- Garrett relation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Criticism is in my opinion largely unfounded, the research is a decade old, many outside sources exist (c.f. replies on deleter's talk pages) and the purpose is not self-promotion but the understanding of one of the important relationships of our shared reality. Gordonschuecker (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to properly link additional discussions, but here are the two links:
Discussion on Nosebagbear (closing admin's) Talk Page
and
2nd talk section on Nosebagbear's TP
P.S.: Something seems to have gone wrong? The Garrett Relation articles I wanted to link to are:
Garret relation article (temp undeleted)
and
Garrett relation AfD
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonschuecker (talk • contribs)
- Just an initial note that I've tried to fix links for submitter. I have also temporarily undeleted for the duration of the deletion review. Please feel free to revert if you don't want them, and my apology if so Nosebagbear (talk)
- Firstly, my apology to @Gordonschuecker: - I replied to their first post on my TP, but while I saw their second I got distracted at that point and purely forgot to return to it - mea culpa. Moving to the request. I'm happy that my original decision was right (not that Gordonschuecker appears to really be contesting that), so I suppose this is a discussion as to whether the additional sources noted, especially in the second section on my TP, warrant recreation (or at least draftification). I don't really have a strong opinion on that at this point, but I will take a further look. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to have another scholar on board. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. That articles for deletion discussion must have been an incredibly offputting and unwelcoming experience for a new user, and I want to begin by apologizing for my fellow editors' word choices. There are much better ways to say what they said in that discussion.Wikipedia might superficially look like an encyclopaedia, but the process of writing it is basically a colossal, sprawling, unfocused argument, spread across millions of pages. We have some great ways to shut down people who aren't here in good faith. We don't have such good ways to decide between the views of editors who are in good faith, and this means that content disputes can last forever. The science of climate change is one of the biggest ongoing content disputes, and if you'd like to edit on the outskirts of that topic area, we should make you aware of this page. I know it's very long.May I suggest making some edits relating to some other field of human knowledge, just for a little while, in order to build a bit of familiarity with how this place works and how and why we make decisions here, and then coming back to the matter of the Garrett relation with that under your belt? We could drop a copy of the article in draft space in the meantime?—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're asking Gordon to build up some experience elsewhere, adding it to their userspace might be better than draftifying (initially) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am no student of Timothy Garrett, but I am a fan of his work, alerted him once I saw that "his" Garrett relation got removed and that I inteded to see if I could personally help to get the page reinstated/edited as I'm regularly refering to it. I'm researching on similar topics than him and he now also follows me on Twitter so I technically now kind of do know him though. Gordonschuecker (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask if you have read the two discussions I linked in my original post? There is already plenty of secondary coverage, the topic is 10 years old and many have build upon his work (see proposed direct links in the links discussed). Gordonschuecker (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the deletion, as the discussion said, very few of the sources then cited in the article were independent Most were by Garrett (the inventor of the concept) or by Nolthenius who seems to be closely associated. Mo significant discussion by other scholars was cited -- perhaps it is out there, but no one cited it in the AfD or the article. No objection to draftification or userfication, while a search is on for better and more sources. No harm in preserving the history, and a completely new draft would of course be OK. Just be aware of the need for independent sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See reply to the comment above. If allowed, I would be happy to help with draftification or userfication, though if I understand correctly, I need to build experience elsewhere before I'm allowed to because the post is linked to climate change? Gordonschuecker (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|