Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Yarvin

Curtis Yarvin

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

I started looking at this article with the hope of expanding the sourcing, but quickly found...well, that there basically isn't any.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of coverage of Yarvin, but it falls pretty much exclusively into one of two categories:

Coverage of his booting from the Strange Loop conference for, well, being an unabashed racist:
[Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html]

Breitbart

Breitbart, again

The Conversation

Fragmentary quotes or namedrops in general articles on "what on earth is this whole Dark Englightenment/Neoreactionary thing anyway"?
Taki

TechCrunch

National Review

American Thinker

BuzzFeed

TechCrunch, again

The only real exception is this blog entry on The Baffler, which is, well, a blog. A blog on a notable site, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. That's the only coverage I can find absent "he got banned from being a racist" that's more than about two lines long. Essentially it's quintessential WP:BLP1E, and should be deleted on that basis. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar event happened on March 2016, where Yarvin's participation in LambdaConf generated much controversy. It seems to me that as this is the second controversy WP:BLP1E no longer applies. Man thinking —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The LambdaConf ban was directly for the fame of his neoreactionary views, so is part of the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't much enjoy writing about Yarvin, but he's unlikely to go away just because we don't like him. I'm surprised to see Ironholds holding this out as BLP1E (Yarvin? He's everywhere, from geekdom to the fruitloop politics of the affluent geek's playpen).

Sad to say, because he really is unspeakably obnoxious, he would have been an interesting speaker at LambdaConf. No-one is more "lambdas everywhere" than Yarvin. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; where is the everywhere, then? I'm looking for coverage >2 lines outside Strange Loop and not seeing it. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You listed a fair few yourself, in the nomination (a rather unusual departure for AfDs). If someone makes it to the lowbrow redtops like Buzzfeed, then they really have entered the public consciousness. Not that Buzzfeed is a journal of such repute that you'd wrap your chips in it, but it does refute the notion that Yarvin is only of note in some Randian ivory and monel tower. If you want a readable explanation of Urbit and why the tech geeks are paying interest, then try the Popehat link. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem for this being a separate article right now is that at present, there's basically nothing that's an RS for this stuff. Even Urbit is rather lacking in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I listed Strange Loop references and one-line mentions. If someone makes it to the lowbrow redtops like Buzzfeed, they've entered the public consciousness. If they do it twice, and not in an offhand way, well, then we care. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an additional potential source: NYTimes column mentioning his name Sycron (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sycron: as you say, yes, it mentions his name. That's not what WP:GNG calls for; it has to be substantive coverage. Ironholds (talk)
Merge and redirect to Dark Enlightenment. He's marginally notable, but it's entirely for the DE/neoreaction stuff (which the LambdaConf ban was directly part of). The rest is marginal fluff at this stage. This shows in the article, which has turned into a fancruft piece made of references to his own blog because the third party sources to support a BLP article worth keeping as a separate article don't seem to actually exist. So add what little in Curtis Yarvin actually has third-party RS verifiability to that, and redirect there - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge to either a political or an Urbit article. The problem is that Yarvin has two aspects to him: political and technical. Only by having a stand-alone article for him can we really represent this stuff. As he has already been canned from two conferences because of this overlap, the overlap is one of the most significant aspects about him. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but of those two things, on a practical basis only one is notable. Has there been any coverage of Urbit outside the "...and he wanted to speak on Urbit but was blocked/churned up drama for being pro-slavery"? He has two elements, yes - only one of those elements, practically, has generated coverage, and it's not his code. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]