Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lottocracy

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 delete. To User:Ad van der Ven, this may not be original research meaning you didn't do the research yourself, but it's original research as defined by Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 21:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lottocracy

Neologism and original research throughout. Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No original research. The idea has already been published in the chapter A Concept for Government of the book The World Solution for World Problems (ISBN 90-9002592-8, no copy rights attached). You can find the book also at PiCarta.

Furthemore, how strange do delete an article with an important message just becuase of a name. What is a neologism and what is wrong with it?

If I look in Wikipedia for Neologism I find:

A neologism is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") —often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context.

So there seems to be nothing wrong with a neologism!

• From Wikipedia:No original research -

  "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:

  • it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
  • it introduces original ideas; or
  • it defines new terms; or
  • it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
  • it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
  • it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
  • it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

  ...

  Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."

• Sorry, but this article fails on almost all counts. We would not "delete an article with an important message just becuase of a name" - we would delete it because Wikipedia is not the place to try to put across important messages at all. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, delete as per nom. --Oscarthecat 12:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• I can only say one thing: I am a scientist, go to my homepage http://oase.uci.kun.nl/~aven1935/ and you will see that I was involved in the publication of 55 scientific papers. My last paper was in the British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology (2005). I must say I am very disappointed with this answer.

  I have always considered the British people as open minded. In Holland there is at least one official publication with the term lottocracy (lottocratie) in the title, which was one of the reasons to present this article to Wikipedia. It is most disappointing to hear that a concept, which meets almost all of the above criteria, among others, it really introduces a solution to the problems facing our world going to an end, is simply wept from the table by a single subject. In scientific publications one usually has three referees to judge a paper. In Wikipedia one seems to be sufficient.

  At the same time I know that the above words have no value whatsoever. In Holland we would say: spoken to a deafman's ear.

• Delete, OR. Sorry anon, but there is something wrong with neologisms: see Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. --Malthusian (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. Lukas 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NEO, WP:NOR, etc. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lincolnite 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• We already have articles on demarchy and sortition. The book chapter in which it is claimed above that this concept is discussed actually contains no mention of the term "lottocracy", and is in fact discussing one way of implementing demarchy. At best, this would be a redirect to demarchy, but research doesn't reveal it to be a widely accepted alternative name for the idea. This is original research, a new word (that is almost solely associated with Ad van der Ven — the Ad van der Ven (talk · contribs) that is this article's author) for an existing concept being promoted by its inventor in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Delete. Uncle G 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Mattley ^(Chattley) 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Demarchy because I see enough Google hits to make it worthwhile. Else delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 06:14Z
  • Now exclude all of the search results that are sourced from Ad van der Ven. Uncle G 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm, okay does seem like Ad van der Ven is promoting his idea. However, I still think a Redirect would be good. It seems like many people reinvent the term and it has an obvious meaning. The redirect would not be acquiescing to AvdV; it is more like "if there's anything about Lottocracy, it's as a synonym or subtopic of Demarchy". Demarchy exists and is a more serious article, a redirect will stop people from recreating 'lottocracy' thinking they invented it. I myself immediately understood the concept from the name 'lottocracy'. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 08:28Z

Do NOT delete this Article!

First of all it is not original research.

The idea of lottocracy has been described in detail in the chapter A Concept for Government of the book The World Solution for World Problems (ISBN 90-9002592-8). The book is officially published in 1988, which is, according to present standards, long ago. I cannot help it when the general public is not informed. Since the time of it's publication the book has been available, though, as a hard copy in the Library of Congress (Washington DC), the British Library (London) and, among others, in the Library of the University of Princeton (Princeton, USA). You can also find the book at PiCarta.

• Delete - it is original research by a non-notable author, who is using self-referential citations to prove his point. Non-notable and unsuitable content. doktorb | words 12:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doktorb,

Would you really be so kind to wait a little with your comments. I am in the process of editing. This will take a few minutes. So, please, ...

Moreover, I do not know what you mean. The author of the book has died several years ago. Therefore, again, I do not know what you mean. I am Ad van der Ven, a honest scientist (having published 55 papers in well-known scientific papers) and I repeat, I am not the author of the book.

Now I am continuing.

Second.

The term lottocracy is not my term, but the term of the author. The term has been used seven times in the book! I cannot help it, that the author uses this term to label his idea.

I really think, with all my heart, that the above referees have been rather careless and have made their recommendations too easy!

Comment - to the author of this article: I can understand your frustration, but please note that Wikipedia is not an academic journal and this is not peer-review. For a topic to merit an entry in wikipedia it needs to be notable in its own right. This discussion is largely about whether or not this concept is notable. It is being termed original research by other editors because it is not a term in widespread use, discussed by multiple notable authors but, rather, a term used in a not especially notable book by a not especially notable author. It may be a brilliant idea, but until it becomes a notable brilliant idea, it isn't appropriate as a topic for an article. Other editors have suggested that the concept is essentially the same as sortition or demarchy, so perhaps some of this information could be integrated into one or both of those articles. Mattley ^(Chattley) 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mattley,

Thank you for your consideration. You are the first one who makes a comment in a kind and most informative way. I do understand what is meant by "notable". I am a scientist with many publications, among others a book, and at least I consider the topic certainly notable. But that will probably not do and I am well aware that the concept is a matter of subjective interpretation. Some will consider a topic notable and some not. In that case one still can hold to the criterium of importance, which by the way is also subjective. I can only wait and see.

In the mean time, I will certainly consider most seriously your suggestion to discuss the topic under the heading of demarchy, which by the way is in some respects completely different from the concept of lottocracy.

• Delete as original research, etc.Stifle 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stifle,

I repeat. This article is not original research. See above:

The idea of lottocracy has been described in detail in the chapter ...

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.