Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recombinant text

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was Delete. --VS talk 04:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recombinant text

Recombinant text (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable neologism. The article was apparently written by the coiner of the term, User:Michael Allan, and references appear to be papers written that use the term, not about them (thus failing the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). NF24(radio me!) 12:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

May I (primary author) reply up here, if it applies to the majority of bullet points below? If not, please correct me.
Most of you are citing the violation of a Wikipedia rule, as cause for deletion. But you fail to consider an overriding question that applies in this case: Is the article harmful to Wikipedia, or is it beneficial, or is it merely neutral? Failing to consider this, you may mean well, but end by doing harm.
Consider an example. There are societies (some of us are fortunate enough to live in them) that are open and democratic, while at the same time being governed by the rule of law. In all such societies, there is a division between legislators (who make the law), judges (who interpret it), and police (who enforce it). The police are not allowed to enforce the law blindly, without benefit of interpretation by judges. Judges apply judgment, as opposed to blind force.
Everyone understands that the rules of Wikipedia are an attempt to lay down some guidelines for how to improve Wikipedia, and prevent harm from coming to it. And all of the rules are intended to be interpreted in that light. Some rules are very clear, such as copyright violations. Others are less clear, such as the rule against OR. OR must be interpreted with judgment; exceptions can be made. You might make an exception if the subject (as here) is very new, and is the work of a non-academic who does not publish in journals. You might, that is, if the article has some apparent benefit to Wikipedia's readers, or at least brings no apparent harm to them. If you agree with my argument, I request that each editor who cited a broken rule append some considered judgment to it. Is it not true that the most valuable thing about Wikipedia is its openness? I think you are enforcing the rules too tightly, and I request that you loosen them a little, and allow some breathing space.
Is any part of the article, or the whole of it, harmful to Wikipedia's readers? Michael Allan (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research is extremely clear ("Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.") and non-negotiable ("This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."). Sorry, that's just the way it is. RossPatterson (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. NF24(radio me!) 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • First (to reply), if one invents something and gives it a name, the name is bound to be a neologism. Surely that is no fault of the article. Second, I believe notability of the subject is backed by the references. Recombinant text is the basis for 'community law making', and its 'delegate cascade' is the basis of 'open electoral systems'. The proposal for those was enough to gain the notice of several political scientists and sociologists in the APSA_ITP list (and other academics in another list). Those folks normally communicate in journal articles (publish or perish), and they almost *never* discuss new ideas in open forums, at length, with annoyingly over-excited outsiders (like me). I ask that you consider that as at least sufficient to buy the article some time (if only for their papers to come out) before deleting it as not notable. (In any case, please do discuss *before* taking drastic action such as deletion -- if only to give me notice.) Michael Allan (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for now to sort out wider-reaching issues with this AfD, regarding canvassing, see [1] and [2]. User:Dorftrottel 12:51, January 12, 2008
    • I don't believe that this is canvassing. User:Unschool was thinking of nominating it for AfD, but he wasn't sure, so he went into "one day's archive" and picked out a group of editors (including me) to ask for opinions. I agreed with Unschool, so I nominated the article. Besides, canvassing can only take place after the discussion has started. Also, I don't believe that this is forum shopping (or asking the other parent) because they were simply asking my opinion; had I disagreed, it doesn't appear that they would had pressed me or others for further opinions. They may have erred by not posting to User talk:Michael Allan and perhaps I should not have nominated it for Unschool. However, here I believe the problem is with notability (it does not appear to meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms), not original research or a conflict of interest as Unschool thought. NF24(radio me!) 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Yes, there are Google Books hits that use the term, but not about the term. NF24(radio me!) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Look at the links I provided. Some of them do indeed discuss the term and its meaning. User:Dorftrottel 14:26, January 12, 2008
        • I looked through all four and saw the term mentioned but not defined. Same for the other three books that came up in a Google book search. A regular Google search also turns up uses of term. The only definition is from Mr. Allen's website, zelea.com. I will gladly withdraw the nomination (in accordance with Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion #1) if you can provide an outside source (not written by Mr. Allen) that defines the term. NF24(radio me!) 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Author states on the article's talk page that it is original research. There is also a conflict of interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Strong Delete, this is not original research as its sources have been published in peer reviewed journals, but definitely a conflict of interest and soap-boxing, possibly definitely non-NPOV and also violates Wikipedia is not™ your publisher. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see any peer-reviewed journal articles using the term. AnteaterZot (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please, I am not soap boxing. I don't give a hoot if my name is attached to it. I only put my name in the refs to be honest about it. And I am not forcing my views on anyone. To the contrary, I posted the article in the hopes of hearing the views of others. Nor is it a contentious article in which I argue one side of an issue, in a non-neutral way. I am describing a new technology, and a new way of seeing collaborative media. All my words are directed to that end. Please correct me if I speak falsely. Michael Allan (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Two other things, first what Unschool was doing was not at all canvassing (although I can see why it might be construed that way) - he was asking for a few random editors' two cents on whether an article should be taken to AfD or left alone, and from the comments left on my talk page, I don't believe that he was attempting to influence my oppinion one way or another. Secondly, to Dorftrottel, I don't think your last statement is correct. Articles that contain solely original research can and are deleted on those grounds. The policy on original research makes it clear that material in articles must be verifiable, and content that can not be verified must be removed. If that would leave nothing, then the article would be deleteable. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And the sources I provided do allow for verification of the term and its meaning, so it's not deletable on the grounds of verifiablity is not possible at all. That's what it boils down to: if an article can be improved through inclusion of published sources, don't delete it. User:Dorftrottel 14:26, January 12, 2008
      • No, they don't. You've done a Google Books search, found 4 books where the words "recombinant" and "text" occur next to each other, and then accused other editors of being "too lazy". Not only is that uncivil, it is wholly and ironically undermined by the fact that if you'd actually read what your search turned up you'd have seen that none of the books that you've pointed document the concept described in this article, at all. The first is simply talking about anonymous works that have been recombined over the centuries. The second is discussing hypertext and the phrase "recombinant text" occurs in a single buzzword-heavy quotation. The third is also discussing hypertext in buzzword-heavy fashion. The fourth is citing the sleeve notes for a compact disc, and isn't even discussing something at all. Please apply our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies properly. Random occurrences of two words in succession found by a Google search is not verifiability, as Wikipedia:Google test explains. Research involves actually reading what one's Google search turns up. Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Dorftrottel, I fail to see how any of the sources you listed are verifiable secondary sources. Every reference on the page is either written by the article's author or is an online message board (not a peer-reviewed journal as some have made it seem), and the references you brought up in this deletion discussion are the result of a Google search and only show where the phrase "recombinant text" is used, they don't discuss or explain the term. I originally wasn't 100% sure that this was OR and tried to give you the, the author, and the article the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm convinced that its blatant original research. It needs to be covered (the topic itself, not just the phrase used in a sentence in an article) in multiple independent sources before it can be included. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • "verifiable secondary sources": I thought secondary sources are the ones used to verify material. How would those be verified? Peer review? Then please, I may be totally wrong on all accounts here, but I still see a difference between the current content of the page, and the page itself. The term appears not to be a total neologism, at least not by the standards defined by Ex-ex-gay. It has been used in several published books to denote more or less the same concept. That's why I keep arguing that while, yes, the current content is not compatible with policy, the term itself is. Why the drastic measure to delete the page and not leave it as at least a redirect? Are you sure you're not confusing the content with the page it's on? Remove the text, but keep the page. If not as a stub, then as a imo plausible redirect to another article. User:Dorftrottel 15:51, January 13, 2008
  • Delete, the term is used in many different ways. For example, "DJ Spooky" used the term in a rap/poetics context in the 1990's. Other people use the term in a hypertext context, but it is uncertain if they are talking about the same thing. And the term was used in an essay on "utopian plagiarism". However, I was unable to find any use of the term in WebofKnowledge or Jstor.org. The article has a much more well-developed definition of recombinant text than can be found anywhere on the internet. The sources provided are all by Mr Allen, except two 1982 books which do not mention the term, and two forums. Therefore the article is in violation of WP:NOT#OR points 1 and 3, and in violation of WP:SYN. The way it is currently written, it is also in violation of WP:NOT#MANUAL. As for the possiblity of rewriting the article, since it is currently missing any independent secondary sources that attest to the notability or importance of the term or the concept, it (the term) fails WP:Notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • First (to reply), although I chose a name with prior usages, those usages were not solidly established, nor anything but occasional descriptive flourishes. So I did not usurp the term. Second, it is not original thought, but a report of an actual, working machine. Third, it is therefore not SYN, because that deals with advancing positions and conclusions (I have none to advance). And finally, the most important secondary source for recombinant text is reality itself, and (now that I have added the missing external links) you have references to it. You can test them with your own senses, and see that what I am reporting cannot be broadly disputed. It's there, as long as my server is running... Michael Allan (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete and ban User:Michael Allan. We definitely need more 13-year olds that write articles on minor Star Wars expanded universe characters rather than on non-notable (=not available as comic book or on TV) neologisms. The article constitutes a blatant violation (as in rape) of WP:COI and WP:OR and considerably impairs Wikipedia's reputation as a repository of knowledge. User:Dorftrottel 15:47, January 12, 2008
    • That being said, as some of you have already been suspecting, the only reason I was arguing for giving the article a chance is that I'm a sockpuppet of Michael Allan... User:Dorftrottel 16:08, January 12, 2008
    • Am I the only one here who thinks that a ban is very unnecessary here? NF24(radio me!) 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I am obviously a bit pissed off right now because I really still believe the article should be given a fair chance. It may be necessary to stubbify, rewrite, or redirect, but deletion is not necessary imo. The reason why I proposed banning Allan is ambivalent: I personally do not think that he should. But those who are arguing COI should be aware that he did essentially not contribute anything else than my our his workSpecial:Contributions/Michael_Allan. User:Dorftrottel 16:35, January 12, 2008
        • If an article is original research, then it is not possible to rewrite it, because there are no fact checked, peer reviewed, published, reliable sources to use in order to build it. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, one last attempt. Even if we determine the subject matter to be non-notable, and the examples I provided are not suitable sources to back up any part of the concept: Why delete the article rather than making it a redirect to, say, Collaborative writing, Revision control or Memetics? The fact that the term as such appears in a few published works and a rather careful Google search returns ~400 hits imo means that it is a plausible search term and the page location should at least be kept as a redirect. However, I still think that the article, its current condition notwithstanding, has potential to become more than an unreferenced stub. That aside, the article is indeed well-formulated currently, regardless of COI/OR/whatnot, and that fact does deserve due consideration. So, in spite of my awareness of WP:AADD, I ask myself: why this article? Why not the thousands of "articles" on minor fiction characters? Well, the answer is simple: Mob rule. Here, we have an individual (and anyone who speaks up in favour of giving this article a chance is assumed to be a sockpuppet, for crying out loud). One person cannot win any argument on WP. There, we have ~1000 kids who want to keep everything they saw on TV the other night. And the kids prevail. Great thing, Wikipedia. So go ahead, delete this and add to WP's systemic bias. I'm just glad we have well-referenced, neutral and interesting encyclopedic articles on notable topics like Ex-ex-gay. User:Dorftrottel 17:54, January 12, 2008
    • I feel your pain, but the average Wikipedia user is capable of figuring out that the article on the minor TV character was written by a minor. Articles like this one are more insidious and more dangerous, because they look scholarly but in fact are an attempt to bypass peer-review and the scholarly literature. As for the sockpuppet accusation, even if you were User:Michael Allan, you would not be engaging in sockpuppetry because he is not participating in this debate. AnteaterZot (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I protest, I am not attempting to bypass peer review. My peers do not publish in journals, they publish in code. I do not wish to avoid their criticism, but rather to encourage it. Other engineers and users of social media are more likely to see and criticize my work if it is published here (whatever the rules say about that) than in a journal they will never read. Social media is being invented by software engineers and their users, in an open culture of information exchange, and not by academics who publish in journals. Michael Allan (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I have noticed the refusal of the software community to participate in the centuries-old process of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The fact that you feel you have to publish on Wikipedia shows that the time has come for the social media/software community to grow up and create some journals. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
          • "I have noticed the refusal of the [Wikipedia] community to participate in the centuries-old process of publishing in [printed encyclopedias]. The fact that you feel you have to publish on Wikipedia shows that the time has come for the [Wikipedia] community to grow up and create [a traditional encyclopedia]." Seriously, traditional journals and academic scholarship are not the only sources of knowledge. A running machine (even in prototype), that does something never before done (or even thought of), and has obvious utility, and interesting connections with other machines/systems/techniques, is worthy of reporting. You ought not to wait years for a peer-reviewed dialogue to emerge from the traditional publishers, not when the engineer who built it volunteers a faithful report of it, as I have. Michael Allan (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
            • All I see is Original Research, sorry. AnteaterZot (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I still think that the article, its current condition notwithstanding, has potential to become more than an unreferenced stub — That you've found no sources, and still think that it's possible to write an article nonetheless, indicates that you should refresh your memory of our content policies and the purpose of the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is a tertiary source. Yes, you cannot win an argument against the project policy by being uncivil and using the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The way to win this argument is to cite reliable independent sources that document this particular subject in depth, to show that the idea has been fact checked, peer reviewed, published, escaped its creator and become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. It is that that we are documenting here at Wikipedia. Our Wikipedia:No original research policy is aimed squarely at, amongst other things, novel ideas that have not escaped their creators and have not been acknowledged by the rest of the world, be they (amongst many other things) new religions, new theories in physics, new games, new languages, or (as here) new inventions. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Why not keep the page as a redirect then? The sources I came up with at least demonstrate that it's not a total neologism only ever used by Allan. User:Dorftrottel 15:53, January 13, 2008
      • An actual machine is no longer merely an 'original thought', nor 'invention' -- it is reality. Having escaped its creator it enters the physical world where it is subject to a battery of validity tests: the machine either works or it does not work. And a machine that works (even partially, as Babbage's difference engine did) deserves to be reported as part of human knowledge. And because a working system of recombinant text is on public display for all to see, and has code that is open for all to investigate and modify, and because its whole purpose is to serve as an open medium of collaboration, I chose to report this machine in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the compendium of knowledge that best exemplifies the principles of openness and inclusiveness that I admire. If I was mistaken in this choice, then I will trust and respect your judgment, but on one condition only: let us all hear and respond to your reasons *before* you delete the article. Michael Allan (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a neologism with no sources to make the article compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, subject is interesting but a neologism. This is largely self-published material; the sources listed are insufficient to demonstrate notability and neutral third-party discussion. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP is not a place to self-publish. If his work is important, gets published and gets many pier reviews then it will eventually get on WP. Alatari (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete – Under WP:OR and WP:COI. My goodness the author of the piece starts the article with the statement “…Recombinant text is a term proposed by Michael Allan”, and Michael Allen is the author of the article. Shoessss |  Chat  14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please do not hold that sentence against me. It was added by someone else. Michael Allan (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And now I have deleted it, since you agree it is unnecessary.Michael Allan (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If the article can be reproduced with independent resources then let that happen. As it is it is WP:OR and cannot stand.--Pmedema (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with regret. WP:OR, WP:COI. SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Synthesis of published material. The references to third-party sources do not address the concept of "recombinant text" in any way. Non-notable term.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as I am the primary author. Apologies the slow response. Time permitting, I'll reply soon to your comments above, where it might help. For now I'll just explain my reasons for posting the article, and why I hope you decide to keep it. First, I should say (if you don't know from the article) I'm a software engineer, not an academic. I guess that partly explains why I haven't published this (admittedly OR) in journals. The other reason is that journal publication would take effort, and would benefit the journal publisher (in this case) almost exclusively. Wikipedia publication also took effort, but not nearly as much. More important, I had something to gain from it. It taught me how a Wiki community operates, and that has been helpful to my work, which centers on social media. I don't know quite what Wikipedia is, it appears to be inventing itself. Time will tell. But even as it is, Wikipedia will soon be needing an article on recombinant text. Recombinant text is closely interconnected with delegate cascades, and open electoral systems, and it's certain you'll be wanting an article (or section) on those, if only because an understanding of them will help you in your own work here (the whole of Wikipedia is an experiment, and continuing project of OR, as it were, and I hope it continues). Meantime, no hard feelings if you delete this article. My thanks to those who contributed their time to it, and (if we don't speak again, before the article is deleted) to those who commented above. Soon, Michael Allan (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I now see a fault in the article... I will try to correct it by adding external links at bottom. What I hope to underline is that the article is a report of a medium that actually exists (in alpha prototype), as opposed to a report of a mere concept. Maybe that will change your opinion of the article's worth. I feel, though, that many will still object that Wikipedia *is* not the place for new media/systems/machines -- actual or conceptual -- to be reported. There are rules against it. But (in anticipation, and to summarize my defense) I counter that Wikipedia *is* not anything, so much as it is *becoming*; and what it is becoming ought not to be *pre-defined* by rules, but rather *facilitated* by the fundamental rule of openness that is built into the machinery of the Wiki. If a contributing user does no harm, the fundamental rule applies. Please relax your lesser rules in this light; apply judgment in particular cases of deletion; and grant your users the freedom to take Wikipedia where traditional encyclopedias cannot go. Michael Allan (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original research, neologism, and non-notable. RossPatterson (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Making improvements to an article, and voting for its deletion -- a clear case of Freudian editing... Michael Allan (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Believing that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia shouldn't prevent me from cleaning it up, should it? Trust me, I'm not about to add references or expand the prose. But improve its structure and check its references? Sure, why not? And if someone finds the references from someone besides you, or good content from a secondary source? Well, then, it'll be a better article. RossPatterson (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You're being constructive. I get a sense WhyWikiWorks for an encyclopedias and other compendia, though it fails for literary applications, legislation, and others. I'm done defending the article, no more to say... Michael Allan (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (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.