Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (3rd nomination)

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Babajobu 04:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Violates original research policy and verifiability. Previous nominations (1st, 2nd) failed due to disruption of parties involved, who do not respect WP:OWN. See 2nd nomination in particular for rationale of re-nomination. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to let suspiciously enthusiastic anonymous users and brand-new users know that, although their opinions will be taken into account, their votes may not. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - original research and totally unverifiable by anything not connected with the author or authors. Suspect WP:POINT. Stifle 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: I've removed a "question" by 213.16.239.81 (talk · contribs) that accused me of "fabricating" the reasons above and disregarded Stifle's clear reasons. As you can see, this anonymous user has/had only 1 edit (the one I removed). S/he didn't bother to vote anyway. You be the judge. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable original research, with insufficient sources for it to be re-written from a neutral point of view. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:07, Jan. 5, 2006

• Strong keep, this is notable and verifiable information. The previous AfD voted to keep on its own, the disruptive user John sargis (talk · contribs) had nothing to do with that decision. We should not delete this article just because its creator can't behave himself. - ulayiti (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per ulayiti. As much as it pains me, this is verifiable. I would be interested to know if previously articles have been deleted because of nuisance contributors? I might consider changing my vote based on precedent. - FrancisTyers 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Verifiable and reliable journal. john sargis 15:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This journal verifiably exists, you'll find it in University library catalogs and it was published by Aigis Press (who have also published Ward Churchill) and then Carfax (Taylor and Francis). It's simply false to state that the existence of this article in any way violates our policies on original research or verifiability. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it now! Verifiability is not the only criteria. JzG has noted the reason why this should be expunged. Obnoxious sock-and-meat puppetry simply makes it look all the more risibly unimportant. Eusebeus 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Tony Sidaway. I see no reason to renom after four days. -- JJay 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the recommendations by the very new users. karmafist 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah: Bad boy! Bad!! Don't mock the newbies, and provide a rational for your vote. Now come here so I can scratch your tummy, but don't think I didn't mean it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst the current article is far from perfect that is no reason to delete it. It is not true to say that the contents of the article are not verifiable. The journal has had some very notable contributors and I think that that makes it notable. It would be a shame to lose it from Wikipedia due to disruptive users. RicDod 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Well, this does appear to exist. I suppose copies my be found in somewhere that they keep books. It may even sit on a shelf next to a notable journal. But that's not the hurdle for inclusion. I see less than ten thousand hits. In the first ten pages I could not find it cited, or referenced, or reviewed. Simply statements that is exists, and that it sits on the shelves. Looking at Google news I see no hits. This is a very bad sign for something that is claiming to be an "international theoretical journal" of any note. On the desk next to me I have a copy of the Journal of Modern Physics. It's a real journal, too, but not a terribly notable one. Except it gets 186,000 Google hits (almost 100,000 with references) and a pleasant suprise with a news hit as well. Not an impressive one, but trumps zero by a considerable margin. Let us not waste our time: No sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, thus cannot be made WP:NPOV. Delete without hesitation unless evidence of notabity presented. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm TheVel, Karmafist has blocked my address for a long time now and I don't know if he is ever going to stop, so I write without signing in (maybe he forgot to unblock me or something). I want to remind to brenneman that D&N have stopped publishing for some time, and its successor, "International Journal of Inclusive Democracy", is an on-line magazine. He cannot compare D&N with journals that are still publishing issues, especially with journals about physical siences, which of course concern far more people in contrast with journals of social sciences (especially if the latter are radical)! I want again to stress that if our criteria depends solely on popularity and google search (instead of qualitative criteria, like the contributors, the members of the international advisory board, the length of the publication etc) then we are just adopting to the standards of our massive society that promotes explicitly the popular (no matter what it might be, right or not) and not knowledge. Do I dare to vote here? Yes, I vote Keep, since I'm a member for a few months and I've done some editing here. Respect my vote. New users should be allowed to vote if they support with reasonable arguments their votes. TheVel, 10 Janyary 2006, 12:55

• Well, no one should be "voting" really, but anyone who tries to tell you that you can't provide evidence and support it with a persuasive argument is doing both you and Wikipedia a disservice. The whole "new user" this is complicated, but thank you for pointing that out to me regarding being out of print. I was aware of it, but I will consider further how the metric should scale. Thanks again. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you too for your attention and concern. I'm still block from editing so... TheVel, 10 January 2006, 15:21

[edit] Recomendations by very new users

• Strong keep -Notable and completely verifiable. All sources are cited in many external resources (Alternative Press Index, Google, Yahoo! etc) as well as in the official cite of the journal.Student of life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.224.6 (talk • contribs) 16:26, January 5, 2006 (UTC) (user's first edit)
• Strong keep, the information in the article is well documented, as online and hardcopy versions of the journal are available and the journal is in fact well-respected at UK universities. Shirad 12:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. Please do not use sockpuppets to vote here, since it will only decrease the chances of this article being kept. - ulayiti (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition, using sockpuppets to circumvent a block and/or casting votes in AfDs can lead to further blocking and/or banning. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Your continous drive for deletion of this notable journal for the third time now is a cruel and usual response of political facsists with a sadistic agenda. Tommy Silva 9:45, 6 January 2006(UTC)
  • You don't realize that bringing in more meatpuppets to the AfD will not work? As far as I can tell, Ulayiti (above) is so far the only non-puppet that has voted "keep", and he has kindly explained that to you. Also, no personal attacks, please. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Serious sock-puppetry appears to be in progress here, as Pablo D. Flores mentioned. I hope the closing admin will take this into account. Stifle 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:I have been a reader of Wikipedia entries for some time and as was surfing it yesterday I saw the entry on Democracy & Nature, the site of which I have used several times in the past for research. I was surprised to see the deletion nomination and I wrote a comment to this effect. To my surprise, I saw today that some administrators called me and many others (presumably because they do not belong to their closed club) as 'sockpuppets'. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody and I do not accept to be insulted as such by any so-called 'administrators' clearly abusing their power. I don't know whether you have the right to rule out any comments by new users that you do not like but certainly you do not have the right to insult users. OK? Student of life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.224.6 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 January 2006
  • I'm actually imagining how this would look at WP:BJAODN. Dear fake-registered user, I'm not a "so-called" anything. I'm an administrator, and our so-called "club" is open to anyone who fills some requisites. See WP:RFA if you want to become one. Administrators' votes and comments on AfD are no different from those of any other users who are not sockpuppets. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Strong keep. The information provided about the Themes, Editorial & Advisory Boards, Contributors, related topics and external links is purely descriptive and verifiable from the sources mentioned above. As regards ’neutrality’ could the supporters of delete explain why, for instance, the entry on Participatory economics or [Z magazine] satisfies their criteria but not the present one? viji viji viji 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment above was actually by Viji Vigi Vigi (talk · contribs), his first edit. Please note that names are case-sensitive. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:20, Jan. 6, 2006
• KEEP Two nomination on AfD failed and not without good reason! So many scholars and intellectuals that do not adopt Inclusive Democracy have contributed there! What else is needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.239.115 (talk • contribs) (user's first edit)
• Strong Keep Two nominations failed? Also I have to say its extremly irritating to keep seeing (user's first edit) after comments. Surely the closing admin can work that out themselfs, and frankly it makes it sound like your saying "You cant play my game cos you're new!" like some spoilt brat. This signed comment is by Jcuk 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (definately not user's first edit)
  • So you're not saying keep because it's encyclopedic, or because it contributes to the sum of human knowledge, or because it's notable and people may want to look it up. You're voting keep because you're petulant about the edit count notices? This is more important to you than WP:NPOV or WP:V? - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Frankly I'm bored with people who want an article deleted demanding an explanation as to why people voted Keep. You can see very well my reasoning in my previous post. If you think the article has POV issues, go and tidy them up. If you have time to post calling me names you most certainly have time to do that. Jcuk 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry that you're "bored". I can only council you to see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion where is says quite explicitly "Always explain your reasoning." A specific and testable statement lends itself to discussion, a vague complaint about behavior in the AfD does not. And, "frankly", I could not find reasoning in what you had provided, so I asked. You've now made yourself more clear: POV is not a reason to delete. So, if can determine that this article cannot be made NPOV, would that be a reason to delete? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

        Don't mean to interrupt the lovefest here, but this nom has been partly justified by complaints concerning "brand new users". I also see at least one delete vote that is solely based on a complaint about new users. -- JJay 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

        • Bugger. I missed that. Is it ok if I savage him in private since we're mates, or do I have to do it here? - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure no one will begrudge your right to privacy with your mates. However, given the user's experience, I am also certain that he could produce oodles of text to justify his vote. I therefore assume good faith and believe his opinion should count. What is more troubling is your propensity to only question votes that do not adhere to your line of thinking. In my opinion, that sort of rigid tunnel vision is best avoided if we want to build a viable project that serves the interests of all users. -- JJay 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we get back to this article? Replied on User talk:JJay - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• I merely responded to the points you raised. Is there something specific you want to discuss regarding this article? -- JJay 05:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Historically, attempts to correct POV issues have been met with reverts from the anonymous "Member of the Editorial Board". They want their POV and nobody else's, as far as I can tell from the edit history.--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Checking the edit history, I see one revert since the last AfD- meaning one revert in six weeks. -- JJay 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it a bit of a slog. Crappy edit summaries all around don't help. However, in something like 50 edits no real changes have taken place. If the reason that this can't be made NPOV is about personality then this isn't a matter for AfD. The "statement by the board" was a pretty good indicator of that, though. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep :: IMHO the opionions expressed by some of the above deletionsists point to an agenda designed to censor Wiki-content that does not concur with their POV or to exclude an article becuase of its writer not its content. Were either to occur, there would be little further point in Wiki existing. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:44, 10 January 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.