Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't understand your closing comments on the AfD. The article was written in an NPOV manner. There are no 3rd party sources describing Neo-Tech or even Frank R. Wallace. And what is that about a "now-banned user whose express and only purpose on Wikipedia was a co-ordinated, sustained campaign to push a particular point-of-view across political and philosophical articles." What are you talking about? Even if that were true that wouldn't invalidate an article. I disagree that it can't be copied over. It's a well-written article and well sourced and NPOV. JoeMystical 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking back I see that someone named RJII created and wrote most of the article. It says on his userpage "You have been blocked for using a shared account, per your own admission. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)" So that was a multiuser account. The account is permanntly blocked but not the user(s). Whoever the user(s) are, there is a block for one year. [1] It looks like the case was just a simple dispute with another user. Why do you say there was the "articles were originally created and their text remains substantially written by a now-banned user whose express and only purpose on Wikipedia was a co-ordinated, sustained campaign to push a particular point-of-view across political and philosophical articles"? JoeMystical 20:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- If there are no reliable, third-party sources whatsoever that describe this, then it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. The banned user in question was discussed in numerous arbitration cases and administrative noticeboards; see for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug. What it means is that the article is not the result of a good-faith effort at producing an encyclopedia article appropriate for Wikipedia. The claims in it need to be closely evaluated and referenced, or deleted, beyond the normal examination appropriate for any article. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can say that. If you read the article it's obvious that pains have been taken to make it as NPOV as possible and ths sources are in footnotes. Nothing is asserted to be true. It's only "Hamilton says this.." or "Kimura says this..." "According to..." etc. etc. This article was put up for deletion by "Bi" and it was not in good faith. He runs his own anti-Neo-Tech web page that he writes himself and came here to get the information off Wikipedia. He tried to cite his own self-published criticisms (his web page and forum postings) and got upset that I wasn't allowing them in the article. JoeMystical 20:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece to repeat the statements of other persons. An encyclopedia article must include a neutral examination of the philosophy that would include criticism (for example, see Categorical imperative and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)). For this topic, also, it is evident there are other, important related issues that must be described—the only reason discussants at the prior deletion discussions considered it notable was as a "mail-order scam", etc.; I make no claim that is what it is, but the issue would need to be described, neutrally, and the amount of description given to the philosophy itself should be less than the amount given to describing this issue. As a philosophy alone, there is no evidence it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia, and the lack of any reliable, third-party sources is a good demonstration of that. That does not mean it is a bad philosophy or that its adherents are wrong, it just means that it does not currently belong in an encyclopedia and that there are not sufficient independent sources to create a valid encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just because there are no non-self published sources describing the philosophy, that doesn't mean it's not notable. Look at all the books: [2] [3] The self-published books about Neo-Tech HAVE been cited in independent books. So it's notable in that respect too. It's just that those books don't go into describing the philosophy. They just cite minor things. The only way to describe it is to cite the self-published books. It's a self-evident truth that a self-published sources are reliable source to show what the ideas of the authors are. About that "mail order scam" thing, that would have to do with the publishing company Integrated Management Associates. That doesn't have anything to do with the philosophy. A couple people have been pushing posting around on the net that there is some kind of "scam" in regard to their marketing techniques or something. About criticisms, there are lots of Wikipedia articles without criticism. [Katnianism] for example. There doesn't have to be criticism to be NPOV, as long as it's not asserted that the philosophy is correct, or anything like that. JoeMystical 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those books are all published by Frank R. Wallace himself and publishing companies related to him. Also, there are numerous subjects that have books about them that are not on Wikipedia and do not belong on Wikipedia. A #455,000 ranking on Amazon is nothing; subjects in books with less than #50,000 rankings—and less than #10,000—are regularly deleted. About non-philosophy topics, it is not simply that what you consider an incorrect view about a "scam" is not included; there is nothing whatsoever about their marketing in the article.
- Regarding your example, Kantianism is clearly not a main article and may be should be transformed into a pseudo-disambiguation page that refers to Immanuel Kant, the ideas of his philosophy, proponents and critics and their ideas, etc. Regardless, Kantianism is not a highly read or well-edited but is clearly an important subject that unquestionably warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is nothing whatsoever like Neo-Tech: There is no doubt of its inclusion in Wikipedia—after all, it has been included in print encyclopedia since before Frank R. Wallace was born; and its subject is verifiable in thousands of books and academic journals written by thousands of people over hundreds of years. —Centrx→talk • 21:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why would there by anything about marketing in the ariticle? If the publisher of Ayn Rand's books was involved in some kind of marketing scam , you don't talk about that in the Objectivism article. It has nothing to do with Objectivism. You talk about that in an article about the publishing company. JoeMystical 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just because there are no non-self published sources describing the philosophy, that doesn't mean it's not notable. Look at all the books: [2] [3] The self-published books about Neo-Tech HAVE been cited in independent books. So it's notable in that respect too. It's just that those books don't go into describing the philosophy. They just cite minor things. The only way to describe it is to cite the self-published books. It's a self-evident truth that a self-published sources are reliable source to show what the ideas of the authors are. About that "mail order scam" thing, that would have to do with the publishing company Integrated Management Associates. That doesn't have anything to do with the philosophy. A couple people have been pushing posting around on the net that there is some kind of "scam" in regard to their marketing techniques or something. About criticisms, there are lots of Wikipedia articles without criticism. [Katnianism] for example. There doesn't have to be criticism to be NPOV, as long as it's not asserted that the philosophy is correct, or anything like that. JoeMystical 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece to repeat the statements of other persons. An encyclopedia article must include a neutral examination of the philosophy that would include criticism (for example, see Categorical imperative and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)). For this topic, also, it is evident there are other, important related issues that must be described—the only reason discussants at the prior deletion discussions considered it notable was as a "mail-order scam", etc.; I make no claim that is what it is, but the issue would need to be described, neutrally, and the amount of description given to the philosophy itself should be less than the amount given to describing this issue. As a philosophy alone, there is no evidence it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia, and the lack of any reliable, third-party sources is a good demonstration of that. That does not mean it is a bad philosophy or that its adherents are wrong, it just means that it does not currently belong in an encyclopedia and that there are not sufficient independent sources to create a valid encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how you can say that. If you read the article it's obvious that pains have been taken to make it as NPOV as possible and ths sources are in footnotes. Nothing is asserted to be true. It's only "Hamilton says this.." or "Kimura says this..." "According to..." etc. etc. This article was put up for deletion by "Bi" and it was not in good faith. He runs his own anti-Neo-Tech web page that he writes himself and came here to get the information off Wikipedia. He tried to cite his own self-published criticisms (his web page and forum postings) and got upset that I wasn't allowing them in the article. JoeMystical 20:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss this any more. I have gone out of my way to make clear what is necessary to make a proper encyclopedia article, explaining exactly what would need to be done and why. Do it or do not, but it is not the end of the world if your philosophy does not have an article in Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is not my philosophy. I just think it's an interesting philosophy, and since it's notable it needs an article. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. It's not about trying to find every possible way to censor something. I don't blame the people who voted however, because they didn't have much background information on any of this. But, "Bi", who put this up for deletion is another story. JoeMystical 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
