|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The outcome of the discussion was not clear. Also, music competitions are not prizes and do not fall into WP:OC#Award-winners. Karljoos ( talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1&action=edit§ion=T-2
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Since the AfD, the manga series has
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Vid Belec is a young player of Italian Serie A club Inter, he's in the first team as you can see from the official Inter website, the article is definitely notable. Ekerazha ( talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Judicial Shamanism ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Ok, so the same without remarks about the educational background: 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 was not factual. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, and did not provide any serious reason for deletion. 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 at 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 introduced 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 introduced 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. 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. Dear The Hand That Feeds You, my point is not an appeal to authority. The admin who deleted the article ignored the 8 reliable sources that I gave without explaining why, according to him, they are not acceptable. Each my point is supported with a link. 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
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 at 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 introduced 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 introduced 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 who does not speak foreign languages. In a normal world our arguments would never be considered at the same level. The very right of such admins to delete articles shall be considered as vandalism. This is why the article shall be undeleted. 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
(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)
Comment by DRV nominator: Everyone is saying it is a reasonable close but has not cited any WP article to support the claim. In addition to WP:Namespace and WP:CNR itself which literally interpreted prescribe and allow said shortcuts, close reading of WP:RfD#The guiding principles of RfD and WP:RfD#Keep would seem to indicate this closure as against the spirit of RfDs. RfDs are supposed to be a space of greater leniency than AfD or other deletion areas. WP:CSD#Redirects specifically R2 further supports my stand. If closure of this was proper I'm having difficulty understanding why Template: is explicitly mentioned there and AFD necessary and simply CSD not adopted. What would the exception be? From what I can tell general but undocumented practice at XfDs is the sole reason for endorsing this close even if it conflicts with a whole line of WP articles. This is a conflicting and schizophrenic state of affairs. 2 people in an obscure XfD misinterpreting or misrepresenting the contents of WP:CNR in this instance overturned consensus as stated in more than one WP article. As someone who has so far not generally hung out at XfDs except when articles I've directly worked on have been challenged I would like to call attention to the discrepancy between what is said in articles for the benefit of the general Wikipedian community and the actual practice at XfDs of specialists. Lambanog ( talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The outcome of the discussion was not clear. Also, music competitions are not prizes and do not fall into WP:OC#Award-winners. Karljoos ( talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_1&action=edit§ion=T-2
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Since the AfD, the manga series has
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Vid Belec is a young player of Italian Serie A club Inter, he's in the first team as you can see from the official Inter website, the article is definitely notable. Ekerazha ( talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Judicial Shamanism ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Ok, so the same without remarks about the educational background: 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 was not factual. The administrator who deleted the article was not an expert on the subject, and did not provide any serious reason for deletion. 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 at 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 introduced 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 introduced 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. 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. Dear The Hand That Feeds You, my point is not an appeal to authority. The admin who deleted the article ignored the 8 reliable sources that I gave without explaining why, according to him, they are not acceptable. Each my point is supported with a link. 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
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 at 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 introduced 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 introduced 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 who does not speak foreign languages. In a normal world our arguments would never be considered at the same level. The very right of such admins to delete articles shall be considered as vandalism. This is why the article shall be undeleted. 158.64.52.114 ( talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
(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)
Comment by DRV nominator: Everyone is saying it is a reasonable close but has not cited any WP article to support the claim. In addition to WP:Namespace and WP:CNR itself which literally interpreted prescribe and allow said shortcuts, close reading of WP:RfD#The guiding principles of RfD and WP:RfD#Keep would seem to indicate this closure as against the spirit of RfDs. RfDs are supposed to be a space of greater leniency than AfD or other deletion areas. WP:CSD#Redirects specifically R2 further supports my stand. If closure of this was proper I'm having difficulty understanding why Template: is explicitly mentioned there and AFD necessary and simply CSD not adopted. What would the exception be? From what I can tell general but undocumented practice at XfDs is the sole reason for endorsing this close even if it conflicts with a whole line of WP articles. This is a conflicting and schizophrenic state of affairs. 2 people in an obscure XfD misinterpreting or misrepresenting the contents of WP:CNR in this instance overturned consensus as stated in more than one WP article. As someone who has so far not generally hung out at XfDs except when articles I've directly worked on have been challenged I would like to call attention to the discrepancy between what is said in articles for the benefit of the general Wikipedian community and the actual practice at XfDs of specialists. Lambanog ( talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |