Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18

< February 17	Deletion review archives: 2008 February	February 19 >

18 February 2008

(Some) Years in Ireland categories

Various categories, none of which have yet been deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30#Years in Ireland for the scope.

I'm opening this nomination on behalf of User:BrownHairedGirl because she has expressed an interest in having the close reviewed here. You can see other discussion, if that's the word for it, at User talk:Angusmclellan#Year in Ireland CfD closure, User talk:Sarah777#Year in Ireland categories and User talk:PrimeHunter#Strong suggestions.

BHG will be able to do the reasons for retaining them, and the reasons the close was incorrect, much better than I can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than to repeat or cut'n'paste my earlier comments here, there isn't much to be added. My main point was that there are no deadlines in Wiki; that we asked for time to populate the articles rather than base a deletion on the guesses of the uninvolved editors re what those actually doing the work can achieve. I could expand further and say that this is a classic example of productive editors attempting to build the project been harassed and tired out and disillusioned by unproductive trainspotters. Not very WP:CIVIL but it explains why I am very fed-up of those who claim that in order to make the content more "user-friendly" they will drive away the content producers! And note; all the regular editors on this series oppose this move and all those supporting it are contributing zilch. I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear. One or two have said that if a "decades" category is OK for the earlier "Years in Britain" then it surely must be good enough for the Paddy version. This observation is also no doubt breaching several Wiki "good faith" and "civility" principles but I believe it to be true nonetheless. And I'll have to disagree with the Wiki-establishment that the truth is utterly irrelevant on Wikipedia. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted Category:Museums established in 1980, now that is one of thousands of such esoteric categories; this time in a year-series. There is such a huge field for the non-productive editors to explore; why not go away and come back and look at "Years in Ireland" in about a year? Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overturn of course the point of setting up a systematic scheme of categories is to make provision for articles that will be written, rather than doing it piecemeal. Nobody is forced to help develop these schemes --most of us don't - - but I let the ones who do want & have the patience to do the work to do it without interference.DGG (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse - "Keep the categories because someone someday might create content that would go in them" should cut no ice in a CFD. Sure, someone someday might write a slew of articles that might appropriately be categorized in one of the listed categories. Should that happen, the categories can be recreated with a few keystrokes. Dealing with the reality as it exists today, there is no need for the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous (group) (closed)

Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD

votes were cast on an edited article which did not bear semblance to the contents as it appear in the latest available version of the book

I should like to request a review as I believe before the votes were cast there should have been a confirmation that the contents as they appear in the deleted article bore semblance to the contents in teh valid available version of teh book and not the recalled one as seems to have been the case.Admittedly the number of votes were overwhelmimngly in favour of deletion but that was unsurprising!I woudl not like to retain a list of notable scientists unless Einstein was on it!The other names can be debated!And that is waht happened.A request to get an administrator to independently find out if Einsten was there was not conducted.And at least two votes hinged on that!Maybe more!

Most of the reasoning given related to the recalled edition!Not the current edition!And as the talk page of the deleted article shows,there has been enough discussion to point out that nay such list is bound to have ommissions-even teh Nobel list does not have Tesla or Edison and Einstein's theory of relativity was not considered good enough!But through this list at least I was made aware of Alter,Zohary,Donders and Klingenstierna,names I had never heard but whose artiocles were a direct outcome of thsi list.

Much of teh dscussion in the outcme of a knee -jerk reaction resulting from faulty premise that this lait did not have Einstein.

(Delhite (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vr -- Colin°^Talk 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion consensus was that it was a non-notable book, Einstein or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It is irrelevant whether "the contents as they appear in the deleted article bore semblance to the contents in teh valid available version of teh book" and whether the book has Einstein or not. The article was deleted due to lack of notability of the book. Whether Edison and Tesla got the Nobel Prize or not is also completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Itub (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy The article might be put into the nominator's user space where he can refine it in the light of the new edition and then resubmit the article or add the content to some other related list. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only evidence we have that the Indian "new edition" is actually any different is that it has Einstein on the cover, who is missing from the contents of the British "edition". Neither book is notable in the slightest (which is the principle reason for deletion) and the content is not useful in any way to Wikipedia. The opinions of the author as to the selection of "top" scientists are not only irrelevant (he's not notable) but are also so idiosyncratic as to be worthless. If we thought the article was redeemable, it would not have been deleted. Colin°^Talk 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This DRV is based on the mistaken assumption that the presence of Einstein matters, or that the contents of the book affected the principle reason for deletion: that it is not notable. The only reason the contents were so thoroughly rubbished, is because some editors then and previously, felt that somehow the list itself was useful to Wikipedia (or were under the mistaken belief that this AfD was on a list, not a book). Colin°^Talk 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion. Almost everyone there agreed the book was not important.. Only about 50 US libraries even had purchased the book, a minute number for a reference work of this sort. There were almost no reviews; the author had no special qualifications; it was not a major reference publisher. True, the list was unreliable, but the decision did not hinge on that. Rather, the inaccuracies presumable affected why nobody outside WP took much notice of the book. DGG (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion As I said in the AfD, with hindsight I may have put too much emphasis on the book's deficiencies in the nomination statement, but I was trying to anticipate the WP:USEFUL arguments which resulted in the AfD eighteen months ago ending as no consensus. The primary reason for deletion was always that book (in either edition) is completely non-notable; virtually nobody outside Wikipedia has ever bothered commenting on it; in fact it has never even had a customer review on Amazon. The large majority of the contributors (especially once a few obvious spas/socks are discounted) appreciated that, and correctly said delete on notability grounds. Nobody made any serious attempt to demonstrate that the book meets the standards laid out in WP:N or WP:BK. Who may or may not be in any particular edition is therefore very much a side-issue. But for what it's worth I carefully cross-checked my own copy with the list as originally posted (which I now believe to have been sourced from the Indian edition) and found only two discrepancies - Einstein and Dirac. The difference betweens the two editions therefore seems to be minimal, and only a couple of the many glaring omissions (as catalogued by Afasmit) were corrected in the second. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Despite the sudden inrush of new accounts, there were no serious arguments for keeping this obscure book with an even more obscure author. The AfD was closed correctly. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The contents and/or characteristics of any edition of this book had no bearing. Rather, no verifiable evidence of notability was ever given. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I see no reason to look at this again. All editions are equally non-notable. --Bduke (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn,get the new edition ascertained independently and then submit for Afd

Before the closing administrator rules,it woudl be worthwhile to ponder over a few points:

One of the contributors questions if Einstien is ther as he says there is no evidence apart from the photo on the cover:Exactly!That is why it is important to have a senioe administrator like Bhadani independently verify this.I am sure many voters were influenced by the absence of Einstien as they should be!The process woudl not take long and then thsi article could be resubmitted for Afd-that woudld be fairer!

Comimg to the evidence,one of the voters suggested that teh Rochester University website was a mistake-as the discussion shows many were influenced by this-but is there any evidence!

Moreover the same voter suggested that Jordanova,a top historian of science was embarassed by her association with this book-any evidence!

But perhaps teh most striking comments was from this voetr when he suggested that a top and highly publishing house like Orient Longman accepeted 'turd' rejected by UK publishers.My edition of Oxford Dictionary defines turd as

-term of utmost contempt -lump of excrement!

I leave it to the voters to judge!

I agree there are major omissions as woudl appear in all such lists but there are names of graets that I ha dnever heard of whose articles have been created just because the names appeared on the list. And surely not everyone who holds thsi view is a sockpuppet-I have responded to this voter.I woudl sincerley hope that vote numbers woudl not be the only criteria that would decide.!

(Delhite (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Conditional reversal requested :There a a few scientists without whom no list of eminent scientists would be complete.Most would consider the following to fulfil this criteria:

_Einstein _Darwin _Newton _Galileo _Mendel.

In fact I seem to remember the Royal Society conducting a poll to determine the most eminent scientist of all time and the choices they gave were Newton and Einstein.Newton won!

But the point is that most voters woudl dismiss the list at first sight if Einstien was not there and it woudl be safe to assume that happened!Therfore I woudl agree that it woudl be important to find out if Einstein did appear in the valid list as teh original article woudl suggest.

The other names in my view can be debated.There are major omissions-I can add quite a few more-Leavitt,Lagrange,Meitner etc etc etc.But science is such a vast discipline that any list would suffer from these deficiencies.I never knew how importnat Alter,Rosky,Yoder and Zohary were until I read this list. (Shonali2000 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18

18 February 2008

Carl Otto Nordensvan (closed)

(Some) Years in Ireland categories

Anonymous (group) (closed)

Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD

Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters (closed)