Wiki143:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Deletion review log header

13 October 2007

  • Ali Nihat Yazici – new stub created, other articles need to be discussed separately – GRBerry 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|cache|AfD)

This is one of the most important chess organizers in the world. He is president of the Turkish Chess Federation which has 125,000 members. There are many current news articles about this person. No valid reason was ever given for this speedy deletion. The Admen who did this has since left Wikipedia.

He has a biography on the Turkish language version of Wikipedia. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Nihat_Yazici

  • Endorse deletion. Copyright violations are a "valid reason" and non-negotiable. If you can present reliable sources attesting to his notability (I'm not sure that even national-level "chess organizers" are inherently notable) a recreated article may be possible. It's also beside the point whether the deleting admin remains active unless there was a pattern of abusive deletions. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Question: Since the user is not necessarily asking for a restore (just a removal from the cascading page), is this the correct place to make such a request or should be request be made as a {{editprotected}} over on Wikipedia talk:Protected titles/March 2007? Does anybody know? This "cascading" feature is new and it is not clear if a different procedure should be used.--Leaveextra 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as copyvio, but unsalt to allow the creation of a new article. AecisBrievenbus 13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Unsalt only if someone has an article written first. This copyrighted bio was added four times over a period of several months. If the title is unprotected without an article to go in its place, the copyvio will most likely return. Chick Bowen 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Stubed! I am going to be bold and create a stub article for this. I cant comment weather or not the page was a copyvio, but I will choose the safest avenue, a rewrite. -- Cat chi? 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ali Nihat Yazici should redirect to Ali Nihat Yazıcı. -- Cat chi? 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Now, what can be done about the other three biographies that were simultaneously "salted the earth" by User:JzG, who has since left Wikipedia? These are Julio César Ingolotti, Geoffrey Borg (AfD) and Panupand Vijjuprabha (AfD -> copyviol speedy). These were all "salted the earth" because, he said, that there was a history of copyright violations by me. However, this was not true. I was the original author of the original articles about these four persons. At that time I was a member of the Executive Board of Directors of the United States Chess Federation and these four individuals here the official nominees of the USCF for election to the Executive Board of FIDE, the World Chess Federation. These four were also the presidents of the chess federations of their respective countries, Turkey, Paraguay, Malta, and Thailand, thus easily making them sufficiently notable by the standards of Wikipedia. The idea that I would copy the work of others is nonsense as everybody knows that I write my own stuff. I do not personally know any of these four men, but since we nominated them to the top positions of FIDE, it was among my duties to write biographies of these men and posting these biographies to various places around the Internet. Thus, when User:JzG claimed that I was violating a copyright, he was accusing me of copying my own work. In short, the earth should be "unsalted" with respect to these four persons. Sam Sloan 11:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can only work on a case by case basis. If the individuals are notable stubs for them can be created. I know Turkish so I could help with this article, but for others I would not know where to start. -- Cat chi? 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|cache|AfD)

Please see my plea on the talk page. Reason I saw were insignificance and that they were a rip-off of the Skrull. The former is a matter of context and the latter is just flat wrong. As far as insignificance being a reason, we have a page that lists 400 fictional races from Star Trek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabbycat (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 October 2007

  • Endorse. AfD was open for 18 days and not a single keep argument was made. I'm confused...this is perhaps the most obvious, properly done AfD I've seen...and I don't see any arguments about it Star Trek in there... Smashville 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 18 days. Forgive me if I don't constantly troll over the articles I think are interesting, gloring over every word. It used to be there. I wondered something about the lizards one day, tried to see if "info-central" could answer my question, and found it gone. The best argument was something about the funny pages. So because I didn't get to voice my opinion in that finite time frame, the matter is shut? Your "no arguments were made in 18 days" reasoning doesn't seem like an actual argument for deletion, which should be based on the article's content, I would think. Stabbycat 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The arguments presented were that the Chitauri themselves were not notable. That's why the article was deleted. Note that DRV is for discussing procedural problems with an AfD, not a chance to re-visit the debate. So, yes, effectively "the matter is shut." If you feel the Chitauri satisfy the Notability guideline, and can provide sources to back that up, you can re-create the article. -- Kesh 22:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering the policy is to keep an AfD open for 5 days...yes, the fact that it was open for 18 days is significant. There was absolutely nothing procedurally wrong with the AfD. There were 18 days to make a valid keep argument...you're not supposed to vote count, but when an AfD is open for 18 days, receives all deletes, then that's about as procedurally correct as it can be. Smashville 17:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse 18 days? Closer to 16 days by my reckoning, but surely more than 5 and many don't even last that long (some of us remember the 3-hour close that was upheld here too). Outcome of debate seems pretty clear. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|cache|AfD)

It's about a e-book but someone deleted it for no reason.

  • Well, the admin did give a reason, "no evidence the book exists at all, link to alleged book doesn't link to what it says it links to". Is that inaccurate? --W.marsh 13:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether the stated deletion reason was correct or not, if undeleted this wouldn't last long in its present state, as it looks like a textbook example of an A7 deletion for NN web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, the nominator has a WP:COI interest in this e-book, if it even exists, as they claim to be its author. Corvus cornix 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse my deletion for the reasons given when I deleted it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this appears to be an expired prod (or not even expired? I'm confused), so isn't it an automatic overturn and off to WP:AFD land? If not, that seems a good liberalization of policy and I'd endorse deletion because this would never survive afd in this state anyway. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

:Template:La (restore|cache|AfD)

respectfully, please undelete-saw this PROD too late, which said simply "closing prod", the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting maintains a list of pending deletions and merges, and we are very good at establishing notability and repairing articles to useful Wikistatus. I am certain that had any one of us seen this PROD, we have the resources to save this article, or to merge useful content either into a regionalized Scouting article or into a newly-found Scouting biography, and we would like the chance to save it. Thank you for your time Chris 05:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Have the text now, thanks! :) Incorporating the stub elsewhere. Chris 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was AfD'd and then speedy deleted on the grounds that the content was the same as an article that had been deleted after an earlier AfD. The speedy deletion was premature and inappropriate. I was the one who recreated the article. It could not possibly have been the same content as the previous article because I didn't have access to the previous article. I recall writing notes on the talk page regarding my reasons for recreating the article. I can no longer see the talk page, but I recall that my reason was that this theological seminary is a key part of a important and somewhat controversial subgroup of the Independent Baptist denomination. The red links to the deleted article are hints to its notability. I have zero affiliation with this outfit (I am merely curious). --Orlady 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse WP:CSD#G4 applies whether or not the re-creator had access to the original text. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. My point is that the content I contributed was not the same, since it was my original contribution. If the deleted page was the same as the one deleted previously, perhaps someone else had replaced my version with a duplicate of the original.--Orlady 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of CSD#G4. No one's claiming it's a deliberate recreation; just that since the content is quite similar and added no information beyond the previous incarnation, the old AfD still applies. Endorse deletion. Chick Bowen 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I cannot compare the articles because I cannot see them, but to the best of my recollection, the article I wrote included information that probably had not been in the previous version. For just one example, the version I found in Google's cache, which I think is the one I contributed, includes the words "The institution enrolls men for graduate programs in preaching and pastoral theology, leading to the Master of Divinity (M.Div) and Master of Theology (Th.M.) degrees. In keeping with the belief that that 'God ordained men to provide the spiritual leadership of the church in the preaching/pastoral function,' the seminary does not award degrees to women, but does enroll women interested in taking courses for personal enrichment or vocational development." From what I can infer about the deleted article, it did not discuss this peculiar aspect of the school. As for notability, I lack the expertise to document the situation in an article, but DBTS seems to be a very intellectual seminary that is a principal center/source for writing and teaching of fundamentalist Christians (i.e., believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible) who oppose the King-James-Only Movement. It is claimed as a an alma mater by many preachers, it publishes a journal, and it conducts seminars on subjects such as creationism. --Orlady 17:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Restore I can see both articles, and they are considerably different--the new one is certainly superior to the AFD'd version and has a good chance of passing AfD. Orlady, I have emailed you a copy of both deleted versions. 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Thanks! After seeing those two articles, I'm guessing that the admin who made the deletion was accidentally looking at the old article in two different tabs, instead of comparing the old one and the new one. (I've been known to make that sort of mistake myself...) I have expanded the newer version of the article, including more specific reference callouts, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orlady/Stuff_I%27m_working_on#DBTS . How do people feel about restoring that version? --Orlady 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It relies awfully heavily on the organization's website. Are there more reliable sources that could be used? Chick Bowen 16:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, heavy reliance on the institution's website is a problem with many articles about educational institutions. Compare the following articles (selected from my watchlist): College of Idaho (college website is the only cited source), Chestnut Hill College (college websites are the sole cited sources), St. Olaf College (college websites are the sole cited sources), Free Will Baptist Bible College (sources not identified; college website is apparently the only source), Austin Peay State University (only sources appear to be college-related websites), and Augustana College (Illinois) (only one of the cited sources is not a college-related website). Citations to independent reliable sources appear primarily in connection with problems or controversies related to the schools. For example, see Chapman University (which appears to be primarily based on the institution's website, but has several citations to news about current controversies) and East Tennessee State University (which is rather carefully annotated, but still depends almost completely on institutional websites for topics other than sports controversies). I don't think anyone would argue that incompletely sourced articles about educational institutions must be deleted; rather, additional sources should be sought for all of these articles. --Orlady 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In the case of DBTS, there are hundreds of ghits, including ministers' bios, blogs (some of which may be sermon archives), and lists of institutions. Some of these are fairly informative regarding the institution, but few of them are reliable sources for citable encyclopedic info about it. --Orlady 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A few examples of somewhat informative, but non-RS and/or non-useful, ghits: http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=dbts (includes a short profile) - http://www.libdex.com/data/33/16886.html (directory listing) - http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/ (faculty member's website) - http://www.parsippanybaptist.org/ministers.html (minister bio) - http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/free-sunday-school-lessons-authors.html (author bios) - http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=20315 (online forum posting recommending DBTS) - http://allenmickle.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/william-r-rice-lectures-at-detroit-baptist-theological-seminary/ (blog posting about DBTS lecture series) - http://www.ntresources.com/theology.html (refers to articles by DBTS faculty) - http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/my-story/ (long personal article about theological topics, including DBTS' views) - http://mytwocents.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/a-day-at-dbts/ (blog post about the school) --Orlady 04:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion basically the same article as deleted. The G4'ed version did nothing to overcome the issues that led to deletion in the first place: no sources, no accreditation, no notability. This should be re-created in user space to let the community see whether such an article can be constructed that satisfies WP:N with WP:RS. The community has said this subject lacks notability - a draft that does not address this fundamental problem is not substantially different than the deleted article on this critical score. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. You ask for the article to be recreated in user space. I thought I already did that. Have you looked at the version on my user page? Do you want it moved somewhere else? --Orlady 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
He's saying the version in your userspace fails to address the concerns from the first AFD, mainly lack of reliable sources, third party sources. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought he said that the G4'd (i.e., speedy-deleted) version failed to satisfy those concerns. The version in my user space is expanded from the G4'd version. Furthermore, I still contend that the G4'd version was vastly improved from the version that was originally AFD'd. The article that was discussed in the original AFD consisted mostly of the DBTS mission statement, a list of the administration, and a "to the glory of God"-style history of the place. That's not what I have written. --Orlady 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I re-read his comment and it is slightly confusing. But more importantly, your version lacks any third party sources. Simply because your is better than the AFDed or G4ed ones, doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I suggest you look at WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:RS. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my less than perfect grammar or ambiguous wording. I was addressing the deleted versions. In any event, what is currently in your user space suffers the same problems as the afd'ed version. No RSes to show N. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
FTR, subsequent to the above comment, I added some additional referenced content to the article. Five of the 16 listed references (including 2 added since the above comment) are now totally independent of DBTS, including a German publisher that has republished its journal on CD-ROM and two websites that attack DBTS for its role in leading fundamentalist Christian believers astray. --Orlady 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
this may or may not be the case, but it is no reason for speedy, and the given reason , G4 does not apply. If the content is different from the deleted article, and it has any show of notability, it needs a full discussion at afd, not here. DGG (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion The text is "substantially identical": although the new writer's claim of independent composition is obviously true, the text conveys the same information, makes the same claims of notability, and offers no new sources (and no reliable sources, either.) G4 applies. Xoloz 12:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse G4 Deletion this clearly was substantially the same as the deleted version. Possibly relist the userspace version. This makes different claims of importance/significance, in my eyes the most significant of which is the claim that it has had a significant role in moving American Fundamentalism away from the King-James-Only Movement. I am not certain if the sourcing for this is reliable, or truly amounts to notability for this college. The claims seem stronger for the church which founded/runs the college. I believe that the church is probably notable and that the best solution is to write an article on the church with a section on the college therein and a redirect at the college's name. GRBerry 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La (restore|cache|AfD)

Quantum consciousness and ion channels {{{reason}}} Quantum Consciousness and Ion Channels. 9 October 2007: False claims of original research despite academic reference for material. Persephone19 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Endose deletion. Afd was here and looks pretty decisive to me. No reason given to overturn consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Notified the WikiProject; hopefully editors there can offer more conclusive commentary. — xDanielx T/C 19:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Examining the deleted article in the light of Pete.Hurd's extraordinarily careful extended comment at the AfD, it seems clear that it was decided correctly. The combination of the two topics was an example of OR synthesis. . DGG (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn while this does have the flavour of WP:OR by WP:SYN and, IMHO, is pseudoscience, it also passes the bar set by WP:FRINGE (which is a pretty low bar, but there you have it) since a couple of the papers cited as references did directly discuss the topic presented in the article (e.g. Bernroider,G.(2003)- Quantum neurodynamics and the relationship to conscious expereince - Neuroquantology,2:pp.163-8). These references were buttressed by many other "fluff" references which would certainly have amounted to OR by synthesis were it not for the couple that were on point. In the AfD I suggested mergeing (along with Quantum brain dynamics) into Quantum mind. These are all (IMHO whackjob) fringe theories, with documentable attention, debate, and cross-over into bonafide mainstream scientific peer reviewed journals. The rationale for merging into one article is the Quantum brain dynamics and Quantum consciousness and ion channels article authors have each been sticking to their own articles, which robs wikipedia of an actual comprehensive treatment of the idea as a whole. Some encyclopedic value would be gained by "forcing" the authors of these pieces to craft one coherent comparison and contrast article. Quantum mind is the obvious place to do this. As User:Persephone19 said in the original AfD, "... the Quantum Mind discussion page does not suggest a great deal of consensus." to which my response is "excellent, lets lock them together in a room and either some learned debate emerges from their interaction (preferred outcome), or we delete them all!" Pete.Hurd 01:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion I agree with those above that the AfD discussion seems reasonable. I'd also note that this isn't even notable (neuroquantology counts as fringe in my book). --Dpryan 05:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was properly conducted and showed a consensus to delete; no good reason to overturn this has been presented. Sam Blacketer 12:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps Pete's view can be accommodated by simply adding the small amount of specific material to "quantum mind". The article does not have to be undeleted for that--I can supply a copy by email. DGG (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    This is a good idea, in fact, since I'm really arguing for a merge, there doesn't need to be an undeletion, just a very strong encouragement that User:Persephone19 work on Quantum mind (preferably along with the authors of Quantum brain dynamics) to make a comprehensive merged article. Pete.Hurd 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion reasonable arguments at afd, reasonable close. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_13&oldid=5621269"