Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 27: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cyde (talk | contribs)
28,155 edits
→[[RuneScape armour]]: *'''Delete''', gamecruft. I've seen RuneScape ruin a person's life, by the way. --~~~~
→[[Certainty principle]]: close: endorse deletion before more sockpuppets come
Line 23: Line 23:


There is not much more than what I put in the [[user:whicky1978/Jesse B. Davis|draft]]. What about an article titled, [[History of Vocational Guidance]] or something similar?[[User:whicky1978|whicky1978]]<sup> [[User talk:whicky1978|talk]]</sup> 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There is not much more than what I put in the [[user:whicky1978/Jesse B. Davis|draft]]. What about an article titled, [[History of Vocational Guidance]] or something similar?[[User:whicky1978|whicky1978]]<sup> [[User talk:whicky1978|talk]]</sup> 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

==== [[Certainty principle]] ====

'''Proponents say:'''
* The certainty principle is a mathematical theorem. The [http://daarb.narod.ru/tcp-eng.html proof] is available for everybody.
* It was officially published in the established peer-reviewed journal. It will not be published second time. The journal was registered in Russia, and this is Russian government who has to know about the journal, not Google.
* Nobody has objections against scientific content of the papers. (Really '''no''' objections.)
* If the theorem is true, its notability cannot be questioned, because it generalizes (not contradicts!) the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]].
* The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as [[uncertainty principle]].
* The certainty principle is old enough to take it seriously.
* The question of "reputability" of the journal is anyway subjective and should be discussed only if some specialists in the subject have objections against the certainty principle.

'''Opponents say/said:'''
* Google says that the certainty principle is not widely cited.
* The journal, where the papers were published, is not "reputable", and can be considered as a self-publication.

'''New facts'''. When we had the previous vote, it was suggested to wait until the idea reaches somebody else. Now, after many debates, studying WP history pages, and talking to "real" people we have proofs for that:
* The first version of the article was originally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncertainty_principle&diff=prev&oldid=44690639 created] by [[User:Slicky|Slicky]] (S. Lorenz, an Austrian specialist in quantum mechanics and molecular biology. He cannot be a sockpuppet of Arbatsky: see what he wrote on his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Slicky&oldid=16776116 user page] in 2004.)
* [http://www.geocities.com/aleks_kleyn/ A. Kleyn], an American specialist in general relativity, agreed to publicly support the certainty principle and creation of the article for it. Those, who have doubts, may ask him: e-mail is present on his site.
* Interesting opinion of [[User:Linas|Linas]] ([http://www.linas.org/ L. Vepstas], an American mathematician) deserves to be mentioned. After studying the papers of Arbatsky, he found that "Clearly Arbatsky understands the basics of Hilbert spaces" and "Its a fairly trivial manipulation that has none-the-less interesting result". But [[User:Linas|Linas]] believes that that result must be known long time ago. In particular, the theorem about the certainty principle, being applied to the whole Poincare group, gives inequality (see the last inequality in the [http://daarb.narod.ru/tcp-eng.html table]) which [[User:Linas|Linas]] calls "golden truth" for "physicists working in relativistic quantum field theory". And [[User:Linas|Linas]] believes that it is present in standard textbooks on QFT. But that is wrong! I suggest all physicists, who read this, open their books on QFT and confirm that this Golden Truth is absent there. [[User:Rcq|Rcq]] 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Undelete'''. [[User:Rcq|Rcq]] 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Still unverifiable from reliable sources, still not widely enough discussed to allow us to ensure [[WP:NPOV]]. References above are to opinions, not to sources we can use. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete'''. Mathematical theorem is either true or wrong. [[WP:NPOV]] can't anything do with that. [[User:Deniak|Deniak]] 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*'''Keep deleted'''. Apparently original research; assertions of publication are completely unverifiable. I also note that this has been reviewed before, and ask that this section be speedily removed. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
**Also, feel free to take a look at all the discussion that went into this already at WikiProject Physics: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Certainty principle]]. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 20:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete'''. I am also a lawyer, and I know that "to publish" means just "to make publicly available". As regards peer-review, obviously, the papers were already peer-reviewed by many experts. I also confirm that my books on QFT do not contain the "golden truth" relation. [[User:Kabantu|Kabantu]] 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*'''Comment:''' I've notified [[User:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]] of this DRV. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The article that I speedily deleted on June 7th consisted of two sentences: ''"Do not fight with the Truth. Do not fight with the will of God."'' As you can see, the content had nothing to do with a mathematical proof and was merely a religion-based point-of-view comment. You can find this comment on [[User:Weriu|Weriu's Talk page]], as well as [[User_talk:Weriu|my report]] that the page had been deleted as a {{tl|db-repost}}. I received no reply from any party before being informed of this deletion review by [[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]]. I believe that I acted from a policy position and my audit trail is clear to see. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">[[User:(aeropagitica)|<font style="background: #800080" face="Ariel" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;(aeropagitica)&nbsp;'''</font>]][[User talk:(aeropagitica)|<font style="background:#FFFFFF" face="Ariel" color="#800080">'''&nbsp;(talk)&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span> 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. What SCZenz wrote above about me is also false. As to Kabantu, SCZenz blocked him/her, just because Kabantu supports Arbatsky's ideas! For no other reason! He already blocked many such people. This is terrorism! SCZenz does not respect WP-policy! He uses administrative power to override opinion of WP-comunity! He also reverted edits of Kabantu just because he thinks that Wikipedia is his '''property''' and he, himself, will decide, who may work here, and who may not. It's a shame! '''Stop voting!''' There is no sense in it! [[User:Deniak|Deniak]] 21:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' There are still no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that provide [[WP:V|verifiability]] for the [[WP:N|notability]] of this theory. This is an attempt to gain acceptance of an unpublished theory via Wikipedia. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not]] a vehicle for publishing [[WP:OR|original research]]. Once this research has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal it can be reported here. The opinions of two Wikipedia users do not constitute grounds to undelete this article. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''' I see nothing changed since the original [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle|AfD]]. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete'''. Not original research. The theorem was published. As regards notability, we now have ''real'' people, who confirm it. Original deletion was made upon opinion of three people only. [[User:Wixim|Wixim]] 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete''' per above. I also confirm that have never seen the "golden truth" relation. [[User:Koinut|Koinut]] 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete'''. It is a shame that we vote now, when many supporters of Arbatsky were blocked only for their beliefs. Guy, SCZenz, Arthur Rubin, Bduke, Khoikhoi can also be sockpuppets of one person. But now we know ''real'' people, who support the certainty principle. Of course, they are more important than all "unreal" people here. [[User:Farrin|Farrin]] 22:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete'''. If the theorem is wrong, it will be criticized by competent people and the article will be deleted, regardless of the opinion of all "sockpuppets" here. Notability is obvious: generalization of the [[uncertainty principle]]. I also have not seen the suggested inequality. [[User:Fonch|Fonch]] 22:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete''', per above. Of course, any religious blurb does not belong here. We want only purely scienitfic article about physics. No religion, no pseudoscience "philosophy". Mathematics and physics only. [[User:Primee|Primee]] 22:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete'''. The article may exist only in the case, if the certainty principle is correct. But if it is so, the article '''must''' exist, even if Google does not know much about it. I confirm that the book of Landau and Lifshitz does not contain anything that even ''looks'' like the "Golden Truth" relation. [[User:Darivan|Darivan]] 23:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete'''. All talks about sockpuppets are unimportant. Prejudiced admins have blocked many of obviously real people, who supported Arbatsky, just because of that support. They cannot vote now. The Truth is the Truth. We cannot change it. Notability is obvious per above. [[User:Farrant|Farrant]] 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete'''. We must be honest. The article was deleted only because of opinion of three people, who recognized their incompetence in the subject. At that moment they were ''right'', because '''nobody''' supported the certainty principle, and some decision had to be expressed. Many things changed after that. [[User:Blumbi|Blumbi]] 23:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*<s>'''Undelete'''. Though my edit history is not long also, I see no reason for disregard of my opinion. [[User:Puksik|Puksik]] 23:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
* This was just discussed here at Deletion Review [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=58228882&oldid=58228636 two weeks ago]. The decision at that time was a unanimous "endorse deletion". Despite the sudden influx of [[WP:SOCK|suspiciously new users]], I see no new evidence presented to justify overturning such a recent decision. The allegations at the top of this discussion thread do not meet the requirements of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Undelete'''. The Truth is above Arbatsky and all people here. [[User:Promax|Promax]] 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Fails google test. If it ever becomes notable, then sure. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 00:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment:''' All of the sockpuppets have been indef. blocked. All of them had their first edits on June 14 and then no others until today. Any more sockpuppets who come here to vote, will also get blocked. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Wikipedia is not a venue for negotiating ultimate truth''' and therefore endorse deletion. The authors may be right. They may be wrong. However, Wikipedia is a reporter of already-discussed, already settled facts from other people. If the subject is still so hot as to have fights over it, we can have an article about the fight (if it rises to the level of being discussed by other people, first), but not the disputed math/science. Still, none of this is to the point. The AfD was settled according to rule, and the previous DRV was unanimous. Please only raise this again if new facts ''about the deletion procedure,'' not the deletion's justice, emerge. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
**Oh, and the term "certainty principle" is not the sole name of this...thing. It's a term that has been in use since the 17th century for a variety of things, including the science of probability and statistics. There is a very nice book about Leibnizian probability and theodicy in the late 17th century. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', the process was followed correctly. I can't see any new reason to undelete it. [[WP:NOR]] -- quote from above: "The certainty principle is too young (1 year) to be known as widely as uncertainty principle." The links given are to opinions (and a geocities site!). The amount of news users piping up is suspicious too. Get it published in a reliable source and it might deserve an article... but, right now, my crank detector is beeping. - [[User:Motor|Motor]] ([[User talk:Motor|talk)]] 10:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. What a weird case this is. I can read the old deleted revision and it's clearly got published sources referenced at the bottom of the article, several of them in fact. It's crazy to expect that some recent mathematical theory published in Russia is going to do well on an English Google search. "Sources" do not consist just of stuff that pops up on a Google test, or English language journals. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 11:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*:Thanks for taking the time to do research, but you misunderstand severely. A number of physicists at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics]] looked for ''any sign'' of the journal that was mentioned, and there was none. All publication in reputable physics journals is centrally organized. I note in particular that [http://tw.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506165 the ArXiv entry on the article] does not have any journal citation associated with it. There is no evidence this has been published in a reputable journal, or any journal at all, and the article's presence on ArXiv counts for little because it's not refereed (as was noted on the AfD). -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Why is this even here? It came to Deletion Review only a few weeks ago and the deletion was endorsed on June 13. It was brought by [[User:Hyrun]] who was banned and then created dozens of sockpuppets. The introduction from Rcq above is pretty well the same as that for the previous submission to Deletion Review. Note too that all the people pushing this, if indeed there are more than one, are singly-mindedly pushing this and this alone on WP. They are not editing anything else. Rcq pushed an award of Certain Elephant which he awarded to the person who first wrote this article, and Uncertain Elephant, which he awarded to those involved in the debate to delete it the first time. It have been deleted twice and brought here twice. Enough. [[User:Rcq]] and [[User:Hyrun]] keep trying to get WP to discuss the validity of the science. That is not the job of WP. If the Certainty Principle is accepted by the Physics community by being refered to in important internationally accepted review journals, such as Reviews of Modern Physics, and international journals, along with perhaps getting into key texts on Quantum Theory, then of course we will have an article. But this in'nt the case and the consensus was very clear on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics]] that it was unlikely to be the case. Leave it deleted and ignore all comments from editors who have just joined WP as clearly they have come here just to vote on this one issue. It does'nt matter whether they are socks or not, but many of them have all the hallmarks of being socks of Hyrun. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

* <s>'''Undelete'''. Google is not God. Wikipedia is not a property of Zoe or Bduke. It is plain rude to block new users of WP only because they support some ideas! They do not break any WP-policy. It is a shame! [[User:Labizun|Labizun]] 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. A. Kleyn is a great theoretical physicist. Introduced non-holonomic coordinates on Einstein manifolds. Wrote a lot of excellent articles about non-Riemann approaches to space-time. His opinion is more important than an opinion of anonymous referee even from a "reputable" journal (not to mention non-entities here). [[User:MaxBoldin|MaxBoldin]] 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) </s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. Obviously, poor countries have problems with science, not all journals get money for support of web-sites. But discrimination of scientists from poor countries in WP for this reason is just hidden '''racism'''. [[User:Holdran|Holdran]] 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. The topic is already old and is recognized by actively working scientists. As regards non-entities, they ''always'' deprecate ''everything'' that is above their understanding. This is normal. [[User:Dolbin|Dolbin]] 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. The best source for a mathematical theorem is its proof. It is just ''most'' reliable. As regards Google test, check, for example, Mandelshtam-Tamm relation and the classic article that introduced it (mentioned in the [[uncertainty principle]]). Google knows almost nothing about it. Nevertheless, that article exists and is recognized as classics by specialists in quantum mechanics. [[User:Klapsin|Klapsin]] 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. This is just nonsense, when Google decides, what is true and what is false in mathematics and physics. And I also do not understand why people with shorts histories are immediately blamed to be "sockpuppets"? Will these terrorists block me too? [[User:Naxel|Naxel]] 17:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. "Consensus" on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics]]? Yeah, SCZenz just removed posts of supporters of the CP and "consensus" was achieved. [[User:Polin|Polin]] 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. Striking out and removing of votes of people with short edit histories is plain vandalism. Blocking of such people for their beliefs is plain terrorism. [[User:Rappon|Rappon]] 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. Yes, there are a lot of things in Wikipedia that Google does not know much about. And what? Notability of the certainty principle is obvious, because it generalizes both the uncertainty principle and the Mandelshtam-Tamm relation. [[User:Jantop|Jantop]] 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. The papers were peer-reviewed by real people. There is no reason for disregard of their opinions. [[User:Gafnero|Gafnero]] 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. Supporters of the certainty principle must win just because they are '''right'''. [[User:Lijuni|Lijuni]] 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</S> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. Google replaced human brains!! [[User:Lampuchi|Lampuchi]] 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. In previous vote we came to decision to wait until the idea reaches somebody else. Now obviously reached. [[User:Geling|Geling]] 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. All wikipedians, even those with short edit histories, may vote. We must respect Wikipedia policy. I checked my books on QFT. They do not contain the "golden truth relation". [[User:Difameo|Difameo]] 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. If there are no scientific objections from specialists, there is no reason to suppress the article. [[User:Stripsi|Stripsi]] 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

* <s>'''Undelete'''. I completely agree. If something is wrong with the [[certainty principle]], the article just will be deleted later. [[User:Fonduran|Fonduran]] 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s> ''sockpuppet''

*<s> '''Undelete'''. There is no reason to keep the article deleted just because three people have made a mistake. Nobody is perfect, but it is a shame to persist in something obviously wrong. [[User:Kristman|Kristman]] 23:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s>

*<s> '''Undelete''' per above. [[User:Rakniz|Rakniz]] 23:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
**Wow, lots of sockpuppets! --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see Hyun is up to the sockpuppets he created on June 15 now. I wonder how many he made on June 16? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]
*'''Endorse deletion''' (I could have sworn I already voted), valid deletion and the barrage of sockpuppets make me even more convinced that the deletion was a good one. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

* <s>'''Undelete'''. Not original research. Peer-reviewed by specialists. [[User:Baltorn|Baltorn]] 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC) </s> ''sockpuppet''

Revision as of 16:47, 29 June 2006

June 27 2006

RuneScape armour

This article was nominated for deletion by me - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour. Knowing what happens when you try and delete any kind of gamecruft 'how-to-play-the-RPG' article on account of it abjectly failing Wikipedia is not a video game guide, I even left a note for the closing admin to try and avoid vote-counting (incidentally, it was 10-8 in favour of deletion, plus one 'sarcastic keep' and one 'merge' vote). The article fails WP:NOT. There was block voting by RuneScape project members to keep their nice cruft. The reasons to delete were that the article failed WP:NOT - one of the main policies of Wikipedia, and as per precedent on all the Command and Conquer cruft. The (IMO, flimsy at best) reasons to keep were: "There's nowhere else no put it", "It is not a strategy guide", "Armour is important in the game, so it's an important article", and the crufter's favourite defense, "There are lots of other articles on this sort of thing," (for shame, Sjakkalle!). WP:NOT ought to be non-negotiable, and the constant ceding of AFD decisions by admins to blockvoting from special interest groups is getting boring. Overturn and delete. Proto///type 12:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response from closing admin - Thanks to Proto for notifying me of this DRV. As I have said on Proto's talk page, I took notice of his request and would not make a judgement based on vote counting anyway. I believe a decision of No Consensus was reasonable in the circumstances. The article was changed in response to the AfD which complicated matters, but either way there was no consensus to delete. WP:NOT may be non-negotiable, but whether or not something falls foul of the rule is a community decision and is what AfD is for, and if you are not sufficiently supported in that view then the deletion will not succeed. Obviously the article could be relisted in future, but I do not believe there was anything procedurally wrong with the closing decision and therefore no call to overturn it at present. —Whouk (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad this was brought to deletion review; I might have brought it myself if Proto hadn't. There were plenty of people voting Keep, but none of the reasons given were very good. The one that may have had the most influence (since it was the only one that addressed Wikipedia policy) was that it couldn't be considered a game guide anymore because of the edits made to the article during the deletion (summarization, mostly). The thinking there was that if it didn't go into game-guide-like detail about how to find the armor, what it was for, etc. then it wasn't a guide anymore. Well, it is, it's just a shorter one. Recury 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Calling this as a "no consensus" decision was well within reasonable adminstrative discretion. Note that if core problems raised during the deletion debate remain after a reasonable period of time, you can always renominate it for deletion then. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Totally fails WP:NOT. This is not even really a DRV case, but a case where any admin may delete it as a blatant violation of policy. FCYTravis 00:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively, keep as the rewritten article I have created. We now have an article that tells us basically what runescape armour is. That is all. A listing of every single type of armour, or what weird tiny things each particular armour does differently, or how the Beeblebrox Armour protects better than the OMGWTFBBQ armour in certain circumstances, but clearly the Wal-Mart Smiley Face Armour is better than either, etc. etc. etc. is completely and utterly in violation of policy which states we are not a game guide. This is not a subject for "consensus" decisions - unless someone wishes to change currently enforceable policy, which they are free to attempt to do. FCYTravis 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete. Bloc voting should be understood as such. At most, this can be a footnote in the Runescape article, but really doesn't belong even there. --Improv 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Clear no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft. I've seen RuneScape ruin a person's life, by the way. --Cyde↔Weys 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse B. Davis

Why is Jesse B. Davis deleted??? I requested that Calvin Tuteao be deleted. The deletion was removed. Why is there a double standard? Are actors more important than educators?whicky1978 talk 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IMDb page link asserts the notability of the actor, and thus it didn't qualify as speedable. The Jesse B. Davis article was a one-sentence stub that had no assertion of notability. Hbdragon88 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who tagged Davis for deletion as he only returned a relative handfull of Google hits and, according to record, was previously deleted. I've read over what you posted on my talk page and left you some advice towards further action. אמר Steve Caruso(desk/poll) 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is notablility? And how do you determine it? Why the need for an internet source? Doesn't IMDB work like a wiki?
    The first sentence does give Jessee B. Davis notability. He is noted for being the first person to implement a school counseling program. He was a forunner of school counseling and guidance. You are confusing popularity with notability. And I see the article was deleted without discussion. whicky1978 talk 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the first version (created and deleted on 26 June) was speedy-deletable as an example of an unsourced "Joe is great" article. We, unfortunately, get an astounding number of those kind of articles and have been forced to set a fairly high trigger on such biographies, otherwise we would be inundated with all the junk. The claim that "XXX is probably the first to implement yyy" is a very weak assertion of the person's ability to meet our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Given the massive problems we have with true junk, I can not dispute the deleting admin's decision based on the evidence available at the time. False positives are always unfortunate but often inevitable.
    24 hours later, you recreated the article and this time added a single paper-only reference. You may be well-intentioned, but this is a tactic often used by vandals so it's not surprising that the edit was met with some skepticism.
    My own research {google search) shows that there was a Jesse B Davis who was the second president of the National Career Development Association (1914-16)[1], indicating that the claim is plausible. The name shows up again in someone's class notes[2] in a relevant context - not a reliable source but it substantiates the plausibility of the claim. The name shows up again in a Professional School Counseling Journal article[3] - again, in a context that is plausible to the claim. Taken together, I think there is grounds to overturn the speedy-deletion but with the reservation that if the article is not significantly expanded and sourced within a reasonable period of time, an AFD nomination may become appropriate. Rossami (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHAT ABOUT THIS? This would not qualify has a stub. It has seven sentences.whicky1978 talk 05:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much more than what I put in the draft. What about an article titled, History of Vocational Guidance or something similar?whicky1978 talk 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_27&oldid=61221942"