Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 April 7
2013 April 9 >

8 April 2013

  • Theory of supreme relativity – I'm drawing this to a close because the nominator continues to attack the deleting admin and DRV does not allow discussion to be used as platforms for ad hom attacks. Clearly the G1 deletion was an error. This wasn't speedyable and the deleting admin admits this was a script error. Process then is that this should undeleted. However, as it is patently obvious that this won't survive the AFD, I'm not going to relist this for processes' sake. Lets just say "G1 overturned and deleted as non-notable" based on a clear consensus at DRV and what there was of the AFD. IF anyone has a good policy based reason why we should host this content, drop me a note on my talk page and we can discuss how/if we bring it back. – Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Theory of supreme relativity ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Unfortunately I came to the AfD too late to see the article, but I am almost sure that the sysop applied the WP:CSD#G1 criterion wrongfully, because it is quite restrictive. Could someone extract first one or two sentences to check whether it was really a nonsense? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure:

The theory of supreme relativity is a concept of origin of the universe. It considers the Theory of relativity given by Albert Einstein and Kepler's laws of planetary motion as primary theories. Secondary theories are Newton's laws of motion<ref>For explanations of Newton's laws of motion by [[Isaac Newton|Newton]] in the early 18th century, by the physicist [[William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin|William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)]] in the mid-19th century.</ref> and center of masses of universe, galaxy, solar and planetary systems.

It only gets worse. The article references a book by Einstein and a web document in Hindi (?). There is a list under the heading "Concept accepts" that includes "Origin from Zero" and "Space as primary, and Air, light, water, earth as secondary". The author obviously has strung together references to well-known physical theories with no clue what they mean. If you're not convinced, I can restore it and let the debate continue, but I think the article should have been nominated for speedy deletion in the first place. RockMagnetist ( talk) 20:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The definition I am using from WP:NONSENSE is the second one: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." I think this qualifies. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I am convinced only in a gross misjudgment of a recently elected admin about the CSD institution in Wikipedia. Why not let the AfD follow its legitimate way, which should last its prescribed one week? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 21:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
"recently elected admin" sounds like an ad hominem argument to me. The WP:SPEEDYCLOSE policy does allow me to close the discussion early, if speedy deletion requirements are met. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material when quoting from deleted pages. Standard practice is to undelete in place and tag with {{ TempUndelete}}. Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems a little point-y to me to bring this to DRV. Why not just raise the issue with RockMagnetist, ask him to restore the deleted article and re-open the AFD? The outcome of the AFD itself, quite frankly, was going to be no different. I was being nice as I am wont to do when I provide deletion rationales, but this was nothing more than gunk someone made up one day, uploaded to Scribd and decided to publish in Wikipedia. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Had Incnis Mrsi asked me on my talk page, I would have been happy to restore the article. The truth is, I only meant to nominate the article for speedy deletion, but the same menu option in Twinkle that I used for nominations before I was an admin now deletes the article immediately! I considered restoring the file, but decided that the case for G1 was strong enough that I might as well leave things as they were unless someone objected. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • OK then, that's also a good object lesson in being careful with your broom § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm confused - why would you nominate an article for speedy deletion if you're not 100% sure it qualified? When you tag a page for speedy deletion, you should be saying, "if I were an admin, I would be hitting the delete button now but since I'm not, I am asking someone else to do it on my behalf." -- B ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Because it was a judgement call and I wasn't 100% sure that other people would accept my judgement. It's obvious nonsense to me - true nonsense, not an "implausible theory" - but someone who isn't familiar with the scientific terms might not be able to tell that they are put together in a nonsensical way. If I had listed it and someone else had deleted it, I doubt there would have been a review. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Nonsense in the common use of the word is not the standard that WP:CSD#G1 gives. If you and I are talking, we might say, "Bob's ideas about politics are nonsense", meaning, we vehemently disagree with Bob's ideas and he does not have a good solid grasp of reality. But G1 defines nonsense as "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish". A page where someone banged on the keyboard or where students are weauxfing about who will kick whose posterior is patent nonsense. A page that uses complete sentences is not patent nonsense. -- B ( talk) 05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, reopen AFD, which will result in a rather rapid, but procedurally correct SNOW close. G1 expressly excludes "implausible theories"; and while this was quite implausible, and the Google-cache version is disjointedly written to the point that the essence of the theory can't really be made out well (if at all), it doesn't fall to the level of utter gibberish required for G1. You can often make a case for administrator discretion in applying the NONSENSE standards to prose as bad as this, but when the content falls as squarely into a G1 exception as this content does, the AFD should run. I think the nom's decision to start a regular AFD was prudent and more procedurally correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy relist as a reasonable contest of G1, and let the AfD run its course. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted - it's obviously not a valid G1 by any remote stretch of the imagination, but unless someone can offer a reasonable argument that this is an appropriate encyclopedia topic, I don't know that "process for the sake of process" is a useful endeavor. Yes, deleting something out of process is bad and if it's a marginal case, deleting something out of the process is a way to game the system (ie now it requires a consensus to undelete instead of a consensus to delete), but this article doesn't look like a marginal case. -- B ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • How is an application of WP:SPEEDYCLOSE out of process? You may disagree with my judgement on G1 (and after all, it's always a judgement), but I think that my actions were consistent with policy. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • A speedy close is fine if and only if it's a valid speedy deletion that meets one of the criteria. G3 might be applicable - a blatant hoax - but if it has complete sentences and coherent thoughts, it doesn't meet our definition of patent nonsense and is not G1. -- B ( talk) 05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The seven day process ensures sufficient opportunity for the newcomer to engage in conversation. The main purpose of this conversation in cases like these is the education of the newcomer. Hmmm, am I assuming that Incnis Mrsi is a newcomer? Maybe Incnis Mrsi is doing this on behalf of the lurking newcomer author? Otherwise, this should have gone to User_talk. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I would not object against keeping it deleted if some experienced and trusted sysop amended the log to cite a valid reason: does not matter as CSD, with link to this discussion, or in own prose. The current situation with this deletion can encourage future investigators to overturn this apparently incompetent sysop’s decision, especially if RockMagnetist will later become notorious for other breaches of rules. A person who doesn’t understand properly the wording of G1, or does not feel himself obliged to follow established rules, got 98 support votes quite recently. This fact diminishes my trust to English Wikipedia community, which was previously very high. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • An ad hominem argument, a personal attack and rant about a single questionable deletion diminishing your trust in en.wp and this is what classifies as an "oops!". LOL. Stalwart 111 09:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Something is bad with my grammar? Wrong preposition, I guess? How the correct English should be written for it? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If you consider "incompetent sysop" to be an error of grammar rather than personal attack then I would strongly suggest you consider replacing the userbox on your user page that suggests you contribute here with an advanced level of English. Stalwart 111 01:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Incnis Mrsi, in your above statement, you seem to be saying that you are primarily concerned that this deletion decision could later be overturned. So how does starting a deletion review avoid that? RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
My primary concern is incompetent deletions, especially deletions which cite invalid reasons or are forged in some other way. Using the CSD to push personal agendas and tastes is a dangerous trend which could create an atmosphere of distrust and paranoia in this wiki, because there are much less eyes to look on deleted articles than on other sysop actions, and they are less prominent in any case. A deletion review could result in a valid, legitimate deletion log entry, which would prevent further discussions on this incident. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Good grief. This is horribly unfair to RockMagnetist. He isn't pushing a personal agenda - he is a brand new admin who made a mistake in applying the policy and will learn from it. DRV is not about beating an admin into submission, it's about restoring content that is good for the encyclopedia. If this content isn't beneficial to the encyclopedia and has no chance to become so, then it should not be restored. And I'm not quite sure what you think DRV does regarding deletion log entries. Nobody is going around annotating deletion logs - an overturned deletion looks exactly like any other deletion in an admin's deletion log. -- B ( talk) 22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - this DRV is obviously about attacking an admin rather than producing an outcome that is in the best interests of WP, so I'm changing my position. That's not what DRV is for. Relist, I suppose, though I'd be just as happy for it to remain deleted per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Was it the best G1 ever? Nope, obviously (I see that as being more for complete gibberish or random characters, not badly-formed ideas). Is it a good opportunity for a newish admin to learn without breaking WP? Yep (seriously, is he going to G1 anything else in a hurry?). Want to relist it so others can pile on for a proper WP:SNOW close? Go for it; doesn't look like the admin in question would object one bit. Stalwart 111 07:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "Is it a good opportunity for a newish admin to learn without breaking WP? Yep (seriously, is he going to G1 anything else in a hurry?)" - you got that right! RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Relist, which will as mentioned above, result in a rather rapid snow delete verdict being returned. Not anywhere near a valid G1. While I'm sympathetic to the view that the article will be deleted anyway, the procedures exist for a reason, and the content of the article isn't heinous enough to invoke WP:IAR. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC). reply
  • Comment - I'm content with a decision either way, so I hope that I won't annoy anyone by exploring the policy a bit more. I just want to understand how it applies. The second definition of NONSENSE is "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." Doesn't a statement like "Concept accepts ... Origin from Zero ... [and] Space as primary, and Air, light, water, earth as secondary" fall under this heading? If not, what is an example of something that meets this criterion but is not random gibberish? RockMagnetist ( talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Just because something uses broken English ("Particles moved fast in extremely less time") doesn't make it patent nonsense unless the English is so incredibly broken that it does not form a coherent thought. You are a scientist and so you know that the theory espoused on this page has no basis in reality. But G1 deletions need to be clear-cut cases where any person of ordinary intelligence - not just someone skilled in the art - would recognize that the article is nonsense. -- B ( talk) 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
      “No basis in reality” is not a valid deletion reason at all – here is Wikipedia, not a textbook for university students. Even if a theory is demostrably disproved thousand times, it can belong to Wikipedia if it is notable and described in reliable sources. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • B, I think you have identified the core issue. Certainly no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of this article, but they also need to be confident that the fault lies in the article and not their own lack of expertise. I'll keep that in mind in future. RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • endorse Searching for the article title gives exactly four hits, on on Wikipedia. If there is a subject to be found here, it's certainly the case that this is not the right name for it. If you think it's salvageable, get it userfied and write a better article under some other name that people actually use for it. Mangoe ( talk) 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The source given for a duplicate of the image that was on this article pretty much states outright that this was original "research". Endorse per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY even without seeing the article beyond the excerpts above. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • ...which has now been speedied for being a duplicate. The text in question, which isn't on the other image, was "Designed the image based on the concept in my mind"/"Previously published: not published, designed based on the concept". 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. Fractionally better than nonsense but if restored would undoubtedly be rejected as original research so no point in restoring - WP:SNOW applies. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion -- G1 was clearly incorrect, but as RHaworth points out above, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that re-opening the discussion will change the result. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy relist, it does no harm to wait a week. The distinctions and limits for speedy need to be observed, because they have reasons.The reason here is to avoid prejudice against Fringe and pseudoscience. Much of it is indeed nonsense in the common use of the term, and things like homeopathy and astrology I wouldn't hesitate to call nonsense in ordinary speech. But to maintain our NPOV, before we delete an article as being non-notable fringe, rather than notable fringe, we need to discuss it. However absurd this theory , it needs the community to look at it to see if by some weird chance it might actually have been discussed so much that it's notable. There's no other safe way of proceeding. I don't blame the admin, however--his explanation makes perfect sense to me. When I first started using twinkle, I made that same error , and continued making it from time to time until I learned how to change the default. Nominating it and asking for a check by another admin is a reasonable thing to do--most admins would have turned down the speedy, and that reduces greatly the margin of error. That's what was intended. Not buro is a very good principle,and I do not hesitate to use it, but one place it rarely applies is to speedy deletion--and the reason for that is for every times it's used sensible, some admins will have a different approach and use it where it would not be obviously supported. That's the criterion for speedy--that nobody who understands WP would rationally object. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I was asked on my talk p., How do you change Twinkle defaults? This is one of the oddest ad hoc features of the interface. Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. It looks like it's a general page that would set universal defaults, but it actually operates to set your own individual preferences. The explanation of the options is at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc. As I said, it was some while before I figured this one out DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion as there's absolutely zero chance of this staying, and the only result of sending it back is to let an absolutely terrible article sit on Wikipedia for another couple days. That doesn't benefit the encyclopedia or its readers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Incorrect G1, but weak keep deleted. The article is readable enough to escape G1, but it will certainly be deleted at AfD. The only advantage of an AfD is that G4 may be used in the future. Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_April_8&oldid=1082337594"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 April 7
2013 April 9 >

8 April 2013

  • Theory of supreme relativity – I'm drawing this to a close because the nominator continues to attack the deleting admin and DRV does not allow discussion to be used as platforms for ad hom attacks. Clearly the G1 deletion was an error. This wasn't speedyable and the deleting admin admits this was a script error. Process then is that this should undeleted. However, as it is patently obvious that this won't survive the AFD, I'm not going to relist this for processes' sake. Lets just say "G1 overturned and deleted as non-notable" based on a clear consensus at DRV and what there was of the AFD. IF anyone has a good policy based reason why we should host this content, drop me a note on my talk page and we can discuss how/if we bring it back. – Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Theory of supreme relativity ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Unfortunately I came to the AfD too late to see the article, but I am almost sure that the sysop applied the WP:CSD#G1 criterion wrongfully, because it is quite restrictive. Could someone extract first one or two sentences to check whether it was really a nonsense? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure:

The theory of supreme relativity is a concept of origin of the universe. It considers the Theory of relativity given by Albert Einstein and Kepler's laws of planetary motion as primary theories. Secondary theories are Newton's laws of motion<ref>For explanations of Newton's laws of motion by [[Isaac Newton|Newton]] in the early 18th century, by the physicist [[William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin|William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)]] in the mid-19th century.</ref> and center of masses of universe, galaxy, solar and planetary systems.

It only gets worse. The article references a book by Einstein and a web document in Hindi (?). There is a list under the heading "Concept accepts" that includes "Origin from Zero" and "Space as primary, and Air, light, water, earth as secondary". The author obviously has strung together references to well-known physical theories with no clue what they mean. If you're not convinced, I can restore it and let the debate continue, but I think the article should have been nominated for speedy deletion in the first place. RockMagnetist ( talk) 20:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The definition I am using from WP:NONSENSE is the second one: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." I think this qualifies. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I am convinced only in a gross misjudgment of a recently elected admin about the CSD institution in Wikipedia. Why not let the AfD follow its legitimate way, which should last its prescribed one week? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 21:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
"recently elected admin" sounds like an ad hominem argument to me. The WP:SPEEDYCLOSE policy does allow me to close the discussion early, if speedy deletion requirements are met. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material when quoting from deleted pages. Standard practice is to undelete in place and tag with {{ TempUndelete}}. Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems a little point-y to me to bring this to DRV. Why not just raise the issue with RockMagnetist, ask him to restore the deleted article and re-open the AFD? The outcome of the AFD itself, quite frankly, was going to be no different. I was being nice as I am wont to do when I provide deletion rationales, but this was nothing more than gunk someone made up one day, uploaded to Scribd and decided to publish in Wikipedia. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Had Incnis Mrsi asked me on my talk page, I would have been happy to restore the article. The truth is, I only meant to nominate the article for speedy deletion, but the same menu option in Twinkle that I used for nominations before I was an admin now deletes the article immediately! I considered restoring the file, but decided that the case for G1 was strong enough that I might as well leave things as they were unless someone objected. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • OK then, that's also a good object lesson in being careful with your broom § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm confused - why would you nominate an article for speedy deletion if you're not 100% sure it qualified? When you tag a page for speedy deletion, you should be saying, "if I were an admin, I would be hitting the delete button now but since I'm not, I am asking someone else to do it on my behalf." -- B ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Because it was a judgement call and I wasn't 100% sure that other people would accept my judgement. It's obvious nonsense to me - true nonsense, not an "implausible theory" - but someone who isn't familiar with the scientific terms might not be able to tell that they are put together in a nonsensical way. If I had listed it and someone else had deleted it, I doubt there would have been a review. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Nonsense in the common use of the word is not the standard that WP:CSD#G1 gives. If you and I are talking, we might say, "Bob's ideas about politics are nonsense", meaning, we vehemently disagree with Bob's ideas and he does not have a good solid grasp of reality. But G1 defines nonsense as "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish". A page where someone banged on the keyboard or where students are weauxfing about who will kick whose posterior is patent nonsense. A page that uses complete sentences is not patent nonsense. -- B ( talk) 05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, reopen AFD, which will result in a rather rapid, but procedurally correct SNOW close. G1 expressly excludes "implausible theories"; and while this was quite implausible, and the Google-cache version is disjointedly written to the point that the essence of the theory can't really be made out well (if at all), it doesn't fall to the level of utter gibberish required for G1. You can often make a case for administrator discretion in applying the NONSENSE standards to prose as bad as this, but when the content falls as squarely into a G1 exception as this content does, the AFD should run. I think the nom's decision to start a regular AFD was prudent and more procedurally correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy relist as a reasonable contest of G1, and let the AfD run its course. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted - it's obviously not a valid G1 by any remote stretch of the imagination, but unless someone can offer a reasonable argument that this is an appropriate encyclopedia topic, I don't know that "process for the sake of process" is a useful endeavor. Yes, deleting something out of process is bad and if it's a marginal case, deleting something out of the process is a way to game the system (ie now it requires a consensus to undelete instead of a consensus to delete), but this article doesn't look like a marginal case. -- B ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • How is an application of WP:SPEEDYCLOSE out of process? You may disagree with my judgement on G1 (and after all, it's always a judgement), but I think that my actions were consistent with policy. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • A speedy close is fine if and only if it's a valid speedy deletion that meets one of the criteria. G3 might be applicable - a blatant hoax - but if it has complete sentences and coherent thoughts, it doesn't meet our definition of patent nonsense and is not G1. -- B ( talk) 05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The seven day process ensures sufficient opportunity for the newcomer to engage in conversation. The main purpose of this conversation in cases like these is the education of the newcomer. Hmmm, am I assuming that Incnis Mrsi is a newcomer? Maybe Incnis Mrsi is doing this on behalf of the lurking newcomer author? Otherwise, this should have gone to User_talk. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I would not object against keeping it deleted if some experienced and trusted sysop amended the log to cite a valid reason: does not matter as CSD, with link to this discussion, or in own prose. The current situation with this deletion can encourage future investigators to overturn this apparently incompetent sysop’s decision, especially if RockMagnetist will later become notorious for other breaches of rules. A person who doesn’t understand properly the wording of G1, or does not feel himself obliged to follow established rules, got 98 support votes quite recently. This fact diminishes my trust to English Wikipedia community, which was previously very high. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • An ad hominem argument, a personal attack and rant about a single questionable deletion diminishing your trust in en.wp and this is what classifies as an "oops!". LOL. Stalwart 111 09:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Something is bad with my grammar? Wrong preposition, I guess? How the correct English should be written for it? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If you consider "incompetent sysop" to be an error of grammar rather than personal attack then I would strongly suggest you consider replacing the userbox on your user page that suggests you contribute here with an advanced level of English. Stalwart 111 01:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Incnis Mrsi, in your above statement, you seem to be saying that you are primarily concerned that this deletion decision could later be overturned. So how does starting a deletion review avoid that? RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
My primary concern is incompetent deletions, especially deletions which cite invalid reasons or are forged in some other way. Using the CSD to push personal agendas and tastes is a dangerous trend which could create an atmosphere of distrust and paranoia in this wiki, because there are much less eyes to look on deleted articles than on other sysop actions, and they are less prominent in any case. A deletion review could result in a valid, legitimate deletion log entry, which would prevent further discussions on this incident. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Good grief. This is horribly unfair to RockMagnetist. He isn't pushing a personal agenda - he is a brand new admin who made a mistake in applying the policy and will learn from it. DRV is not about beating an admin into submission, it's about restoring content that is good for the encyclopedia. If this content isn't beneficial to the encyclopedia and has no chance to become so, then it should not be restored. And I'm not quite sure what you think DRV does regarding deletion log entries. Nobody is going around annotating deletion logs - an overturned deletion looks exactly like any other deletion in an admin's deletion log. -- B ( talk) 22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - this DRV is obviously about attacking an admin rather than producing an outcome that is in the best interests of WP, so I'm changing my position. That's not what DRV is for. Relist, I suppose, though I'd be just as happy for it to remain deleted per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Was it the best G1 ever? Nope, obviously (I see that as being more for complete gibberish or random characters, not badly-formed ideas). Is it a good opportunity for a newish admin to learn without breaking WP? Yep (seriously, is he going to G1 anything else in a hurry?). Want to relist it so others can pile on for a proper WP:SNOW close? Go for it; doesn't look like the admin in question would object one bit. Stalwart 111 07:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "Is it a good opportunity for a newish admin to learn without breaking WP? Yep (seriously, is he going to G1 anything else in a hurry?)" - you got that right! RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and Relist, which will as mentioned above, result in a rather rapid snow delete verdict being returned. Not anywhere near a valid G1. While I'm sympathetic to the view that the article will be deleted anyway, the procedures exist for a reason, and the content of the article isn't heinous enough to invoke WP:IAR. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC). reply
  • Comment - I'm content with a decision either way, so I hope that I won't annoy anyone by exploring the policy a bit more. I just want to understand how it applies. The second definition of NONSENSE is "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." Doesn't a statement like "Concept accepts ... Origin from Zero ... [and] Space as primary, and Air, light, water, earth as secondary" fall under this heading? If not, what is an example of something that meets this criterion but is not random gibberish? RockMagnetist ( talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Just because something uses broken English ("Particles moved fast in extremely less time") doesn't make it patent nonsense unless the English is so incredibly broken that it does not form a coherent thought. You are a scientist and so you know that the theory espoused on this page has no basis in reality. But G1 deletions need to be clear-cut cases where any person of ordinary intelligence - not just someone skilled in the art - would recognize that the article is nonsense. -- B ( talk) 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
      “No basis in reality” is not a valid deletion reason at all – here is Wikipedia, not a textbook for university students. Even if a theory is demostrably disproved thousand times, it can belong to Wikipedia if it is notable and described in reliable sources. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • B, I think you have identified the core issue. Certainly no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of this article, but they also need to be confident that the fault lies in the article and not their own lack of expertise. I'll keep that in mind in future. RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • endorse Searching for the article title gives exactly four hits, on on Wikipedia. If there is a subject to be found here, it's certainly the case that this is not the right name for it. If you think it's salvageable, get it userfied and write a better article under some other name that people actually use for it. Mangoe ( talk) 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The source given for a duplicate of the image that was on this article pretty much states outright that this was original "research". Endorse per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY even without seeing the article beyond the excerpts above. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • ...which has now been speedied for being a duplicate. The text in question, which isn't on the other image, was "Designed the image based on the concept in my mind"/"Previously published: not published, designed based on the concept". 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. Fractionally better than nonsense but if restored would undoubtedly be rejected as original research so no point in restoring - WP:SNOW applies. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion -- G1 was clearly incorrect, but as RHaworth points out above, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that re-opening the discussion will change the result. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy relist, it does no harm to wait a week. The distinctions and limits for speedy need to be observed, because they have reasons.The reason here is to avoid prejudice against Fringe and pseudoscience. Much of it is indeed nonsense in the common use of the term, and things like homeopathy and astrology I wouldn't hesitate to call nonsense in ordinary speech. But to maintain our NPOV, before we delete an article as being non-notable fringe, rather than notable fringe, we need to discuss it. However absurd this theory , it needs the community to look at it to see if by some weird chance it might actually have been discussed so much that it's notable. There's no other safe way of proceeding. I don't blame the admin, however--his explanation makes perfect sense to me. When I first started using twinkle, I made that same error , and continued making it from time to time until I learned how to change the default. Nominating it and asking for a check by another admin is a reasonable thing to do--most admins would have turned down the speedy, and that reduces greatly the margin of error. That's what was intended. Not buro is a very good principle,and I do not hesitate to use it, but one place it rarely applies is to speedy deletion--and the reason for that is for every times it's used sensible, some admins will have a different approach and use it where it would not be obviously supported. That's the criterion for speedy--that nobody who understands WP would rationally object. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
I was asked on my talk p., How do you change Twinkle defaults? This is one of the oddest ad hoc features of the interface. Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. It looks like it's a general page that would set universal defaults, but it actually operates to set your own individual preferences. The explanation of the options is at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc. As I said, it was some while before I figured this one out DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion as there's absolutely zero chance of this staying, and the only result of sending it back is to let an absolutely terrible article sit on Wikipedia for another couple days. That doesn't benefit the encyclopedia or its readers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Incorrect G1, but weak keep deleted. The article is readable enough to escape G1, but it will certainly be deleted at AfD. The only advantage of an AfD is that G4 may be used in the future. Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_April_8&oldid=1082337594"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE