Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Patchouli/Veil fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep on good-faith assumption that it will one day soon be an article. No prejudice against a future MfD if this remains unimproved, unsourced and in user space for an extended period of time. —Doug Bell talk 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Patchouli/Veil fetishism

Violates WP:USER see below The Behnam 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Violates WP:USER because Wikipedia is not a web host. While at first glance this page appears to a be potential article, a closer look shows that it is a former OR piece that was deleted from Wikipedia. The original deletion debate is here [1], and its delete was endorsed in deletion review here [2].

These discussions establish the OR consideration pretty well, and a quick look at the page and its sources shows that the author simply synthesized the “veil fetishism” idea by tying together various pages that do not mention “veil fetishism,” but have a few things that could be construed as an example. That approach is definitely OR. For example, the author sources to some place called “pervscan,” which I guess is a forum for perverts. Anyway, one pervert speculates that faithful Muslim men fantasize about completely covered women. The Veil Fetishism author construes this as a case of “veil fetishism,” even though the source does not use that phrase and does not substantiate any of its speculation. The other sources have similar problems, and this is what led to the original deletion. The author clearly takes disparate examples to advance an original idea.

Since this article is definitely OR, the question is: why is it allowed to stay on a user page? WP:USER disallows, “Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.”, “Other non-encyclopedic material”. Also, consider the following: “Many free and low-cost web hosting, email, and weblog services are widely available, and are a good alternative for content unrelated to Wikipedia.”

While this may have been placed on the user page as a compromise, it clearly doesn't belong on a user page any more than it belonged in the encyclopedia. Besides, it could be offensive considering the absurd treatment of Islamic culture in the article. I think it should go.

“Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage.” The Behnam 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and restore to articlespace. I'm at loss why this was deleted. The first AfD is no consensus if you discard the first few IDONTLIKEIT Delete votes.  Grue  19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the first AFD had consensus for delete. In fact, if you exclude all of the keep votes, there was unanimous consensus for delete. You see, we don't exclude votes for convenience. :) The Behnam 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Last time I agreed on moving to a subpage. Maybe he wanted to complete it but for a month there was no edit on that page. Even linking from his userpage to that subpage is controversial. First it index it on search engines (or at least it gets higher rank) and second it's something like unacceptable userboxes that provokes religious people. Hessam 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reason. I don't know if this could be a legitimate article, since I have no knowledge of this subject, but I have a feeling it is not encyclopedic. Malakaville 04:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. We should be treating this as an article being worked on in userspace, because that's what it is. And articles being worked on in userspace don't get "It might offend someone!" applied. If someone would like to provide evidence that he has no intention of actually making this better, of course, it's different. -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it hasn't been worked on for about a month, and considering that this concept appears to have been fashioned by the author, I don't see any way it can avoid being OR. Also, if you look at the contribs for the author, and click some diffs, it is apparent that the user does not hesitate from promoting POV. See Using terrorist opposition group as a 'background information' link,Adding "Land of Mullahs" 'nickname' to the main Iran article - this actually happened twice,Displaying POV that Islam=Terrorism,Expressing strongly anti-IR views(including mention of supposed "veil fetish"),A POV article primarily authored by Patchouli,Restoring POV OR section,Another POV article,Ref to biased cite holycrime.org. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and probably not even the best examples; I recommend you take a look at Patchouli's contribs. There is no reason to doubt that he/she is promoting certain views, and this user page article is only part of it. This "Veil Fetishism" is a concept created by Patchouli that couldn't cut it on Wikipedia for obvious reasons, and there is no reason to think that Patchouli will make it neutral considering Patchouli's edits and the very nature of the "Veil Fetishism" article. It is part of a disturbing pattern of POV articles and edits. It does not accord with WP:USER for the reasons already stated. The Behnam 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So basically inserting criticism of the Iran dictatorship is a POV pushing? Nice. Wikipedia is also not censored, so if some topic is offensive to you, then too bad - we won't delete it (at least in theory, in practice organised POV groups can often mob AfDs, which has probably happened in this case).  Grue  08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The above user makes a number of good points and his diffs clearly reveal strong POV pushing. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veil fetishism, I don't see any evidence of "organised POV groups" pushing for deletion. Otherwise, I have no opinion of the article itself, though I daresay Wikipedia would be better off without such WP:OR. But then again, so many other articles violate that policy, so another one probably wouldn't hurt. metaspheres 13:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Criticism is fine to mention, but coverage must be neutral. Articles like Khomeini's Islamic Leadership are anything but neutral, and so on for the other deals, like that "Vicious Circle" section. If you look at Talk: Guardian Council#Vicious Circle you can see a discussion that makes a distinction between neutral coverage and POV coverage. In any case, you haven't actually responded to the primary argument here, that it is not appropriate under WP:USER. All you have tried to do is discredit the AFD and deletion review results by 'excluding votes', and then attacked me when I tried to suggest that Patchouli may not be planning to make this article neutral. Anyway, that is hard to do for an OR topic. The Behnam 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, rest assured that you aren't dealing with a Muslim or an Admin for this nomination. The previous attempt is not relevant here; it isn't like I tried to delete your user page or anything. Sorry for not notifying you. The main deal is that the article is OR and Wikipedia is not a web host. You need to address my actual arguments for deletion instead of fabricating a "censorship" deal for this nomination. My primary reasons for nomination are not to censor anything, but rather because this OR piece is out of line with WP:USER. I only suggested that Muslims may be offended, but this is not my main argument. So, don't jump the gun, and please address the relevant issues. Thanks. The Behnam 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep and treat as an article-to-be. So it hasn't been worked on recently? Maybe the user doesn't have time right now. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, can anyone counter my WP:USER arguments?? The Behnam 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, yes, it's an article being worked on, which is explicitly allowed. -Amarkov moo! 15:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, the whole reason I provided the links to the AFD, Deletion Review, and otherwise elaborated upon the OR nature of this topic was to demonstrate that it is not a real topic. The article ties together sources that are not about "veil fetishism" as evidence to advance the concept of "veil fetishism." It will take any use of the veil as an example of a veil "fetish," even though the source itself doesn't say that. Simply put, there is no significant phenomenon called "veil fetishism" in reliable sources, and apparently not even in unreliable sources. So, it doesn't matter that this is an "article being worked on;" it is POV OR that should never become an article. Since it is a concept created by Patchouli, Patchouli is using WP as a web host for OR. Also noting that this may offend Muslims makes it even more inappropriate. "Veil Fetishism" has no place on Wikipedia. The Behnam 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The Behnam, are you the sockpuppet of Hessam?--71.107.232.172 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No. Are you a sockpuppet of Patchouli? I don't know, but I guess those who support "keep" are not able to genuinely refute my arguments against the page. I am instead accused of being a sockpuppet. The Behnam 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Having viewed the piece in question, I don't see any problems with it, the topic of the article is irrelevant to this discussion. basically it sits within a userspace and is not linked in Wiki, the only way to find it is to troll through Patchouli contribs. If it becomes a full article then it can be put up for deletion. At the moment it is simply something being worked on and the editor may or may not decide to finish it or even delete it. I can't see that it violates WP:USER either. WP:USER is a guideline and not a policy. While the topic may be considered by some to be offensive or stupid, as it does not exist within wiki direct and only exists within this usres personal userspace, I don't see how anyone could take offence. If you don't like it, don't read it. No one else would have either, had it not been highlighted in the RFD. Mobile 01Talk 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I got to it through Patchouli user page, but the main problem is that it is OR and WP is not a web host. Of course it is on the userspace; that is why WP:USER is applied here. The potential for offense is only a secondary point. The Behnam 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It may well be OR. I don't know. The idea behind userfying a bad article is so that someone can prove it is not OR (or whatever the issue is). The AfD decided that the page as it was was OR, but that does not mean that there don't truly exist sources. -Amarkov moo! 04:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Try searching for it. There is nothing significant; most of the time the Wikipedia use is being quoted. I saw an opinion on JihadWatch forum strangely similar to Patchouli's, but nothing 'real' has come up. The article was put to userspace and sat for a month. It is impossible to improve upon an OR concept that has no real use beyond the original OR article. There is nothing out there. The Behnam 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Um... of course there's nothing on the Internet. That doesn't mean that there's nothing. And a month is really not long enough to say that he won't ever find any. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Um... there was no effort to improve the article, it was just sitting in the user space, using WP to host OR. It isn't like Patchouli hasn't gotten around to WP either; Patchouli is very active on WP. How about the article be re-posted when it actually has substance to it? So far it is a huge piece of OR. Also, it is easy to doubt the existence of non-internet references considering there aren't even book links for the idea. You are suggesting that WP be used as a web host for OR because there could be a reliable source for the concept somewhere out there. Perhaps the refs are buried under a rock somewhere. No reason to delete completely contrived nonsense OR about an apparently non-existent topic because it could exist, because there is a possibility of it existing. Wow, there are so many ridiculous abuses of WP:USER that can be sustained based upon the 'possible' reasoning. Perhaps I can make up a concept and post OR on my userspace because it may exist. Yeah, that really doesn't cut it. The Behnam 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, why don't we just forbid all userfication? For that matter, let's immediately delete any unsourced articles. After all, we don't want to allow people to try to find sources... -Amarkov moo! 05:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Forbid all "userfication"? Definitely not what I was arguing. I am simply arguing against hosting a made-up concept on a userpage. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the Uncyclopedia? It seems pretty clear that Patchouli is not able or willing to improve the article. If you look at Patchouli's post above, he considers the deletion from articlespace the result of a coalescence of Muslims (God forbid!) and admins (certain 'politically correct' ones). Apparently he thinks that the article (which by the way, has had almost no changes since being deleted from articlespace) was censored out, that this concept is real, and that the OR conclusion of the AFD and Deletion Review was just censorship. Nothing indicates that Patchouli realizes the need for improvement, and a month is a long time. The article should go. The Behnam 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A month isn't a long time. If we wait another month to delete it, to make sure that either there are no sources or he won't find them, then I don't see any serious harm done, so really, just wait. -Amarkov moo! 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think Patchouli will see the need for improvement? It would involve pretty much a complete rewrite since most of the current information is synthesized. It may be good to postpone it for a month, though I can't figure out why Patchouli hasn't made any efforts towards improvement since discovering this nomination. Perhaps it is because Patchouli doesn't see anything wrong with his article, as I stated above. The Behnam 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another example. Perhaps Patchouli was inspired to edit because of our conversation, but the edit was of very low quality. See [3]. First, it mentions a part in the Old Testament describing harlots as covering their faces. Apparently, Patchouli sees this as an example of a veil fetish, but that isn't what the Old Testament says. There is definitely a possibility that they cover their faces for other reasons. Second, Patchouli adds a reference claiming that Rebekah develops a veil fetish in the Old Testament. However, if you look at the source used, it is a book review for a work of fiction involving Old Testament characters where the reviewer states that Rebekah, in the novel, develops a veil fetish. There is no definition given for this particular "veil fetish," and it isn't known whether or not it fits the definition of Patchouli's article, or if the reviewer invented the phrase on the spot. But Patchouli did not consider this lack of clarity at all; in fact, Patchouli claimed that the Old Testament itself describes Rebekah as having a veil fetish. So, it seems Patchouli attempted to stave off the problems with the article that we discussed here, but instead strengthened my argument that the article is just a bunch of OR about an unworkable topic. The Behnam 08:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Wikipedia%7EMiscellany_for_deletion_User%7EPatchouli_Veil_fetishism_e22b.html"