Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 1

Hallo, I would like to request to undelete the article "Judicial Shamanism". The discussion presented here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judicial_Shamanism is completely uncompetent. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, but a student of English at a second-class American college who does not speak any foreign language. I would consider as an exprert only a lawyer who is familiar with postmodernism of law and with critical legal studies. In a normal world a student of English would never be considered as an expert on the subject. I'd like to provide some substantial arguments for undeletion. The concept of "judicial shamanism" is used by the following people:

1) Article "In the fortress of double standards" ("Dvygubu standartu citadeleje") of President Rolandas Paksas of Lithuania. He writes in the conclusion that the practices of certain courts shall be understood as "judicial shamanism" http://www.ivaizdis.lt/zinpr_det.php?id=9827 and http://www.paksas.eu/news.php?strid=1577&id=3139

2) There is an official statement of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court on "judicial shamanism" http://www.lrkt.lt/APublikacijos_20080320b.html

3) There is an article "Theory of Judicial Shamanism" of Stanislovas Tomas published by the WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOHPY OF LAW (that took place in 2005) http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=211909788&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine He also has a number of other scientific publications on the subject, and is a postmodern law scholar at the university of Paris.

4) A chapter the book of Rafael Prince from the University of Sao Paolo is dedicated precisely to the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.buscalegis.ufsc.br/revistas/index.php/buscalegis/article/viewFile/33054/32234

5) There is article "Shamans, Law and Logic" of professor Rolandas Pavilionis and it deals particularly with the subject of judicial shamanism http://www.vgtu.lt/upload/mc/lm_73kn_3.pdf and http://www.skrastas.lt/?rub=1065924817&data=2006-01-24

6) The conception of judicial shamanism is developed at page 42 of Sergey Shirokogoroff called "Phsychomental Complex of the Tungus". Shirokogoroff writes that Western philosophy, Western psychology and Western law are contemporary forms of shamanism - all the book is dedicated to this thesis. Mr Shirokogoroff was a professor of law at Cambridge.

7) The conception of judicial shamanism is mentioned at page 48 of "Le systeme des objets" by Jean Baudrillard. He uses the concept of "shamanic ritual" and this notion is essential for the theory of simulacra. (The admin who deleted the article never heard about postmodernism).

8) Professor Fred Rodell from Yale dedicated all his academic career to comparing law to Voodoo.

Moreover, the deletion was not unanimous - there were two for and one vote against. Even more so - the article was previously undeleted but the admin ignored the previous discussion.

Finally, I would like the admins to disclose their degree level. I hold a German PhD degree in postmodern jurisprudence. The admin who deleted the article is a college student of English. In a normal world our arguments would never be considered at the same level.

This is why the article shall be undeleted. 158.64.52.114 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T:cite news

(1) Main argument given for deletion, WP:CROSS, gives specific exception for intended use. Redirect was created in accordance to WP:namespace article: WP:namespace#pseudo-namespaces indicates "T:" as the correct shortcut. (2) Closing admin Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) says it was based on consensus. Vote that was based on 3 total votes 2 to 1. Not enough for consensus, relisting for more input in order, or no consensus. I also contend RfD should not be reduced to a vote in this instance.

Related deleted pages are T:cite web, T:cite paper, and T:cite book. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without opining, those interested may find this discussion relevant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me; RfDs often get fairly weak participation and the consensus there seems comfortable enough. I wouldn't object to relisting the discussion for more opinions if it really is this contentious, but I don't personally buy the argument that just because one single person finds a cross-namespace redirect useful we should keep it. I'd probably have closed this the same way, and hence I endorse the closure as sensible. ~ mazca ^talk 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Truth universe

This AfD was closed as "no consensus" by Kurykh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I believe there was a consensus to delete, largely because the arguments to keep were exceptionally weak and should have been ascribed less weight. The arguments for deletion were grounded in policy. The main argument to delete was the lack of evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources; those arguing to keep failed to refute this argument. One "keep" voter contended that third-party coverage was not necessary, an argument that conflicts with the guidelines at WP:N and WP:WAF. Another argument to keep was that sources might exist – an assertion that was not backed up with any evidence. The remainder of the arguments to keep were arguments to avoid, including WP:WAX, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:BHTT, and WP:USEFUL. In contrast, votes for deletion were rooted in policies like WP:NOT and WP:V (in addition to the notability guideline). All things considered, the article should've been deleted; however, Kurykh stands by his close. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete- I firmly believe consensus should be determined by strength of argument and not solely by strength of numbers, and that the stronger arguments were on the "delete" side. Reyk _YO! 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - I really don't see an overwhelming consensus to delete this page, and simply listing off abbreviated policies/guidelines/essays gives the impression of an AFD take 2, which is not what DRV is to be used for. Deletion should occur if the page is completely non-salvageable, and I don't see that upon even a cursory look at the article.--WaltCip (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Very few of the keep arguments addressed the nomination of to a lack of secondary sources discussing the article's topic. Without such sources it was argued that the article fails any number of policies (verifiability, reliable sourcing, notability) and I do not think that these arguments were given sufficient weight, especially against keep arguments that inadequately address these concerns. While it was asserted by Nefariousski that these sources exist, no reliable secondary ones were provided during the debate. By a nose count this is a non-consensus debate, by strength of the arguments it should have been closed as delete - Peripitus (Talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as "No Consensus". DGG's argument, that as a sub-article this does need to have the independent sources called or by WP:N and can be reasonably sourced to the primary material is not so unreasonable that it should be discounted. Guidelines are just that, not inflexible rules that must be obeyed in all situations. As such there are reasonable keep and delete arguments balanced in number so that No Consensus is a reasonable close. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete DGGs arguments were so weak (and these were backed up by Edward321) I can only assume that he had not analysed the debate or studied the article in sufficient detail. To create a separate article because the primary article did not have enough space to incorporate the "in-universe" stuff is a terrible precedent because in doing so wikipedia can no longer be an encyclopedic account of the external world and it turns it into a collection of indiscriminate information or fancruft which is lamentable per WP:NOT. Not a single one of the keep voters managed to refute the deletion rationales which were based on policy such as WP:NOT. Therefore this is a poor close. The argument seems to be partly based on the fact that spin off articles do not need to meet notability guidelines and that sources could be found in the future. This is so weak all keep votes could be ignored. Moreover the debate was still very active at the close with a significant amount of information coming very late with no chance for editors to respond. With keep votes lacking any arguments based on policy this should have been a clear delete or a relist pending any keep votes that could be based on policy. Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closure was not deleteThere was no consensus. Consensus means most people are appeased, not that most arguements are most legitimate within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Besides, it remains just as prominent as any other fictional world, it just needs more work. Simply deleting a page because it is not "there yet" seems a little ridiculous. What about articles like List of Forgotten Realms characters? should we automatically delete a page, or should we put a in universe style template at the top and allow for change to come. Or look at Middle Earth even, they establish the real world briefly before going into a much broader in world perspective. Leave the page. The tag has only been on it since October, give people a little time. 4 months is not enough. Sadads (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also the head of the Sword of Truth Task force. I will spend some time estabilishing real world content in the coming future.Sadads (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to Sadads but this is a taste of the AfD keep arguments all over again. Mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "it can get better" and "give us some more time and we will prove the notability by finding the sources." Clearly not based on policy unlike the deletion rationales. Polargeo (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To this, I bluntly cite WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again in Wikipedia "policy" = guidelines subject to consensus, not "policy" = consensus subject to guidelines. This is a judgement call, and the judgement call by the consensus was that it is too rash of a move. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]