your public who will edit with their value(s) as being informed by yours. It is not a legal matter but a matter of guidance that supports the Wikipedia process of opening up worthy material to the public. The valuation whereby merit for posting is granted can also be taken away, and can also be improved with second tier sourcing. If you cannot do a valuation you can't adhere to the first tier guidelines. Either terminate those lower guidelines or use them correctly. That is what all of this boils down to. I leave this as a homework assignment: Determine how to gauge the value of a Van Gogh BEFORE it is a "Van Gogh". Does that valuation or its process, if done carefully, violate anything that neutrality could possibly suggest? Neutrality is what keeps the valuation process accountable. It isn't supposed to be an excuse to avoid the valuation. I have said it a few times before and I say it again. DO YOUR JOBS!! Valuations are the most important and helpful of all your functions partly because it depends upon the prerogative built into your office (which in part actually defines an office and which entitles legal protection both to officer and the protectable interest of the public - no reference as you would denigrate it). I wish you and Wikipedia the very best. Of course, the former depends much on how well you have learned your lessons this past week.Mr man1951 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the further demonstration of how to produce patronising pseudo-learned off-topic waffle. I'll almost miss you when you are gone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Totally understandable, but Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks do not have a "he deserved it!" exemption.

The question of relative intelligence is an interesting one if you divorce it from the individual making the claim. For example, is an intelligent person more likely or less likely to be educable? Consider a simple and easily explained concept: "if you disagree with Wikipedia policy, there is a place to criticize it and to try to get it changed. Arguing that notability policy should be changed here will not effect whether this page gets deleted for being non-notable" Would an intelligent person (in the general sense, not implying anything about anyone here) keep posting about how wrong the policy is after reading that? Or could it be that intelligence combined with arrogance leads to being intelligent, ineducable, and willfully ignorant? How would one distinguish such a case from the case of someone too stupid to understand such a concept who hides his low intelligence behind pseudo-intellectual nonsense? It's an interesting question, but alas off-topic for the present discussion. Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The question of relative intelligence is an interesting one of you insert it into an appropriate environment – such as the present, for example. Mr. Herrman does not believe this to be the place to change rules or guidelines. In fact, he has refused to so much as ‘disagree with Wikipedia policy’. What he has done is to urge concerned Wikipedians to better present and characterize the selfsame guidelines that he has here frequently lauded for their excellence. A lack of clarification in these matters tends to be dangerous in the hands of the relatively unintelligent, who will, for reasons of agency, agenda, pique or pride, selectively interpret, oft times in conformity with peer-generated practice, whereat a tradition envelopes reason and a whole culture of imbecility is emboldened. Imagine the Wikipedia version of Enron to get my meaning more precisely. Now the relatively intelligent people who are specifically educated in matters recondite, logical, aesthetic and practical (not excluding law and culture) will evaluate all questionable practices with an eye to uncovering misinterpretations of otherwise good guidelines. This has always been the preferred solution, ensuring workable solutions and avoiding overcompensatory dispositions (as apparent with insecure types given too much time or authority and with something to prove that simply can’t be proved without evidence of valid worth – I did not say indirectly verified worth).

In sum, the issue was never the guidelines per se; it was, apart from presentiment, the unintelligent interpretation of them, always and only that. As for categorical intelligence, that for which, like 'speedy deletions' or a 'PROPed deletion', carries universal assent, Mr. Herrman, while preferring to keep matters just a tad this side of immodesty, did nonetheless lecture second year college students at age thirteen in physiology, develop the James-Langue concepts of chaining and itemizing a year later, and prepare a typed 100 page thesis a year after that, along with high finishes in science fairs, debate, public ceremonial speaking, all before college. It was never my intention to be in a position to berate your cupidity. Yes, Mr. Herrman turned out to be more than a mere editor here, but his agenda was at least modestly noble: freedom of access, freedom of delivering worthy materials – at risk of them coming down if second tier sourcing be not forthcoming. For your part, well, relative unintelligence may well be the least harsh way of stating the case.

A final, first person ending unscientific postscript: the notion that I ever made personal attacks is, I have long observed, far and away more common from those intimidated by their betters. Enough said. You had not ever earned any of my wit had you urged yourselves toward a more open, accepting, and above all, intelligent appraisal of the arguments and issues brought up here for discussion. But you did not. You can accuse me all day and into the night for being a bad person. Hell(!) - Einstein, Shaw, Russell, Hemingway and countless others have been such as to make me look condignly benign (to coin a phrase). So get over yourselves and live life instead of fretting every jitter that leaves you with less respect that you think God intended to shower upon you. Try stewardship for size. My mentor instructed me to steward my talents and to think always of the benefit to others. The validation of worthiness falls into that category, and Wikipedia has had ample opportunity to advantage itself of a similar stewardship. So call me bad, but call me fodder for Wikipedia. You managed to reverse them, scoring two wrongs and then declaring it all a right. Adieu all. Mr man1951 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• And, just so that there's no confusion by this off-topic post, that source does not mention Charles Herrman. It's about Charles Hartshorne, who is not germane to this discussion. Hope to be able to stay seated on the bench now for the short time we have left here. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

None of which is of the slightest relevance to a debate on whether Herrman meets the standards on notability required by existing Wikipedia policy. Take your over-inflated ego elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The above arguments are without merit. If Charles S. Herrman was notable (he clearly is not) all it would take to show that notability would be examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. No such coverage of Charles S. Herrman exists. End of story. It is time to delete the page. Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You're dangerously close to Wikilawyering here (using the letter of the rule to argue against the spirit of the rule), but I'm not going to bother going through point-by-point. What you really need to understand is this: The Five Pillars of Wikipedia (which are as incontrovertible as rules get here) state: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources". All of the evidence of notability that has been provided does not count as "reliable" because it has been found to be essentially Self-published. Also, please take note of the 5th Pillar of Wikipedia: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule". Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• We need to delete the images too. In addition to the clear non-notability issues, we have never recieved clear permission to use the images{note} in this article, nor is it entirely clear that the editors who claim to who own the copyright actually own them. I just checked, and they are used nowhere else, so the easy solution is to remove them from wikimedia commons. Note: Zhuangzi-Butterfly-Dream.jpg is an exception; it is used by other pages and does not have any apparent copyright issues. Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Deletions from Wikimedia commons have to be done using the deletion process on commons; we can't decide them here. Additionally, there is no reason to expect that the admin who closes the AfD here will also be an admin on commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks like the proper thing to do is to post the concern at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (about halfway down the page is a link with the text "Go to today's section" with instructions. Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Agricola. What a trainwreck. Ray^Talk 02:25, 21 April 2011 (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.