Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23

Administrator instructions

< February 22	Deletion review archives: 2009 February	February 24 >

23 February 2009

File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg

Nv8200p archived this debate according to him (and I agree with him on this point) "because I saw that there was no consensus". There is however another problem, which I think allow this review: this file (a map) is supported by no sources (what is written in the file summary is not true). People could say a lot about the PoV characteristic of the map (i.e. boundaries of Azerbaijan in 1918-1920), but, in my opinion, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the map is using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia, which makes it completely anachronistic; and it's also why the map is not supported by sources (which use the 1918-1920 boundaries). Sardur (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't fair. Doesn't this map violate the same justifications you claim above? Atabəy (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, It strongly supports User:Sardurs point that File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg and File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif show completely different borders between Armenia and Iran/Persia. I'm not an authority on this by any meaning of the word but it probably motivates a check against RS for the same - and since a cursory inspection on google makes me think the latter is the correct border [1], [2] a reslisting with more thorough discussion will probably see this removed. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete per consensus to delete at FfD. There looks like a clear consensus to delete at the XFD as this map is a WP:OI. There were no valid arguments to keep. The only weak argument to keep was that a map of Wilsonian Armenia supports this map however Wilsonian Armenia never came into being and only sought to define the borders between Turkey and Armenia after WW1. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold knowledge

Misapplication of WP:SPEEDY and article clearly notable.

I created threshold knowledge some while ago, but it was recently speedily deleted by Deb. I approached Deb about this (you can see our discussions here and here), but Deb said, "I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see any reason to give priority to this discussion", curtailed our discussion and referred me here. I present two arguments. First, the article should not have been speedily deleted according to the policy in WP:SPEEDY. Second, threshold knowledge is notable under WP:GNG in that there are multiple reliable source citations to the idea.

Threshold knowledge, as an article, was not eligible under WP:SPEEDY. Deb speedily deleted the article under A7. As I said to Deb, WP:SPEEDY states A7 "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations", so an article on an academic theory is not covered by A7. WP:SPEEDY even explicitly states that, "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria."

Deb did not offer any particular rebuttal to the A7 issue, but said, "I can assure you there are other speedy categories under which it does qualify." I asked for clarification and Deb suggested the article could be speedied "as lacking context" (i.e. A1). I find it hard to see how the article as created, complete with a clear citation, falls under A1. Deb also said, "it would be reasonable to tag it as a dictionary definition": I disagree and that is not a reason for speedy deletion (A5 only applies after an article has been transwikied and so does not apply here). I can see no criterion on WP:SPEEDY that applies. Moreover, if there is uncertainty about what criteria an article may fall under, WP:SPEEDY advises, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I suggested to Deb that it would be more appropriate to take his/her concerns to a WP:AFD, but Deb deferred.

I entirely admit that the article that I created was a stub, three sentences + a citation. As I think I said in my initial edit summary, I was being bold. Deb suggested at one point, "you expect other people to do the work necessary to bring it up to standard". I think what I initially created was of some value, but basically, yes, I do expect other people to improve the article. Isn't that precisely how Wikipedia works? Wikipedia encourages boldness and collaboration and I acted under those principles. Speedy deletions are a very important tool in Wikipedia, but WP:SPEEDY exists as policy and I have sought to apply WP:SPEEDY here. I propose the speedy deletion be overturned and, if anyone so wish, the article be Listed as an AfD.

Threshold knowledge is notable. Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford.

Another would be:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.

That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example:

Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258

Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962

Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517

Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the deleter: I will not be participating in this debate, except to explain my reasons for deletion. As you see from my talk page, the creator of the article and I had several exchanges, during which it became clear that s/he had no intention of bringing the article up to standard. Had I restored the article because the speedy deletion was possibly on incorrect grounds, I would immediately have deleted it again as lacking context (as I explained in the initial discussion). I could not see how this would resolve the issue, so I spent my time on other things which I felt to be more constructive. Deb (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I might respond to Deb's comment, I find the assertion that I "had no intention of bringing the article up to standard" to be somewhat lacking in good faith as well as in accuracy! In addition, again, I suggest this seems to be missing the whole point of Wikipedia as a collaborative enterprise. It is surely not the responsibility of the creator of an article to make it perfect, as WP:BB and WP:OWN make clear. I remain unclear how Deb's rationale otherwise concords with policy as laid out in WP:SPEEDY. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as A7 only applies to people, groups of people, companies, organizations, and web content, and this article was none of those. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as not meeting CSD but list for AfD so a discussion can take place for the validity of the GNG claim. DRV is not the forum for a decision on whether the content should be retained - merely to ensure that it is given fair assessment in context of policy and guideline. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Overturn As Stifle says it is not in any of the A7 categories so does not meet that criteria and I cannot see that it would meet the A1 no context criteria either, its seems to be an ok starting stub. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As stated above Doesn't fit A7, and I disagree with the idea that it could have also been speedied under no context. I'm not sure that it needs to go straight to AFD, however if someone wants to, that's their choice.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Clearly improper CSD. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred_M._Levin (closed)

Category:Fad diet

This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not NPOV". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since Fad diet clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that Category:Pseudoscience is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the American Dietetic Association has a list of fad diets here. So, I'm invoking principle 3, i.e. new information not previously discussed. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, seems to me like an attempt to make an end run around the consensus at the CFD. ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction on content issues. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change—that is the basis for principle 3, listed on WP:DELREV. I think I've outlined above substantial new information not previously discussed, so dismissing this as end-run seems arbitrary to me. Arguing that a small number of editors can forever the decide the future of this category when that discussion was not advertised to the interested WikiProjects is the real end-run around consensus. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can, but it rarely changes that fast. There is (correctly) no requirement in the deletion process to notify every editor/WikiProject/etc. of a request to delete any page that might concern them, as it would be literally impossible to ensure the process was followed in such a case. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: I was not aware of the deletion of the original Category:Diet and food fads (or of the discussion that took place there) when I created Category:Fad diet. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong undelete Diet is important to both WP:MED and WP:SKEPTICS. If a small group behind virtual closed door makes a decision without the involvement of all parties this is not wiki democracy. And thus not a binding decision. I agree with Xaso that this is an important category and that there are good references to justify its existence and which diets should be included.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But then, as I'm sure you recall, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also, CfD isn't exactly a "virtual closed door", it's a project page and a part of the deletion process. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This needs a new discussion. Consensus can change. DGG (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that consensus can change, this CfD was closed only two weeks ago, do we see any tangible evidence beyond the objection of the nom for this DRV that this has occurred? [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Many articles in the scientific literature refer to fad diets. see

Ness-Abramof R, Apovian CM (2006). "Diet modification for treatment and prevention of obesity". Endocrine. 29 (1): 5–9. doi:10.1385/ENDO:29:1:135. PMID 16622287. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Mobley C (2008). "Fad diets: facts for dental professionals". J Am Dent Assoc. 139 (1): 48–50. PMID 18167384. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Ruden DM, Rasouli P, Lu X (2007). "Potential long-term consequences of fad diets on health, cancer, and longevity: lessons learned from model organism studies". Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 6 (3): 247–54. PMID 17535033. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

In evidence based medicine we have a saying called "show me the evidence". Here are three reviews that substantiate this term. One of my concerns is that what we have here is that those who wish to promote fad diets want to disassociate themselves with this term due to its negative connotation. However this term has a negative connotation because it is rightfully deserving of it and this is supported by the literature.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is not whether there are "fad" diets, whether people percieve some diets as "fads" or not, or whether the fad diet page should exist. The concern here is whether it is possible to assign a page about a diet the categorization [[Category:Fad diet]] without inherently breaking NPOV. Generally, whether a diet is a fad diet or not will be debated not only between diet followers but also between medical professionals (see for example Atkins diet - some would call it a fad, others would call it absolute, irrevocable, truth - both are POV). The only way to avoid this being POV would be to introduce a word making it an observation Category:Diets considered fads by some - but that in turn wouldn't be in line with WP:WEASEL. I don't think there is a good case for this. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether a particular diet is sufficiently unscientific to be categorized as fad surely can be discussed based on the level of evidence and the credibility of sources making the assertion, but the deletion of the category prevents any such discussion from taking place. For another example and further reasoning, see my comment further below. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - no clear case for consensus being different then it was 2 weeks ago. This categorization is still inherently POV, no less so than [[Category:Wrong religions]] or [[Category:Bad ideas]]. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion is fully justified IMHO. Deb (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, rationale and arguments were sound. I am sure there is scope for a prose article on bogus diet and food fads, but in this case a category is a little hard to maintain in an NPOV fashion - the only diet I don't consider a fad is the ELF diet, but since i managed to lose over 40lb and 8" round the waist in three months while not reducing my food intake, perhaps I am not the best person to judge that. Which is rather the point, in fact. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only diet which is not a fad is the DASH diet and the low calorie diets. All the rest are.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore If "Category:Fad diet" is merely a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience", on what basis should the first category be deleted, but not the second. Of course, the fad diet category should be used with caution, but, where appropriate, it can be useful to the reader, IMO. Whether or not an article is tagged should be discussed on the talk page beforehand as with the pseudoscience tag. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "Category:Fad diet" is restored, it should be included as a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience". --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example: Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that "fad diet" is attributed to ADA in the text. I don't think it's practical to create Category:Fad diet according to XXX for all relevant organizations (occasionally NHS make this kind of commentary too, etc.) I assume this practical issue resulted in the ArbCom decision on the categorization of what is "generally considered pseudoscience". I have asked the ArbCom to clarify if the decision applies to diets or not. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]