RfC: Should this article be deleted?

edit

This article is currently under consideration for deletion (reasons: N, RS, COI, RESUME.). At the time this section was added, the discussion stood at one comment for deletion, and one against. Further comment on the article's merit (or lack) would be appreciated. Arfisk (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Additional material

edit

List any suggestions for additional material here (with refs). Arfisk (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

(To avoid excessive clutter, remove material that has been added. Note links that have been rejected, so they aren't inadvertently re-inserted.) Arfisk (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Biography

edit

This page is currently under review for deletion. One current criticism is that the article currently reads like a resume rather than a biography. Fair point, although I would suggest a person is made 'notable' more by their body of work than how they live. That discussion is being had elsewhere. Meanwhile, a Biography section would be worthwhile... when references that meet [WP:BLP] guidelines can be found. Arfisk (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Projects

edit

Cascio's work in transhuman space should be mentioned, since two publications are listed. Good place to add Humanist contributions in general. Arfisk (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

Online reference links to be added (remove as they are added):

There should be a separate section for Essay listings. Arfisk (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. However, essay listings look a bit dry, and really only duplicate the reference section. Suggest a rewrite as descriptive sentences summarising the points of each article. Arfisk (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Publications

edit

Superstruct

edit

Quality improvements

edit

Biography

edit

List suggestions to improve biography quality here. Arfisk (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Quality criteria suggests the content is at 'Start' level: current references being valid and reliable. More descriptive content would round the article up. Arfisk (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Once additional references are included, consider what's needed to raise to 'c' level (Incidentally, I realise this is currently a one man show, and I won't doing any boosting without seeking other opinions.). Arfisk (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alternate Views

edit

List suggestions to improve Alternate View quality here. Arfisk (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure this Article fits the criteria for this Classification. The Subject is a forecaster, who describes future scenarios based on current social/technological trends. He may come up with some surprising predictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean he espouses 'alternate' views. Will reconsider when more content is added. Arfisk (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
The 'Humanist' project would be more appropriate but, again, is it truly relevant? Arfisk (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Environment

edit

List suggestions to improve Environment quality here. Arfisk (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Importance Rating

edit

Alternate views

edit

Assess importance to this Project. Arfisk (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Environment

edit

Assess importance to this Project. Arfisk (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Notability issues

edit

I have added two notable citation sources which, I think, should be sufficient to establish notability of the Subject. Unless there are objections, I will remove the tag in a couple of days. Arfisk (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it seems acceptable to remove the tag now. I daresay I'll hear about it if not! Arfisk (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pronunciation

edit

How do you pronounce his name? --JWB (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply