Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

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 of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

This article is about a not very notable newsgroup, and most information in this article is completely irrelevant to the newsgroup. It's very strange. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep in original version. Click on the links to the Google Groups featured in the section titled Sci.Psychology.Psychotherapy in Usenet Environment of Gangs. You will quickly discover that this article in its original form is as factual as any written in Wikipedia. And if the article appears odd, it is only because the article is an accurate reflection of an oddity. The following statement, by contrast, is not a fact but merely an educated opinion: the haste with which "editors" are converging on this article to delete its original form in its entirety, without qualification, discussion, or verification suggests the work of Usenet gangbangers based in none other than (drum roll please) ... sci.psychology.psychotherapy. I am screen capturing all this work, including the date-time stamps, for inclusion in a report to be reviewed by more civilized and educated communities outside Wikipedia.

    Also, the acceptable practice is to keep an original article intact pending the outcome of a review such as that prompted by a recommendation for deletion. But James James, and other fly-by-night aliases posing as editors, are engaging in the practice of treating a replacement "stub" as the main page and any effort to restore the original page as "vandalism." This is turning reality on its head. Restore the original page, conduct your research, weigh in on the discussion, and then make any changes (which may include wholesale deletion) based on the outcome of the review. Even the author of the much-maligned John Seigenthaler article was entitled to 132 days of infamy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.8.228 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 04:56:33 UTC

  • Keep it but return it to the more factual previous version. James James 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the stub article, which has now been restored. -- Curps 04:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --NaconKantari 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as per Curps. --NaconKantari 06:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please keep this valid information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.145.201 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 05:28:26 UTC
  • Redirect to Sci.* hierarchy, though that article could stand some expansion. The original version looks more or less like WP:NOR to me. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What do you think of Alt.usenet.kooks? Seemed WP:NOR to me too. But it was judged NPOV against attacks on its neutrality and against a recommendation for deletion. Sci.psychology.psychotherapy is no different, except it does not engage in slander like Alt.usenet.kooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.8.228 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 06:06:57 UTC
      • alt.usenet.kooks has been around for more than 20 years, and has always been a significant group within the alt hierarchy. Regardless of its content, there's no doubt it merits an article. The same can't be said for this newsgroup. It's probably been around as long or even longer, but if I recall correctly, it was created in a lump with the other groups in the sci hierarchy, and has never been well-known. Thus my suggestion to redirect. It certainly can't remain as an attack piece on another article (as per WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT). –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Significant? How in the name of John Hinckley is alt.usenet.kooks significant?! Because some Usenetters who founded it 12 years ago (not 20) use spam advertising to recruit aggressors from other news groups? In this way, alt.usenet.kooks is a phenomenon. I give you that. But no editor would ever allow me or anyone else to tack on a criticism or consequences section (without sidelining it within 2 seconds to the Discussion page). This is not an article written out of journalistic objectivity or integrity. It's propaganda.

          No one in the civilized world knows Alt.usenet.kooks. It's endemic to Usenet, that is, until this Wikipedia article started showing up in Google searches of the victim's names. That's the whole point of the article.

          This is not an attack piece on Alt.usenet.kooks. It is stand alone content, and shares the same verifiability and "significance" as your beloved Alt.usenet.kooks. Interesting how no one is discussing verifiability anymore. Suddenly, verifiability is not a criterion. You must have followed the links and examined the evidence. That being said, I know one thing that is never a criterion in science or journalism: popularity. How well known subject matter is is utterly beside the point.

          Redirection is not the answer. It is tantamount to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 15:51:01 UTC

  • Delete if the vandalism doesn't stop. --Agamemnon2 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep original. You can't get more accurate than that. The true farce would be hosting an article that misrepresents this news group as a bona fide news group and makes it inviting for people. The persons to whom Agamemnon is referring when he uses the word "vandal" are just restoring the first draft. There would be no article if it were not for the article's creator. The creator of the article should not be labeled a "vandal." It is those who created the "stub" and who kept restoring the "stub" who are the vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 13:22:18 UTC
  • Comment Is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking? Tom Harrison (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Does it matter? A scaled-down adaptation titled "Gang Stalking & Usenet" was created as a subsection for the article on Stalking, and it was deleted (labeled spam) by one of the same "administrators" (Karada) who deleted the original version of this article wholesale without due process and without a discussion page. Some Usenet lover posing as a Wiki admin is running around protecting an unimpeachable image for a culture (i.e. Usenet) whose effects should be noted. Fortunately, I am here to document the behavior of this "open source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 15:51:01 UTC
    • Also note the names of the images, indicating that this is also related to Special:Undelete/Brad Jesness in addition to alt.usenet.kooks. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Newsgroups deserve their own pages. Give this one a chance to grow up and be something better. If you delete a page just because it's been vandalized then the vandals win!! --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point Cyde, only you are forgetting something. The creator of the original article is not the vandal. There would be no article if it were not for the author. I suggest you treat this article similar to Alt.usenet.kooks. Have a discussion page and a page on which people can permanently challenge the neutrality, but otherwise leave the article intact. Hell -- you can even add qualifying sections to the main page. There are many options besides deletion redirection (AKA deletion by proxy).

      A true editor would defer to policy here. Leave original article. Let this mechanism run its course and let's see where the chips fall. I think you are concerned that by the time the dust settles, enough people will have voiced support for the original version to prevent deletion or redirection. Still, I suspect Wiki editors will violate their own policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-27 16:49:31 UTC

    • No, Usenet newsgroups do not deserve articles purely on that basis alone. Wikipedia is not a directory of Usenet newsgroups any more than it is a directory of people, companies, or web sites. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The choice is between original research and an unexpandable directory entry. The article content as it stands is 100% original research, and is, moreover, the spillover from a long-standing conflict on Usenet. The rewritten stub article is a simple "N is a Usenet newsgroup" directory entry. Wikipedia is not a directory, be it of people, companies, web sites, or Usenet newsgroups. For this article to be worthwhile, there needs to be scope for expansion of the article to be more than a simple directory entry. There needs to be secondary source material available that is more substantial than simple directory listings and excerpts from "active" files. Usenet newsgroups that have had non-trivial works published about them (such as FAQs on faqs.org. for example) qualify for articles on this basis. This newsgroup has no FAQ on faqs.org, and I cannot find any other secondary source material apart from material which is from the same single author (Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs), see above) as this article is. Delete. Uncle G 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but then originality should not be penalized if the facts derive from an observation or arithmetic so simple as to be almost assured of a .90 inter-rater reliability coefficient. There's not much interpretation or construction here.

      A good encyclopedia does not merely mime or mirror other pre-packaged encyclopedias (e.g. the FAQ list), but transcends it. However, I agree that if one had to choose between a stub-based article and no article at all, I'd choose no article at all. There's nothing good anyone can say about this news group except that it boasts some of the highest traffic and is often listed (lazily I might add) as a "resource" on department of psychology web sites. It is also "captured" (i.e. indexed to the Web) by a number of news readers (more news readers than alt.usenet.kooks). Of course, it's only after I ask news reader admins and psych dept web site admins to examine this news group do they realize they made a mistake listing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 December 2005

      • A good encyclopedia contains verifiable content. This doesn't have any. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Har har. I see Cyde Weys sent me a message in which he threatened to ban me if I persisted in restoring the article to its original draft, which is perfectly acceptable before the due process runs its course. So what's the rush Cyde? Why the hammer? We have a good jump on the process. The system is working according to policy. And the original article is NPOV. So let's wait and see. What are you afraid of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs)
    • Yeah, you better watch out for my non-admin ban. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll ask this from you only once. I do not care what the heck the dispute is, I do not care what the article is about, I DO care about the discussion of individuals/threats/and other nonsense which has no place not only on just this vote but on Wikipedia. PLEASE stop it ok? And for the love of madness sign your posts. Furthermore I moved discussion regarding this article to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy] from Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit. Please do not involve Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit on any matter but Vandalsim that requires communiy attention. Thank you. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, I didn't drag this unit into the matter. I didn't know it existed until someone referred this page to the countervandalism unit, which was hysterical and inappropriate. The person recanted after I called them on the abuse of authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs)
      • I just dont want to se this on the CVU page unless genuine vandalism is present in the article. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. For those of us not involved in the controversy this is very confusing. The article's practically illegible and the multi-way bickering and flood of anons in this discussion doesn't help. Could some neutral person try to summarize briefly? rodii 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I find Uncle G's argument persuasive. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, but is it just me or has this gone too far? I'm abstaining because this has stirred too much up. ComputerJoe 20:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Has what gone too far? If you're abstaining, why leave a comment? I don't understand your reasoning here. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the anon contributor's User page seems to have been vandalised too. Unfortunately, a Usenet flame war seems to have spilled over into Wikipedia. In fact, sci.psychology.psychotherapy is no more notable than any other sci.* newsgroup except, perhaps, as a venue for this long-running war. Since the war resulted in the creation of SPP.moderated a few years ago, it might deserve to be mentioned in an article about the history of, and justification for, moderated Usenet groups, but probably not otherwise. (no vote). Peter J Ross 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. WP is not a web directory, and contrary to some misunderstandings, newsgroups are part of the web. Gazpacho 23:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. -- Karada 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Usenet newsgroup with a considerable following. Jtmichcock 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even the "stub" seems not notable and has irrelevant content. The non stub... holy smokes! if those are facts, which have verifiable cites, the editor that put them in perhaps could find other articles where they might be welcome but they seem to have little or nothing to do with this particular newsgroups itself. An actual article about the newsgroup would need to demonstrate why the newsgroup is notable, not all newsgroups should get articles. IMHO anyway. ++Lar 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless I'm missing something obvious here, this does not meet WP:WEB. --Alf melmac 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. -Will Beback 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Facts are facts regardless of whether they were illuminated by one person or twenty, and facts strengthen an encyclopedia (especially if they can be verified by simple observation). The news group exists. We all know that. A simple examination of each aspect of this extraordinary article will demonstrate realities of equal facticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.140.119.191 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2006 -- user's 2nd edit
  • Delete or Redirect to Sci.* hierarchy. Wildly original (to be charitable) research or dicdef seem to be the two choices here. Seems to be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, since I note that the commenter above's two edits are here and to Cyberstalking. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 5 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.