Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 28

Ad Hominem Imperitum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Person who deleted claims the article this entry is refrenced to is "a joke article" [G3: Vandalism ]. As I have explained to him, ONLY the first paragraph of the article is written ironically, the rest of the 60 page article is very serious. --Schmuel (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Article temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Since the page creator admits that this is his original idea, this violates no original research. Ordinarily I'd say Draftify but since this research hasn't been published anywhere, there is zero likelihood of finding reliable, secondary sources that would support the ideas on this page which also reads like an essay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's our duty as Wikipedians to take this matter extremely seriously. Let's all spend lots of time on it debating the minutiae of Wikipedian procedure.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse per S Marshall and the fact that this certainly met WP:CSD#A11 even if the article it's based on is "very serious". --JBL (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse – not what we're here for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the author/nom the author of the third reference as well? It doesn't look like WP:SELFCITE is an issue, but the relationship is not clear. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:CSD#A11 "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance" A new sub-category of a logical fallacy is not important enough?--Schmuel (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Not what were here for"- " If you have invented something in school, the lab, your garage, or the pub" . It wasn't invented in a pub, it was invented during a 6 month period of research and writing an academic article, in the philosophy of science division in a university. Not that I think it actually matters, because people should look at ideas, science and arguments in an objective way, and not according to authoritarian/hierarchical or other superficial and subjective criteria.--Schmuel (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ''If you have invented something in school..." / "...it was invented [...] in a university". Or... you know... a school. The level at which the original research was conducted is irrelevant, if it is original research and it hasn't (yet) received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, its unlikely to be included here. You can believe people should look at one thing or another. But on Wikipedia we have policy, guidelines and community consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only claim that seems legit and objective for deletion is the one Liz made: "this violates no original research" I think I agree. If this is an important policy for wikipedia- I myself will endorse the deletion. Although in any case- I object to to the treatment and the attitude of the person who did the speedy deletion and called the article "a joke". I think people should be treated with more respect, not to mention empathy or COMPASSION. --Schmuel (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are asking for a review of a deletion decision. That generally means citing a policy contradicted by the deletion action in question. That doesn't seem likely in this instance, especially given your lack of familiarity with policy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think is interesting, important, relevant or noteworthy. Wikipedia has guidelines about what should be included and those guidelines generally centre around whether or not a subject is notable. You would do well to familiarise yourself with what "notable" means in this context if you are going to assert that something is notable. Excluding original research is not just an "important policy", it goes to the core of Wikipedia's primary goal. Wikipedia does not, under any circumstances, offer itself as a platform for original research. There are myriad publications that do. There's a reason Wikipedia doesn't include a lot of content about "new trends" or "latest research" or "cutting edge innovation"; in effect, it needs to have first received attention elsewhere to have a place here. This request is unlikely to succeed (if for no other reason than its the wrong forum for your particular assertion), but you are encouraged to get involved make contributions to notable subjects. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid A11 since the (unpublished) source is written by the same author as the one who wrote this article. If we, for arguments sake, said the A11 was invalid the content is obviously so politically charged in support of conspiracy theories (implying that COVID-19 response and climate change response are based on fallacies) that it does not appear to be a good faith effort at making an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse meets the defintion of A11: it indicates that the subject was made up by the author of the article and doesn't assert importance/significance. The one reference cited which mentions the subject is a self-published essay by the inventor and the text doesn't contain any assertions of significance. Being a "new" sub-category of logical fallacy is not an assertion of significance in itself, and the idea doesn't appear to be new anyway. Hut 8.5 07:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse under A11, assuming good faith. If the concept gets independent coverage into the future then it's likely to become eligible. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, my comment in the deletion log entry about the article being sourced to a "joke" source was merely to justify my inclusion of "vandalism" in the deletion rationale, but it is really of no importance, because I would have deleted the article anyway, even if the source cited had not contained deliberate nonsense. However, editors may wish to consider how seriously they would have taken a self-published supposed "research paper" containing statements such as that its author received an award for poetry in 1977, one for engineering in 1848, and one for surviving dinosaur attacks in 140,000,000 BC.
• The article is sourced only to a self-published article written by the creator of the Wikipedia article. (The other cited references are works published 23 and 44 years before the publication of Schmuel's paper introducing the term "Ad Hominem Imperitum".) There is no sign of the concept having received any coverage anywhere else at all. JBW (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, whether it's under G3 or A11, the speedy deletion was proper. Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --MuZemike 16:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per others. Concept appears to be original research, speedy was proper. Hog Farm _Talk 16:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:SNOW. Technically it doesn't qualify for A11G3 but it should clearly be deleted per WP:NOR. As such there's no reason to drag this on pointlessly with an additional deletion discussion. If people really feel like having an AfD, I don't have a problem with that - CSD is supposed to be uncontroversial and those feelings, if expressed (so far they haven't by anyone other than creator) would show it is indeed controversial - but I don't feel the need for it myself. I'll note that some things made up in school can be notable, but for the creator to create the article still violates WP:COI. Smartyllama (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and really tempted to NAC this. Unambiguously correct and uncontroversial application of the speedy deletion policies (whichever one you prefer most), and absolutely obvious example of NOR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anker Innovations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Company is notable in its own right and is a major manufacturer of phone accessories and other gadgets. I think it was wrong to speedy delete the article considering the company's notability. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 20:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Article temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 Curiously, this company article (makes real products, I own some, they've gotten good reviews) doesn't appear to have been nominated prior to the speedy deletion. This is the sort of thing that I think needs a much higher bar than just an admin validating another's nomination, and I just don't see it reached here. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 - There are questions as to corporate notability, but the deleted and restored article is not purely promotional. I would decline it at ARC, but I wouldn't reject it or tag it for G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 – doesn't seem promotional to me. I wonder if this was accidental: the article hadn't even been tagged and there's no apparent reason why G11 would apply. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 – I was very surprised when I first saw this getting deleted in my watchlist, but I guess I was too lazy to bring it up anywhere. Looking at it again, while the article isn't super well-written, I definitely don't see how it would fall under G11. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 00:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I think this is a rare slip by someone whom I regard as generally a good administrator. The article is not as neutral in tone as I think it should be, but it is nowhere near promotional enough to justify speedy deletion. JBW (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst admins are absolutely allowed to speedy-delete an article on their own initiative if that article meets a CSD, and are undisputedly not required to nominate it for another to delete, I think this particular article does not meet CSD:G11. It has existed since 2017 so it is almost certain there is a neutral version to revert to in the history, and the article as was when deleted is not itself of such a low quality to merit removal. As such, overturn.
  The nominator here is however reminded that per WP:DELREVD it's encouraged to consider discussing deletions with the deleting admin before making a listing here; I suspect had such a request been made, the deleting admin may well have taken it into account. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD - It's not obviously promotional enough to satisfy G11, but there are broader questions about actual notability (the sources in the undeleted version are not particularly convincing, and I can't find much better from a quick search), which suggests to me we should send this to AfD instead of letting it languish in mainspace until someone decides to do so. Actually, in the spirit of that, I could also support a WP:NOTBURO endorse, but I'm not positively, entirely, 100% sure this would be deleted at AfD, so I'll stop short of that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason I want take it back: This is important to warn people about Covid-19 information in Wikipedia, by searching "Covid-19 disclaimers". Try to discuss with adminstrator, but unable to resolve (see User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Deletion review) [ Talk to me ] Show! Music Core and more favorite 13:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think there is almost zero likelihood that a reader would search Wikipedia for "Covid-19 disclaimers" and no other pages linked to this redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh That's a pretty low participation discussion, but RfD tends to be that way, and the closure was reasonable, even though I would have likely opined towards keeping it. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both procedurally and substantively. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse procedurally there's nothing wrong with the discussion and I don't think the OP's comment would have made any difference. Note that merely searching "Covid-19 disclaimers" in Wikipedia wouldn't have taken you there, you would have had to search for "Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimer" which few readers would know to do. And as pointed out in the RfD, there's no particular reason to single out COVID-19 in this regard, and similar redirects could be created for numerous other medical conditions. Hut 8.5 07:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how would Google searching have been impacted by this redirect? I honestly don't know. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No suggestion deletion process has been improperly followed. Very unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, for all the reasons given above. JBW (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]