Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:40, 29 January 2008

< January 24	Deletion review archives: 2008 January	January 26 >

25 January 2008

Riverside Garden (Shenyang)

I disagree that with the closer's evaluation of the content of the deletion discussion. I would like admins to review the short article and the short deletion discussion and decide how they would have closed it. I think it is borderline, and thus boils down into whether "keep what can be made better" or "delete anything not already a great article" should decide. I'm for growing the encyclopedia, not deleting anything that Britannica would not have an article on. Listed in the deletion discussion are examples of things of similar importance in Newark, NJ. We have fewer sources on third world countries, so it makes our ability equally cover those countries harder. That should be taken into account also. As time goes on we can expect additional sources on a community of 1000 homes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my closure of AfD as delete. There was a clear consensus for the deletion of the article, and the keep !votes simply did not address the concerns that were brought up by the nominator and the users supporting the deletion. The keep arguments in this AfD either cited other articles as to why it is not deleted, advocating their personal opionion of what Wikipedia should be and personal opionion on the usefulness of the article, which are not convincing arguments for the article's inclusion. The sources added to this article fails WP:SOURCES, part of a core policy of Wikipedia. If better sources can be found in the future, then you are more than welcome to recreate the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, that article could have been speedied as A7, and the DRV argument above does not state any irregularity in the Afd, merely re-argues to "keep" based on Inclusionism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have been a poor A7 deletion... a development is much more a place than it is an organization of people. It's also hard to say it's just a corporation, even in cases like Pebble Beach where it technically is, it's also a physical place. So it only met A7 with some very extreme lawyering of what an organization or corporation is. This should have gone to AFD and it did. At any rate, the AFD precedent is that incorporated, legally recognized places are notable, but developments aren't unless proven to be. A development can be as simple as someone dividing a large parcel into X number of lots and selling them, there's no guarantee there's any official or otherwise reliable information on the development, other than deed books, or whatever they use in an individual country. --W.marsh 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I agree with W.marsh. This would have been an inappropriate speedy-deletion under A7 but the AFD consensus was clear and well reasoned. (The only plausible argument to keep the article was based on a faulty analogy. Small villages may well have less than 1000 homes but they are also independent legal entities. This page described a housing development.) Rossami (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure As has already been said, there is a dearth of verifiable sources. This does not look like a place that would be "inherently notable". It appears instead to be a commercial development or subdivision. As such, A7 does not sound terribly unreasonable. That said, the original closure seems appropriate, and there is no indication that the arguments for deletion were faulty. The consensus to delete seems to me to be well based and clear. Dloh cierekim 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure people arguing to keep failed to provide reliable sources or address the concerns of the people arguing to delete, and their arguments rested on personal opinion that is at odds with widespread practice. The subject is not inherently notable, as it is just a development or subdivision rather than a village, town or geographic feature in its own right. I agree with W.marsh that this would have been a poor A7 deletion. Hut 8.5 13:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and snowball clause close delrev. The closer appropriately determined rough consensus. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure - consensus to delete shown in the AfD, no evidence of notable presented during the course of the discussion. The 2007 version of Encyclopaedia Brittannica has around 65 thousand articles[1], English Wikipedia has over 2 million[2]. Guest9999 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we thought what Britannica was doing was good enough, we'd shut down Wikipedia and apply for jobs with Brtiannica. That they have fewer articles than us is never a reason for us to delete articles. --W.marsh 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picardians

There was no real discussion in the AfD about whether this ethic group actually exists or once existed, and no attempt appears to have been made to do even minimal research. Aelffin (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Uh, the discussion was two years ago, and was longer than the actual article. If you have verifiable information, add it to Picardiey or start a new article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion has as much content as the article did. You might look to improve Picardy ~~instead of T&E's suggestion~~. GRBerry 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. No evidence has been presented here to rebut the AFD's findings either. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseThough short, the discussin seems to me to have covered the ground thouroughly. If someone has verifiable sources attesting to the existence of a recognized and recognizable group by this name, then they could recreate the article. However, quoting from Picardy, there seems to be attestation that the group does not in fact exist "According to Edward Gibbon, Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and from thence of Picardie, which does not date earlier than AD 1200. It was an academical joke, an epithet first applied to the quarrelsome humour of those students, in the University of Paris, who came from the frontier of France and Flanders. (Chapter LVIII - Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)" Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, struck that part. I must have misread that. Dloh cierekim 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, that quote does not say the group doesn't exist; it says the group has a whimsical name. Anyway, I've redirected it to Picard language. Whether it's a separate ethnic group or not does indeed appear debatable. As far as I can tell, it would be roughly equivalent to saying "New Yorker", "Bostonian" or "Liverpuddlian". Aelffin (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The nominator finds that two years ago we were less rigorous in AFD discussions, quite true. But there is no requirement that an AFD actually do research, it's just a matter of responsibility. The original article/editor is responsible for bringing sources to the table. Nor has any been brought to this table. If such sources exist, moreover, there is nothing preventing a sourced article from being written. I can't find anything in a search of the usual places you would find such information, and it certainly isn't a recognized ethnic group today if it ever was more than a demonym, as Aelffin said. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Muenster cheese (closed)

Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad

I just noticed taht thsi article has been deleted.There appears to be a lot of confusion!Ashoka Prasad and Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad are two different individuals but hoary has apparenetly not looked at the evidence.Jahnavi_parasad was born in 1945 not 1955,is teh author of a book and holds an Honoaray degree from Natal which to me is notable enough.Is there anyway we can device a policy to avoid these confusions?Regards (Delhite (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Request moved from talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion This issue has a long, convoluted history. Much background can be found on the AfD, on the talk page of the recreated article, now preserved here, and an earlier AfD on an alternative spelling of the name. In brief, there is a psychiatrist called Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad, who has a relatively undistinguished publication record consisting of one book and under a dozen papers, yet some overblown claims are being made on his behalf on Wikipedia and elsewhere, going back three years or more [3]. There is a psychiatrist called Ashoka Prasad, whose main claim to fame is being struck off medical registers in at least two countries for scientific fraud, and is apparently a bit of a fantasist.[4][5] The nominating account is a spa whose only edits have been to defend Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad and his article, as here, extensive edits to a page on an obscure book on "1000 top scientists" which allegedly includes AJ Prasad (I am trying to check this, but as it's not in my local library it may take a while; in the meantime the only accounts which claim to have actually read it seem to be the ones promoting Prasad), and most tellingly, creating an attack page on John Funder, who headed the panel which found Ashoka Prasad guilty of misconduct. This is very odd behaviour indeed if, as he/she claims, the two are unrelated people. There are several other accounts and IPs with similar histories, for example [6], [7]. Regardless; if they are different people, I cannot see how Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad is notable enough to merit an article. If, as I suspect, they are the same person there may well be something worth writing about, but I doubt that a BLP compliant article could be written with the sources I've found so far. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that there is a deleted page on Ashoka Prasad as well. While I can't read it, from the deletion log it appears to have essentially the same information, and be about the same person, as the one on Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interim comment: AfD/Johnubiprasad is another page that makes interesting reading. On Dr Ashoka Prasad the fraudster, see this BMJ article. For what Wikipedia is worth as a reference source, fr:Ashoka Prasad tells us that Ashoka Jahnavi Prasad est un médecin et psychiatre indien ayant proposé en 1984 le valproate de sodium comme alternative thérapeutique au lithium dans le traitement des troubles bipolaires.[with citation] Il est surtout connu dans les milieux psychiatriques du monde anglo-saxon comme imposteur, faussaire, fraudeur scientifique et auteur d'accusations mensongères à l'encontre des médecins universitaires australiens John Funder et David Copolov and that Il ne doit notamment pas être confondu avec son homonyme Ashoka Jahnnavi Prasad Jr. de l'Indian Institute for Advanced Study, membre honoraire étranger de l'American Academy of Arts and Sciences, élu en 1972 dans la section I:5 (Engineering Sciences and Technologies) de la classe I (Mathématiques et Sciences physiques). -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold deletion - enough with the vanity articles already! Madman (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Send to AfD--both of them. This needs a discussion in the proper place,which isnot deletion review. ~~As importance asserted for both of them, neither of them is a valid speedy.~~DGG (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Meets speedy criteria "Recreation of deleted material" as this has been deleted several times already. No new reliable sources or information has been found to change the reasons for deletion. I find it hard to believe that the fraudster[8] and the great psychiatrist[9] are both a "great grandson of First president of India" yet separate people with the same name. This is yet another attempt by fans of Prasad to create a vanity article full of the usual rubbish. That 1000 scientists article should be AfD'd too as it is just another vanity page for some obscure book by an obscure Indian publishing house. The valproate claim isn't backed up by the source supplied (see earlier AfD). Someone should tell the French they've copied some English bollocks. Colin°^Talk 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Where are the bollocks in the French article? It looks good to me. (Is my command of French even poorer than I realize?) Voir aussi: fr:Discuter:Ashoka Prasad. -- Hoary (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "having proposed in 1984 valproate sodium as alternate therapeutic with lithium in the treatment of the bipolar disorders". And my GP proposed in 2008 the use of penicillin in the treatment of bacterial infections. Perhaps he should get a Wikipedia article? :-) Colin°^Talk 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note for those who find Colin's remark excessively harsh or sarcastic: Please read his earlier comment in the AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aaarghh! I've regressed. Where once I could express myself with eloquence and reason, now I merely grunt out harsh sarcasm like some surly teenager. This is what two years on-Wiki does to you. Colin°^Talk 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not at all. Really, whether or not what we see above is harsh sarcasm, harsh sarcasm does indeed seem a reasonable reaction to the claims made for the significance of this person to the use of sodium valproate -- once one has read the AfD and realized what the actual significance was. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some reason to think that his career is notable as a fraudster, and thus an article would be justified. The BMJ reference is sufficient to meet BLP concerns. DGG (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article built from reliable sources would be AfD'd by fans as an attack page. The radio program and BMJ news item are both 10-years-old. This is old obscure stuff. Colin°^Talk 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with DGG about the fraudster; my BLP concern would be linking the fraudster with the psychiatrist with the modest publication record, whose supporters claim discovered the use of valproate and other unlikely achievements. It seems the only evidence we have that they're the same person is (1) the behaviour of his supporters on Wikipedia and (2) it's completely damn obvious, neither of which is really a reliable source for a negative BLP. An article about his career as a fraudster, leaving out the publication record altogether, might be worth a try, though with only two sources from the same journalist it might be vulnerable on notability and possibly neutrality grounds. However, technically that's not under discussion - it would be a completely different article to the deleted ones (all of them), so wouldn't require a DRV. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deletion review hardly seems the place for writing about write-ups elsewhere about the subject of the article, but I hope the following will be seen as informative rather than disruptive. The only library to which I have easy access does not have the "top 1000" book. The International Who's Who (71st ed, "2008"; London: Routledge, 2007) does indeed have an article on "Prasad, Ashoka". I'll describe it IFF asked. However, Prasad does not appear in Who'sWho [sic] in the World (aka Marquis Who's Who) 24th ed, 2007; in Who'sWho [sic] in Science and Engineering ("2000-2001 Millennium Edition, i.e. 5th ed.), although this does list Ajay Krishna Prasad (mechanical engineering educator) and Atul Prasad (neurologist); in Notable Scientists from 1900 to the Present (5 vols, Gale, 2001); in the rather oddly titled Encyclopaedia of the World Psychologists (4 vols, Delhi: Global Vision, 2002, a book that, to be fair, has write-ups for fewer than 400); or in the impressively large author index (i.e. index of authors of cited papers) of The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science (3rd ed, 4 vols, Wiley, 2001). ¶ I'm drawn to the conclusion that even if Prasad appears in the "top 1000" book (a claim that I'd like to see confirmed by an established, non-SPA editor), this is a mere fluke; and that his appearance in even a very recent The International Who's Who is the result either of (a) a remarkable turnaround in his reputation that I would like to see described in an additional, credible source, or of (b) editorial slackness or credulity (neither of which is unknown within en:WP). -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to have been another incident in Canada in 2005: newspaper report (requires payment), discussion in legislative assembly of Saskatchewan here and here in a more readable page, Saskatchewan Party Caucus press release here. I think the fraudster is probably notable, though I still haven't seen any sources to link him definitively with the alleged discoverer of valproate, who is the subject of the deleted articles, without us having to join the dots ourselves. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Couldn't we join the dots if we did so ever so transparently [pardon the mixed metaphor] and scrupulously? -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - By a strict reading of WP:BLP (and given the seriousness of the allegations, I think a strict reading is appropriate) probably not - negative contentious material must be impeccably sourced, so if someone asserts that the two Prasads are not the same, we'd need a good source to show otherwise, even if we had doubts about the motives of the person asserting it. However, it occurs to me that there's actually no pressing need to cover the publication record at all; the only sources we seem to have for the fact that anyone has ever claimed that he was the first to use valproate in mania are some posts to Wikipedia, and a freewebs hosted hagiography [10], so it would not be appropriate to include anyway. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Send to AfD As DGG says. there are issues here that would be better dealt with in an AfD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I don't really see that there is anything worth sending back to AfD - as far as I can tell, the most recently deleted content is (barring a bit of cleanup by Hoary) much the same as the poorly sourced, unverifiable material which has already been deleted at two AfDs. A better solution, I think, would be to create a new article which says as much as we can within the limits of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP, and let that be sent to AfD if necessary. I would be happy to collaborate with Hoary, or any other interested parties, on a userspace draft. That would also probably be a better venue for the discussion Hoary and I are starting to get into above. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect to those who frequent these pages more than I, the issue at Deletion review is whether the speedy delete was merited. "Recreation of deleted material" is a clear speedy criterion. Hoary and Iain99 have dug up some material on a fraudster with the same name, but none of this information is new: it is covered either on the previous AfDs or on the talk page of the previously deleted article (for which you'd need an admin to recover). Two AfDs have already discussed "the issues here" and they resulted in a clear delete. If folk want to try to cobble together a stub on a fraudster based on a few 10-year-old brief news items, then I agree that someone's sandbox/talk page is a more suitable venue for discussion. Colin°^Talk 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - too much confusion and too little evidence to create an article about a living person (or persons?). If someone creates a reliably sourced article in userspace which is based on verifiable information and asserts the notability of the subject, the article can be recreated. Until that point there is nothing to suggest that the consensus established at the AfD should be overturned or needs to be expanded upon at this stage. Note, I am not suggesting that anything that would violate WP:BLP be created in any part of Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colin points out that Two AfDs have already discussed "the issues here" and they resulted in a clear delete. So yes, leave deleted -- and perhaps take measures to prevent re-creation, and think long and hard about the "Top 1000" article. Colin continues: If folk want to try to cobble together a stub on a fraudster based on a few 10-year-old brief news items, then I agree that someone's sandbox/talk page is a more suitable venue for discussion. Well, maybe: but while IaNaL it does seem to me that the allegations against AP might merit his criminal investigation; IFF this happened and resulted in prosecution, then a WP article might be warranted, but unless/until it does, it would indeed be wrong (as well as stupid and dangerous, and in violation of WP policies) to create an article that might be labelled defamatory. -- Hoary (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn

I have looked at all the logs and first of all woudl like to say that I support no one!But it appears to me that it would be important to dwell on two issues:

1.whether ther are two different individuals withe the same name

2.if so, whether the person in question is notable enough

I woudl humbly submit that the more I look at the logs the stronger the feeling that while there was always some confusion as to the resolution of this issue,most who voted did so without convincingly ascertaining it-which I submit was sine qua non!Most voted believing we were dealing with one dindividual which I what i think prompted them to vote the way they did!

I shlll deal with the first issue here:

Indians woudl know that while Ashok is a very common name Jahnavi is extremely uncommon!I shall list two Ashok Prasad's bothe medical practitioners here.

[11]

[12]

You would note both are politically connected and while one is controversial the other is not!I happen to remember that Mahabir Prasad's son in law was a medic who was murdered and there was a national outcry!

I have read the International who's who

[13]

entry on Ashok Prasad in my libarary.I woudl like to pont out that my libararay contains the 2005 volume and not the latest and he finds an entry there-therefore he has an antry in teh 20005 issue and maybe the ones before and NOT only in the latest issue where of course he is there

[14]

Hie entry reads that he is teh son of late Judge Jahnavi Prasad.I woudl endorse that teh offending blog should not have found a place as a reference as it contains information that is not in the volume itself!Howvere it does confirm he holds an honorary doctorate from Natal in 2000.And Natal is one of the most respected Universities in South Africa.

I woudl also like to invite everyone to go through the International Who's Who site.It says that entries are posssible only after thorough research by a dedicated team of researchers and are continually under review.The volume has gone through more than 70 editions and is generally regarded the most valuable source of notable living!

While it is possible that there may be editorial lapses there but I woudl sublit it is unlikely-and we do not have any evidence!Besides the volume forward says that teh entries are continually under review!

And it wudl appear unlikely that Top 1000 Scientists ,a book prepared by a noted UK archeologist and a top science historian

[15] (Rochester University website)

and published by a top Asian publishing house

[16] which has published bestsellers like Wings of Fire by President Abdul Kalam (and not an obscure publishing house in India as Colin says)would be prey to the same problems-it is likely but improbable that is what I would say!!

In short the questions remain unanswered and in teh interest of faor play,I think the deletion should be overturned!I am personally inclined to believe that we are dealing with two different individuals and one of them seems to have b notoriety on his side while other according to reliable sources seems to be notable enough to merit an Honorary doctorate and place in Int.Who's Who for at least lat 3 years.

(Delhite (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]