Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kinsella 2

[edit]

Completing a re-nomination by User:RyanKoppelman of a previously deleted and (differently) recreated article. Previous VfD here, you may also wish to see the author's talk page. Whilst this is effectively a self-vanity page retaliation for the Tom G. Palmer article, a person with whom the author of this page disagrees, I will cast no vote. -Splash 17:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

  • Note. The original page history and talk page have now been restored. (talk page is at talk:Stephan Kinsella/archive1). -Willmcw 00:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Willmcw--could you restore my original entry as well, in the interest of fairness? Maybe it is better than the current one. I have no idea how to restore something. Nskinsella 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Splash for cleaning up the page creation. My concern is that Mr. Kinsella himself recreated this new page about himself. It was already voted deleted once. He wants a second bite at the apple for his own self-interest.He has commented about it on his blog. [1] Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created. This looks like self-promotion. I do not think Wikipedia should be used like this. I do not think that it is appropriate. Mr. Kinsella looks notable enough to me to have an article about him. As far as I know, the information is accurate, however, it seems hard for the article to be neutral when he wrote it about himself. He certainly speaks very highly of himself, "He has drawn on his expertise as a practicing patent lawyer to become a leading libertarian opponent of intellectual property laws; his seminal argument 'Against Intellectual Property' has become widely referred to and cited." This does not sound neutral. I suppose it could be rewritten, but who is going to correct Mr. Kinsella about himself, so I think this creates an on-going problem for the article. I cast yes delete vote.--RyanKoppelman 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • RyanK: I had no idea until you just wrote this that I am under patent attorneys. I had nothing to do with this. I am really not interested in self-promotion. I just want people interested in my writing to be able to access it. As for the promotional aspects to my entry, I'll modify and make it shorter and more factual. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. None of the delete voteres have tried to follow the policy. Let me summarize: I have published books and articles, with audiences that satisfy the criteria. I have 19,000 Google hits. I am more well known than the average college professor. My info is factual and easily verifiable. Moreover, I am as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition; and this articles has gotten a large amount of attention and is seen as one of the leading pieces in the libertarian anti-IP movement. By Wikie's own standards, I believe my entry is acceptable, as was the initial one not put up by me and therefore never should have been deleted. I would at least like to see Wiki editors citing and applying Wiki policy if they are doing to cast a delete vote. For example, why do I not qualify, in view of the factors I have noted, that I got from Wiki's own policy pages? Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, if you take out the domains mises.org, stephankinsella.com, lewrockwell.com and other domains that have blogs that you post to, your mentions drop to 13,000. Most of the 13,000 other hits are posts by you to other blogs, and responses to posts to the other blogs, since you seemingly spend every waking hour logged onto the internet to rebut your critics. So please don't go around claiming 19,000 hits as if these were people independently citing your work. Most of these instances are blog comments, and answers to your blog comments. Jstrummer 04:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Someone has linked him under "Noted" Patent attorneys almost immediately after his new page was created." "Someone", that's me (there is a history link for each page). I did put "Stephan Kinsella" link in the patent attorney page as "notable patent attorney", because it seemed to me that he was notable enough to be there. I have no connection with Stephan Kinsella whatsoever, please stop the suspicion, I find it offensive when a statement is made with no support. Thanks. If the article about him is kept, keep the link in the patent attorney, otherwise drop it. (see my vote below). --Edcolins 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • At User:Splash's suggestion, I have moved my verbose comments to the Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2 page. Please see those comments for my explanation of my entry and for my defense that it either not be deleted, or that consistent standards be applied as to my and others' bios. Because of my obvious bias, I had previous cast no vote, but Splash informs me it's my right to vote to keep, so, I vote keep, while acknowledging my vested interest. -Nskinsella 19:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the original contributor of the first article on Stephan Kinsella, although I contributed it before I started my present account. My contribution was based on a growing number of refereed journal articles, books, and lectures in which Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property" was being cited. I was the original founder of the Birmingham, AL and Auburn, AL 2600 meetings, and ran an "h/p/c/a/v" BBS in the 90's. Since the late 90's, I have been very interested in IP, and have lectured on it at Auburn University and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. When I came across Kinsella's IP article in 2001 (in the Journal of Libertarian Studies), I had not met him, nor anyone else who knew him personally, but I did meet numerous academics who were taking his dismantling of IP very seriously. I personally thought that it was an essential step towards an exhaustive conciliation of the Hacker Ethic with property rights. Kinsella is now a frequent lecturer at Mises Institute events, and is constantly cited by eminent scholars like Walter Block as /the/ go-to guy on IP theory. As the point most germane to this discussion though, please let me reiterate that I was the original article contributor, and only mentioned the entry to Stephan when I asked his permission to release an image (stephankinsella.jpg) from his website into the public domain. I will cast a vote to keep. DickClarkMises 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think keep. Not really a vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Certainly it is a vanity article, written and edited by the subject. It was deleted here Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella just three months ago in a VfD which had a number of sockpuppets participating on his behalf. This article appears to have been recreated in part to compete with that of a rival, Tom G. Palmer, that Kinsella has used a blog campaign to try to get deleted. -Willmcw 21:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Willmcw: Have you taken into account that I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki Intellectual Property entry; and in the Wiki Libertarian_theories_of_law entry? I had nothing to do with either; I assume both predate my recent entry; and I was just made aware of it after doing a google search on Wikipedia. Is this no some indicia of notability? Those entries will pointlessly go to a blank page, if you delete my entry. Why? Nskinsella 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that version was deleted by a properly-run VFD. This version was written and posted by you. This is the version that we are discussing. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Willmcw: My original entry was put up by someone else. It was not a vanity piece. But I have summarized my case for why my entry clearly satisfies the Wiki "notable" criteria here Votes_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2. Why do you disagree with it? I fail to see the relevance of my motives for posting the entry, but if you must know, after looking at the criteria for notability more closely due to the delete debate about the Palmer entry, I realized my entry qualifies and should not have been deleted. The preveious delete debate did not cite of follow Wiki policy. People just used their airy-fairy discretion to say "notable" or not. BUt there are criteria, and I expect Wiki editors to make a good faith effort to apply them. WHich of the policy criteria that I have listed do you deny? Notice, you yourself are inconsisten, Willmcw: you voted to keep the Tom G. Palmer entry, on the grounds that he is openly gay at a think tank. This is ridiculous. What if I am a closeted gay?-wouldn't your policy punish gays in the closet? Moreover, as far as I know the only practicing, licensed patent attorney who has written an explicit critique of the patent system as a whole, who calls for its abolition. You seem to be nonobjective in my case. Nskinsella 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The previous version, since you keep mentioning it, was most likely written by you originally. It was then posted to a copyrighted webpage. Another editor, DickClarkMises, posted it here verbatim. That was a clear "copyvio" and I marked it as such. You refused to release the text under our GFDL and made disparaging comments about me on your blogs (thanks). We undertook to write a fresh version that was not a copyvio, and that version was subsequently VfDed (in a process which saw several brand-new editors voting to "keep") three months ago.
      • Regarding the Palmer article, Wikipedia is not consistent. Please do not try to prove a WP:POINT that if your rival gets something then you must too. Nonetheless I see you said there that you are not notable for your writing. If not that then what? On the other hand, in the spirit of equity, I'd be happy to change my vote to "delete" on that page if you'll do the same here. The chance that the Palmer article (which is mostly irrelevant to this discussion) may have started as autobiography and be currently edited by its subject are bothersome. Subjects who edit their articles are almost always a problem.
        • Willmcw, don't you think it's a bit ... off... of you to offer to change your vote on Palmer? Shouldn't you simply vote (a) in accordance with your good faith application of Wiki biograph policy; and (b) try to vote consistently? I assure you that my first Wiki entry was not vanity, nor did I do it or have anything to do with it. And as I have modifed the current version, it is short, unobtrusive, purely factual, and completely non-vanity.
          • I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humor. Anyway, the offer still stands. You said you're not notable, you say Palmer isn't notable either. If you vote to delete both of them then, as a gesture of "wikilove", I'll do the same. Oh, and if you had nothing to do with the previous version, then I guess "nothing" includes the fact that you wrote it, edited it, and then you (and your friends) fought to keep it. It didn't just "happen." -Willmcw 06:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
            • Willmcw: I said i was not notable in a colloquial sense; but when I read the criteria, I believe I qualify. As for the previous version: I meant I had nothing to do with an entry being put up in the first place. Dick Clark is not my friend; I do not even know him. I cannot access the origianl article since you had it deleted, but yes, he probably got most of the info from my online bio. that is true. Once it was up, and i was made aware of it, I did edit it, which is not impermissible. I actually did not fight to keep it, when you deleted it, I just objected to your calling it a vanity page since it was NOT. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I've already told you, the entire history of the article has been restored and is here: [2]. Here is the very first edit [3]. Please note that I did not call the original version "vanity" in its VfD. I have called this version "vanity" since it plainly fits the label.-Willmcw 20:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, this is not just a vanity page - it is an advertisement for some very expensive books. Follow this link in the bibliography, Digest of Commercial Laws of the World (1998-present), to go to a page to buy a $600 book, one of several such links. Even in the previous version that was deleted we'd had those cleaned up and de-commercialized. The version that we deleted was better than this. -Willmcw 00:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • Willmcw: I have removed the books. I can't find the original version of my entry, unfortunately. You say I wrote the original article; yet I have denied this and you have no proof. In fact Dick Clark admitted to doing it. Are you calling us both liars? That is uncalled for. I could have put my entry up anonymously or asked someone to do it. I have been honest. Your insinuation is uncalled for. As for copyright, there was not one, since I consented to it. The VfD of that first page was improper, since I clearly meet the criteria specified on Wiki policy. You have just asserted your own opinion as to consistency, but not tried to apply actual Wiki standards. As for Wiki not being consistent--no, it might not be, but you, as an individual, should be, otherwise you reveal unfairness, bias, or arbitrariness. Your alleged reason for Palmer's "keep" vote is that he is openly gay; this is absurd. Others say he has a large number of google hits, thus they vote "keep"; my google votes are higher. Others point to Palmer's publications; mine are greater in number, and I have books in addition to articles. I am only trying to have this entry treated fairly and judged by actual Wiki policy, which none of you deletes seems to want to try to make an effort to apply. I would appreciate a little fairness here.
        • Your google hits are almost entirely links to comments made by you on blogs, or responses to comments made by you on blogs. For instance, the number of hits drops by 6,000 if you take out the domains stephankinsella.com, mises.org and lewrockwell.com. Since you are prodigious in posting to the internet, that accounts for your google citations. You are not cited more than a college professor. Most college professors have better things to do with their time.Jstrummer 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I truly doubt that DickClarkMises wrote the biography on your (copyrighted noticed) website. http://stephankinsella.com/bio/bio2.php That is the material that he used to create the original article (OK, not actualy original—plagiarized). Now if he actually wrote it then I am mistaken. But I doubt that because he described it as "dump of auto-bio from stephankinsella.com)".[4] Do you still insist that he wrote it? -Willmcw 06:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • This is a good point. I suppose he didn't "write" it, b/c he probably borrowed heavily from my own bio. But it was done without my knowledge or participation, solely on his own. --Nskinsella 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. If he is notable enough, someone will write an appropriate article. Writting some obscure published work and losing in a bid to be elected as a judge are insufficient in my view. And I'm generally an inclusionist. Themindset 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC) I will now change my vote to a weak keep. Marginal at best, I requested that he rewrite his article from a more neutral and simple perspective, and he has done so. The fact that it is an auto-biography does not sit very well with me, but he's a lawyer and he read our rules... and he does technically qualify for an article. Themindset 16:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity, nonnotable. Don't bother to userify, I'm sure Kinsella is quite clever enough to do it for himself. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a redlink of Kinsella to an article one time (and I have no particular ulterior agenda or ties to Kinsella). He is fairly notable as a libertarian legal theorist and commentator. - Nat Krause 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity problems. If a neutral party does a complete rewrite, will reconsider. Xoloz 05:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. Google returns 19,000 hits for "Stephan Kinsella" [5]. --Edcolins 07:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed my mind and prefer to abstain. I can't find google hits on renowned sources of information. I am not sure about whether this article should be kept. And I don't like someone creating an article about himself. --Edcolins 08:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • His google hits are almost entirely links to blog comments he's made. These are not google hits on par with a legitimate scholar who might be cited for published academic work. These are the google hits of a guy who spends 10 hours a day on the internet posting on blogs. Look how many times he's posted to wikipedia, and the energy he's spent on reposting his bio.Jstrummer 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Speedy delete - valid vfd previously. Go to WP:VFU for undeletion. Dunc|☺ 12:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC). Oh yes, WP:POINT Dunc|☺ 12:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC). Commnet I've undeleted it since people for some reason think that it ought not to have been, despite it not being passed through WP:VFU and being a vanity page. I still stand by my decision to delete it. Dunc|☺ 13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the undeletion. Let's see the outcome of the vote. --Edcolins 13:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< 14:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this vanity as previously deleted material. --Allen3 talk 14:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a new version of a page that was deleted before (and it was deleted, I might add, with only four votes to delete). It is not previously deleted material. Get your story straight. - Nat Krause 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a substantially identical reinstatement of an article deleted by valid VFD consensus, and therefore speedily deletable. Read policy before citing it. Radiant_>|< 17:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or Delete - it's still vanity, imo -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Vanity, non-notable. Only [22 hits in Google Groups] which I like to use as a touchstone because USENET tends to be less affected by deliberate promotion than the Web. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst I'm merely observing this debate, I should point out that you spelt the subject's name incorrectly in your search. Also, Google isn't fooled that easily either. Click forward through a few pages of hits (by jumping e.g. 10 pages at a time) and Google will truncate the search to the 'unique' results like this. Note the message from Google at the bottom. As an aside, I'm not sure that specifically searching with an engine that avoids any kind of media/literature search is particularly useful for establishing notability or not. Without commenting on this article, I would suggest that your 22 hits just shows that there are 22 references to him in usenet groups and the like; that doesn't cover any of the more useful outlets at all. There may or may not be anything more notable turned up in a proper Google, but the groups search doesn't even admit the possibility. I find the truncation that Google does to be quite useful. -Splash 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies, 55 hits for Stephan Kinsella. No change in my vote. Generally speaking for most topics a Google Groups search consistently returns around 1/10 to 1/4 as many hits as a Web search. However, many sites engage in deliberate "search engine optimization" or other self-promotional activities. Few people don't bother to Astroturf or otherwise do anything to inflate their Groups count. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A search of ABI/Inform Global and Proquest Research Library, restricting search to "scholarly journals," turns up only one publication, and Kinsella is not the senior author: "The second paradox of blackmail Walter Block, N Stephan Kinsella, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Business Ethics Quarterly. Chicago: Jul 2000. Vol. 10, Iss. 3; p. 593" With an unrestricted search, there is only one additional hit, "Symposium: Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property? Ilana Mercer, N Stephan Kinsella, James DeLong. Insight on the News. Washington: May 21, 2001. Vol. 17, Iss. 19; p. 40 (4 pages)" Dpbsmith (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are uninformed. See the lists of my legal publications, and libertarian publications. A quick glance reveals I have articles in several scholarly publications, including several law reviews, all of which are "scholarly"--e.g., New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law; Louisiana Law Review; Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; St. Mary's Law Journal, one forthcoming in Southern University Law Journal, and others. And also some in other various scholarly or trade legal journals, such as: Philadelphia Lawyer, Petroleum Accounting and Financial Management Journal, Texas Oil & Gas Law Journal, The Licensing Journal, Intellectual Property Today, The Legal Intelligencer [Philadelphia], and Pennsylvania Lawyer.
  • Take it up with Proquest. I didn't decide which journals they consider important enough to index. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, take it up with proquest. These are not scholarly publications. "New York Law School Journal of..." that's hardly the NYU Law Review. Maybe you could count the Louisiana Law Review. I'll give you that citation, although that is hardly the sign of a "leading" theorist of any sort. Jstrummer 04:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has enough publications that someone might want to know more about this author and turn to Wikipedia for the information. Although it's an autobio, most of it seems verifiable, and we can remove the puffery, as we would with any non-autobio article. (I've seen worse in articles that clearly weren't vanity.) That it was already VfD'd once is certainly a concern. We don't want to be debating the same articles over and over. In this case, however, the new listing has attracted many more responses than the original did, so I think it's a valid occasion for revisiting the former decision. JamesMLane 17:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slightly reluctantly, although the notability of being Andrew Gilligan's secret twin brother is quite high, it is not clear to me whether this subject is notable enough. However the damage caused by such an article being present is minimal, unless it's leading to creeping (ultra) inclusionism. Rich Farmbrough 19:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems to be a verifible article about an at least marginally notable person. If it is NPOV, then it can be edited. DES 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to marginal notability. Issues of vanity can be corrected through the editing process. Hall Monitor 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Putting the bruhaha aside for a moment, this article should be kept, especially if you consider the subject's notability in comparison to the many marginal and trivial Wikibios. Ombudsman 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, not-notable enough for inclusion, just a lawyer with some minor legal articles. Does not appear in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 00:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "minor" articles? I don't agree with this; I have made significant impact in libertarian legal theory, and have published in many respected scholarly journals. As someone ELSE wrote on my entry,

... Kinsella's views on contract theory, causation and the law, intellectual property, and rights theory (in particular his estoppel theory) are his main contributions to libertarian theory. ... In contract theory, he extends Murray Rothbard's [6] and Williamson Evers's [7] "title transfer" theory of contract, linking it with inalienabiltiy theory while also clarifying that theory ("A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability" [8]). Kinsella sets forth a theory of causation that attempts to explain why remote actors can be liable under libertarian theory ("Causation and Aggression" [9]). Kinsella, as a practicing intellectual property attorney, also gives non-utilitarian arguments for intellectual property being incompatible with libertarian property rights principles ("Against Intellectual Property" [10]). Kinsella advances a "discourse ethics" argument for the justification of individual rights, using an extension of the concept of estoppel (A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights).

I have also authored two legal treatises on international law--hardly "minor" articles; and am editor of 4 other legal treatises. Also, please note SEVERAL wiki entries (e.g., Intellectual Property, Patent Attorney, Kinsella, Libertarian_theories_of_law, discourse ethics, refer to my entry. Why have them go to a blank page?? Does that serve any purpose?
In any event, if you still vote maintain your delete vote, applying those standards consistently, wouldn't you also vote have to against Tom G. Palmer, for the same reasons, which apply even moreso to his case? --Stephan Kinsella 16:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny. I have thrown away any number of offers to include me in SELF-PROMOTIONAL "Who's Who" books, and turn them DOWN--and now this has me accused of being self-promotional. Ridiculous. Anyway, try a google search for "Stephan Kinsella"; or Martindale. Nskinsella 01:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Martindale is a directory of lawyers, not an encyclopedia or biographical database, and it contains listings for over a million lawyers. Surely not all of them deserve an encyclopedia entry. Gamaliel 01:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • True. What do you think Who's Who is? Do you think everyone there deserves encyclopedic entry? You do not answer my point: that you are in effect penalizing me wiht the "self-promotion" critique because I did not engage in enough self-promotion earlier in response to all those dumb Who's Who offers. Nskinsella 03:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are not being penalized. An encyclopedia article is not a reward or something you deserve or have a right to. And no, I do not think that an entry in Who's Who should automatically get you an encyclopedia entry here, but it's a damn sight more notable than appearing in a directory of over a million lawyers. I'm assuming you are referring to my vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tom G. Palmer where I noted Palmer had a WW entry. That was not my only reason for voting a weak keep, nor should such an entry be the sole reason for inclusion. My opinion was also swayed by both the content of the article and the posted opinions of other Wikipedia editors I respect. Also note that WW was hardly the only biographical database I search. Here is an unformatted list of all the databases in which you also do not appear. Gamaliel 03:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to criteria... all right. Criteria for inclusion of biographies is a guideline, not a firm policy; it is a set of suggestions on how to look at biographies. The main section says that biographies meeting some criteria may be included, not that they must be. I happen to like the Google test, one of the criteria mentioned in the article. My own vote was originally based on an application of a variation of the Google test, using Google Groups. I then confirmed my impression using a Proquest search. I am now about to do a third: I personally regard a person as notable if they have written a book with an Amazon sale rank number that is less than (i.e. higher ranked than) 200,000. I do not know how this test will turn out. I believe by the way that this is a weaker criterion than "sales over 5,000." If Amazon shows that Stephan Kinsella has written a book with a sales rank number under 200,000 I will change my vote to "keep." Here we go:
  • Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk by Paul E. Comeaux, N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379213710 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,849,346 in Books
  • International Investment, Political Risk, And Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide. by N. Stephan Kinsella, ISBN 0379215225 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,236 in Books
  • Online Contract Formation, N. Stephan Kinsella (Editor), Andrew F. Simpson (Editor), ISBN 0379215195 Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,623,235 in Books
  • A Civil Law to Common Law Dictionary, N. Stephan Kinsella, ASIN B0006QKZCG, out of print (no sales rank given)
  • Digest of Commercial Laws of the World, N. Stephan Kinsella (ed), no sales rank given
In interpreting these sales ranks: I happen to know of a particular book that has sold less than fifty copies and has an Amazon sales rank of #785,746.
My vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Amazon sales ranks depend strongly on recency of sales. a bookm that has sold fewer copiees, but sold them more recently will generally have a lower (better) rank. The ranks are really not meaningful until you are dealing with books currently sellign well -- then they may be used to compare how well. Also they only record online sales, and are thus subject to systematic bias against books disproportionaly sold directly. I think you can get actual sales figures fromw Bowker (the people who maintain the Books in Print database) that are much more accurate, and give actual numbers of books sold, not a "rank", but I don't know exactly how to do this. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you, and thanks. The Civil Law dictionary is a mistake by Amazon; it's not even a book. I tried to get them to fix it but they won't. I have an article by that title. Someone at Amazon is confused. The other books are expensive, specialty books. They hardly ever sell on Amazon; almost all of them are bought directly from the 50 year old publisher Oceana, which has an established catalog and direct mail and online presence. Digest is a 6 volume set so has less than 5000 sales. I am not sure of the sales of Online Contract Formation, but I think it's less than 5000 so far; but it was jsut releated last year. However, the International Investment book IS BEING RELEASED NEXT MONTH so there are no sales yet (though there are over 1000 pre-orders). The book it's replacing is the 1997 book, on Protecting Foreign Invesmtment. Its sales have petered of in last 2 years b/c the new book is coming out and b/c it's dated, but that book did have well over 5000 sales, and I can get a letter from Oceana to prove it if you want. MOroever, the criteria say articles in publications w/ more than 5000 subscribers, and several of mine have that. The Freeman for one, and probably some of the law reviews. Stephan Kinsella 00:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough, Wikipedia is not bound by paper restraints. Rangerdude 06:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per Gamaliel. The article contributes absolutely nothing to human knowledge. Arrogant, deluded vanity. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not an outlet to be used by non-notable lawyers for self-promotion ("hey, he must be good... he's even featured on wikipedia!"). It should also be speedied as a previously deleted article. If he was that notable then someone other than him or his department would have created the article. The JPS 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks The JPS. Duncharris, I think, already tried to speedy delete it, but it was decided that was not appropriate, due to the large number of discussions and the spare number for the first delete. So it was decided to let this process play out, to see what consensus emerges. Stephan Kinsella 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to being speedy deleted, WP:CSD criterion G4 says A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. (bold added). I gather that this article is not substantially identical to the previous version even if it is on the same subject. Thus it is not subject to speedy deleteion under this criterion. DES 15:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious keep. Seems like vanity, but somewhat notable. Especially when you consider that we have articles on far less notable actors, singers, heads of organizations, authors, etc--the distinction being that it is doubtful that the parties themselves or their surrogates wrote them. Mmmbeer 19:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a lawyer, I suggest that he's only notable for the size of his ego. Why is he so desperate to have a Wikipedia article about him? 66.9.126.26 21:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My original vote was deleted from this page. This is a vanity page, and Kinsella admits he wrote it himself. If you delete it, he's going to repost it as Stephan Kinsella 3, anyway. But it should be deleted anyway. Also, nearly all of the "keep" votes are sockpuppetish, or, I suspect, people on mailing lists that Stephan Kinsella has urged to vote for him. Virtually no libertarian knows who this guy is, except for a small band of people in Alabama. He's not cited in any serious academic articles. He's not published in any serious academic journals. He's just some lawyer guy who has a gigantic ego and a lot of free time to play around on the internet. Look how many times he comments on others' votes. Does this seem like the work of a leading intellectual, or a crackpot looking for net.notoriety? Jstrummer.
  • As far as I can tell, your post was never deleted. But at som point Galadriel (sp?) moved it to the bottom of the page--clearly you are a newbie, probably signed on recently on behalf of Tom Palmer just to attack Rockwell and Mises sites. Just a guess. A troll, IOW. Stephan Kinsella 05:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unaware of any delete of any votes; I certainly did not do this. There are not sockpuppets as far as I know. You are wrong about other libertarians not knowing me. This is just factually incorrect. You have not seen the correspondence I have gotten over the years from all over the states and increasingly, from around the world, as more of my articles get translated. I have published in serious academic journals. This is not boasting. It is just a fact and a correction of your misstatement. You are also wrong about my ego being gigantic. You are wrong, and do not know me. My ego is normal sized. Stephan Kinsella 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephan: I have been in the mainstream libertarian movement for 10 years. I've met every notable libertarian academic in the U.S., and many foreign ones. I have also met you. I have met and had discussions with nearly every important libertarian legal theorist from Epstein, to Posner, to Volokh, to Barnett, to Post, and so on. Not once has your name been mentioned by ANY one of them, even when we've talked about IP law. It's very likely that not ONE of them knows who you are, although I wouldn't know for sure since your name doesn't come up. You are not cited by them. You are not invited to conferences hosted by or attended by them. You haven't taught at any particularly impressive schools, or published in any respectable academic journals. You may be a fine practicing attorney - I would not know - but you do not qualify as a libertarian thinker, if by you mean "taken seriously by others." What's more, my vote was deleted. And that's annoying. Jstrummer.
I'm sorry, but by what criterion are you defining "respectable academic journals"? It seems to be an arbitrary one. Others have already listed journal articles has Kinsella has published. And I find your assertion that you have met "every notable libertarian academic in the US" laughable. It sounds to me that you have such a monster ego that if you have not gained personal audience with a "thinker" than you refuse to allow them to be referred to as notable. I have been in the "mainstream libertarian movement" for five years, and I HAVE heard of him. Maybe you should read more, so you could open your eyes to the notable libertarians that you haven't had a beer with.
Also, I am curious: Which "Barnett" are you referring to to? Bill Barnett, Andy Barnett, or Randy Barnett? All are published Libertarian thinkers. DickClarkMises 20:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I will change my vote to KEEP if the page says: "Stephan Kinsella is an intellectual property lawyer living in Houston, Texas who has published on paleolibertarian legal theory and is an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute." Then the page isn't vanity, it's truthful, and it's about all that Stephan deserves, if anything, on Wikipedia. Otherwise, my vote remains DELETE.
  • Comment Off-topic comment and following discussion regarding a barnstar I gave Kinsella has been moved to my Talk page
  • Über keep to counteract all the other strong votes. —RaD Man (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy does seem to be known on the internet and so what if it is only through blogs. Surely the network of blogs has already brought major stories to the attention of the world so a recognised name in this sphere must be as valid as other journalists who are on wikipedia. 82.41.214.151 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user's third day of editing.
  • Delete. Vanity page, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote to keep. This article is an example of what I want to find in a Wikipedia article. As a libertarian (with no association with Shephan Kinsella) I value this article as a noncommercial document that provides information I find educational. In reviewing the other votes for deletion I find many votes citing what I see as a weak reason (vanity or non-notable) outweighed by by what I believe is the reason Wikipedia or any encyclopedia article should exist: to provide useful information in context. It seems to me that if I find the article useful, that is a valid counter to the claim of non-notable. Thane Eichenauer 07:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit.
  • Strong Delete. The average law professor has a longer and more substantial list of publications, as do average (even below average) academics in many fields. Anyone who can run behind a Green Party candidate in a statewide election in Texas is a very, very minor character. (Texas judicial elections are complicated; his vote total fell between that for the Green candidate running directly for the same court seat he was and that of another Green candidate running for the same court.) Judge Magney 03:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Judge. But I don't know why you are equating electoral success with notability. Especially when someone does his best not to win. You might enjoy his interview in a laser industry trade magazine. Some found it humorous. But then, I get the impression many around here are Seriosos with no sense of humor. I think you are totally wrong about comparing my writing to that of typical law profs. But then, to each his own. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not equate electoral success with notability. I did imply that a candidate like yourself who is so resoundingly ignored by the electorate is likely to be non-noteworthy. Judge Magney 13:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Biography of a person alive with multiple book publications.. it seems as if he is probably notable enough for inclusion, and that this is not merely vanity. --J. Hess 02:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephan_Kinsella_2&oldid=1138793914"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy