Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 14

14 April 2014

Favorite betrayal criterion

Favorite betrayal criterion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are several relevant sources which have not been discussed in any of the AfD discussions of this article:

• [1] This is a popular article on this criterion. Democracy Chronicles meets the requirements for a WP:RS: that is, it is not a mere blog, but a news/opinion site with editorial oversight.
• [2] : This is a peer-reviewed paper, not discussed in any of the previous deletion discussions. It does not consider the issue of favorite betrayal as a voting system criterion, but rather as a more general phenomenon. Still, it gives clear evidence that this terminology is known within the voting theory field. (In fact, it suggests a possible compromise: rather than an article on the favorite betrayal criterion, we could have a slightly more-general article on the phenomenon of favorite betrayal (voting theory). I for one would be entirely satisfied with such a decision, though it's not my first choice.)
• Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It) by William Poundstone ISBN-10: 0809048922, p229: This is a book citation, not discussed in any of the article's AfD's. In fact, the nominator in the most recent AfD explicitly denied that there were any citations in published books. While it mentions the criterion only in passing, again, it gives evidence that this is a known idea in the field.

There are also relevant citations which were not mentioned (or actively denied) in the latest AfD, though they had been brought up in previous AfD's:

• [3] An undergraduate honors thesis which discusses and clearly defines the criterion.
• [4] A paper which discusses this criterion extensively. Though this has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it has been cited in a peer-reviewed paper by Steven Brams, making it a legitimate part of the scientific literature.
• [5] A homework problem in a math textbook which involves this criterion. What is Wikipedia, after all, if it isn't a place where you can look up the definitions of the terms used in your math textbooks?

I understand that 7 deletion nominations is an insanely high number. But the first 4 of these were for entirely different versions of the article, and happened before the majority of the sources above even existed; while the last 3 were all made by the same user. These latter would probably have had more definitive resolutions if there had been a better effort to alert interested users; for instance, with an AfD notice on the voting systems wikiproject. In the case of a known controversy, it's probably better to do all the alerts suggested by the AfD process, not just the minimum required.

Furthermore, since this is an area of ongoing research, I believe it is inappropriate to salt the deletion. Even if this is deemed not to meet WP:GNG today, better sources could emerge. Salting makes sense for "on wheels"-type trolls, or other people who are just incapable of understanding that policy has not favored them; in this case, though both sides have been stubborn in our distinct points of view, we have not shown ourselves incapable of respecting policy and consensus. In other words, if this is unsalted but the deletion stands on review, I would not recreate the article unless there were a peer reviewed source, published book, or major news organization that dealt with the issue clearly and directly, for more than a few sentences. (I'm making what I believe is a valid case for the citations above, but I can recognize that ideally they'd be more clear-cut.) Homunq (࿓) 13:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please redact the reference to another users' motivations. DRV is not a platform for attacking other users and DRVs can and have been closed early if that is how they are perceived. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Homunq (࿓) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC) (And, sorry.) Homunq (࿓) 14:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• The paper by Ossipoff is problematic because Democracy Chronicles is merely a blog that portrays itself as a newspaper. In any case, Democracy Chronicles is not a peer-reviewed journal.
• The paper by Stensholt is problematic because he uses the term "favorite betrayal" in a different manner. He uses the term "favorite betrayal" as a synonymous term for "compromising".
• The paper by Poundstone is problematic because he uses the term "favorite betrayal" only in a single sentence. In this sentence, he lists criteria he doesn't consider for whatever reasons.
• The other papers have been mentioned in AfDs. Markus Schulze 18:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Schulze's objections above are all three based at least partly on his own original opinions. My opinions differ in key regards.

• The fact that DC is not a peer-reviewed journal does not make it "merely a blog that portrays itself as a newspaper". It is a news site with editorial oversight. Schulze apparently believes that only peer-reviewed sources are WP:RS.
• Stenholt's use of "favorite betrayal" was relevant in general, though as I acknowledged, it relates to the cases where this criterion is failed, and does not contemplate the criterion as such. We can continue to debate this issue, but anything we say on the subject is likely to be WP:OR.
• Poundstone chooses to mention this criterion, out of all the many criteria he could have mentioned in such an offhand manner, because he has actually already spent almost half a chapter discussing the phenomenon (without naming it), so the reader of his book will recognize the idea.

In all three cases where our opinions differ, it becomes a matter of which side has the burden of proof, since opinions on neither side could bear that burden. In the first of the three cases, there is clear procedure for resolving the dispute (WP:RS. But in the other two cases, I suspect we could probably argue back and forth a long time without either side giving ground. So to cut through that argument: shouldn't the assumption be that a source which says "favorite betrayal" is relevant here?

Homunq (࿓) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is another skirmish in a very longstanding argument between two well-established editors, both of whom seem to be experts (or at the very least, familiar with obscure and recondite texts) on a topic that very few other people are qualified to evaluate. This will be the second DRV and there have been seven AfDs. If we decide to overturn, then in due course there will be an eighth AfD, and if we decide to endorse, then in due course there will be a third DRV. I believe that Markus Schultze and Homunq have become entrenched in their opposing positions and will never agree with each other now. I also believe that in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, we need to find a more permanent solution. I don't suppose both Homunq and Markus Schultze would agree to move this to a binding RFC?—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that, as long as the resulting RfC gave due consideration to the possibility that the situation could change. That is to say: if the verdict were that the article is not currently notable and/or verifiable, I would hope and expect that there would be clear conditions on what kind of new sources could change that, and perhaps some process (that is, if a new source appears, which editors could decide if it's relevant). But since I trust that an RfC result would be at least that reasonable, I don't object. Homunq (࿓) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

S Marshall wrote: "This will be the second DRV and there have been seven AfDs." Actually, this is the third DRV. The other DRVs are here and here. And there was a request for undeletion. Markus Schulze 04:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I apologise for understating the extent of the problem; thanks for reminding me of the other discussions I didn't find. I feel as if this needs a more permanent resolution, because you both appear to have knowledge that could be used to develop articles and it seems such a pity that you're spending so much time butting heads with each other over this. I feel that at some point, we reach the stage where further discussion is unproductive. When this discussion is eventually closed, and whichever way it goes, please would the lucky closer who gets to decide which of these editors is right consider the following additional remedies:- (1) Listing "Favorite betrayal criterion" and variants thereof at WP:DEEPER; and (2) Imposing a rule that further discussions will be speedily closed unless a substantial new source has emerged.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - while I didn't offer an opinion either way, I did participate in the most recent AFD and was able to conduct some analysis of my own in the process. I suppose my commentary could have been (and probably was) interpreted there as weak delete. I simply couldn't find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources no matter how hard I looked. I can't see that the passing mentions really do much to get is closer to the line. I can see the argument that Poundstone was "discussing the phenomenon without naming it" but that's probably not a great example to hang your GNG hat on. It relies on the premise that others interpret that discussion in the same way. As sources go, it's not a particularly good one. I'm not convinced Democracy Chronicles is a reliable source. It's effectively a blogging collective built on a WordPress system. There's nothing wrong with that per se but it seems there are some good writers there and some not-so-good writers. While it seems true that an "editor" (of sorts) picks and chooses material for publication, it's unclear what level of oversight exists. The reliability of any given article from that site would probably need to be based on the author rather than the method of publication. In this case, a Michael Ossipoff is the author. He doesn't seem to have much of an online presence at all and he certainly doesn't seem to be a professor or other academic expert somewhere that might make him a reliable source in his own right. From a functional DRV perspective I imagine the close of that AFD will be seen as entirely valid and I don't think the nominator is suggesting otherwise. But the secondary consideration (potential recreation) is more difficult. I don't think we're there yet. While this is a concept that some people have accepted, it just doesn't seem to have gained the sort of widespread acceptance or coverage that would allow it to meet WP:GNG yet. Stalwart111 07:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Acoustic harassment

Acoustic harassment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was speedily deleted by Dennis Brown moments after I had posted a discussion to ANI about the subject (because it kept getting redirected by someone who seems to have thought it was the previous article). Dennis speedily deleted the article with the rationale "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (ie: Voice to skull)" but this was a completely new article that I had written from scratch based on reliable independent sources.

I am working on the article in my userspace at User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. And for those claiming that this is some sort of completely made up nonsense fringe (which is irrelevant if it's covered in reliable independent sources, because it would still be notable) aspects of this subject are already covered at articles including Microwave auditory effect and sonic weapon. The previous article that was deleted had to do with mind-control, an aspect I didn't find in the sources I found. I did find lots and lots of magazine articles, newspaper sources, and books with substantial coverage of acoustic harassment and acoustic weaponry in reliable sources of this subject. For example here are the Google Books results of a search for "Acoustic harassment". Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, the MFD is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull and, since this DRV has been opened, User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. The ill-tempered ANI discussion is at WP:ANI#Voice-to-skull – the evil microwaves have been effective in harrassing everyone. Thincat (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)