Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis

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. Author blanked article multiple times both under username and IP, and is considered a speedy deletion request. Speedy closed Hu12 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skapsis

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

Article fails to establish the notability of this Ancient Greek concept and appears primarily to be a mechanism for promoting a Portuguese blog of the same name. A. B. ^(talk) 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A Google search on the word "Skapsis" turns up a hodge-podge of just 71 Google hits scattered across several languages and nothing I see that we could use as a reference. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The primary issue is not whether the article is promotional. That can be solved separately by just deleting the link and the reference to the blog. Instead I nominated this article for deletion because it does not appear to meet the requirements to be in an English language encyclopedia. The article states that all the possible sources are in foreign languages (overlooking the fact that this blog is not in English either). Skapsis articles don't appear on either the Portuguese or Greek Wikipedias. There's just one physical reference cited in the article and that's a book in Italian. If there are thousands of academics in English speaking countries studying and writing about ancient Greece, why haven't they written about the term? If they haven't seen fit to discuss it, then is this term notable? "Skapsis" is not in the online ancient Greek lexicon that I consulted. Most of the great ancient Greek texts are available on-line translated in English and if this really was a common concept in ancient Greece, then the article's creator should be able to cite the locations in these online texts where the idea is discussed -- both for us and for the readers. (See the talk page for more detail on this.) --A. B. ^(talk) 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Although the article appears to be spam-like, I believe it is salvageable. MKoltnow 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If this article was salvageable, now would be the time to salvage it. And that would involve providing multiple, reliable sources that meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. Else it should be deleted. -- Satori Son 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup, and de-spam-ify. There appears to be a salvageable article in here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Weak delete per my comment below. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man, what are your thoughts on where to find sources for this article (and who's going to look for them?) As I noted above, I looked and found nothing. I just don't think there's anything out there so I'm worried we'll be stuck with an undeleted but unsourced and unnotable article -- have you got any ideas? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... you may be right. There are a few hundred google hits, but very few are in English or any other language I can read. If there are sources, I can't find them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, it seems to be a real term but, here's the clincher, not a notable one. The article is a mess and WP:COI to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems pretty clear to me that the article was created purely to promote a blog. The connection between the Greek farming term and education appears to be pure original research. At best, this appears to be a candidate for transclusion into Wiktionary. More likely, it just needs to be deleted. I'd be very happy if someone could prove me wrong by citing references to support the assertions made in the article; I would also be very surprised. --ElKevbo 10:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try and be not so limited. Read what I have advised you to and you will see this is not a promoting article. That is all that I strugle against.

Have you seen the blog? You should, so you can be sure that none of the contraindications apply. I've read the links, and kepted them for me, so I can investigate them further, but I haven't found any real problem in the article. I agree that it may seem as an advertizing, but is not, and if there where to be more in the net about this word it would be there. I have searched. And I imagine that you have searched to without any luck. You think that the only occurrence of this word in the net, which is in no way any of the unadvised entries, sould be taken of?Sarasoar 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But I can tell you more. I have just done this article because a lot of people complaint that they had no way to know what skapsis is in the maner that I did in the article. The blog is a philosophical and poeticaly artistic way of aproching the same subject. I would neve explain the meaning of skapsis there. You may consider this blog the exact happening os skapsis, is the propoer action I have described in the article taking place. Is the best example for the article, and the article is an instrument for those that what to know more about the word. To see an advertizing action is to see ambliopicaly, is compleatly equivocal. There is no motive. Tel me a reason for advertizing? If you woul know the content os the blog you would see tha this is the most outrageuos thing to say.Sarasoar 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Gilles Deleuze? His book What is Phylosophy?, with his cowriter Félix Guattari. The last post of the blog, in which the article is mentioned, posts the end of the introduction that is a severe critic on marketing and universal capitalism, or professional comercial formation. This is our doom. Skapsis is all against the ideias that the article have been acused. And the article came out because in the making of the blog there was nothing about the subject. But you know this allready. Please read the introduction to this book, you will see the nonsense of the acusation. And it's very bad that someone may mix philosophy with marketing, but this is possible because marketing have tryed to be criator of concepts. So now all creation of concepts must confused with marketing or advertizing...?

I new that some blog readers might find the article to be an over flow of information that would diminish the poetical dimension of Skapsis, so I have done this last post exaclty to give the tools to understand waht realy is the reason behind the occurrence of the article. My doing of the artical is the first step of the concept age, the encyclopedia. So you probably won't find any artical to be most apropriate to be in an encyclopedia than this one about skapsis. Skapsis is almost the same as the action of encyclopeding, and the mention of the blog is essential to give a dimention to it, it's to bad you can't read Portuguese.

All this was very sucsseful: The article is the first age of the concept: the encyclopedia, the blog is the second age of the concept: the pedagogy, and the atacks the article has recived show the presence of the fear for something that is very bad, which is the third age (and fake) of the conept: marketing. This last way of the concept is all that I want to see away from me or from the blog, the most as possible. That is why I have erased immidiatly the acusation from the artical itself. :If I would be doing what as been injustly said it would be the same as destroying the pupose of the blog, which is much more important than the article. The seconde age of concept, pedagogy, is the most importante of them all.

Please read the introduction to book that is referenced above. Only then you will see the nonsense of acusing this article to be advertizing.Sarasoar 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes occurres that a fear for something to come arround brings the fealing for that. Only you, that are policiating the Wikipedia, would see advertizing or in any way a promoting action facking to be an article. But this is much more than an article, this is the product of the encyclopedia it self looking into the pedagogy being born. Encyclopedia has a bit dificulty in understanding pedagogy, so it tries to explain what is inexplainable. Al exlanation creates the ilusion of understanding, but the only understanding possible comes with pedagogy, the living of the concept. If you read about you don't know, you just think you do; you only know in your one experience and only if you are well advised, which is the function of pedagogy, to guide through the processe of empirical knowledge.

If something was not fully explained please ask for more. If this was a bore the fault is yours, you must go into philosophy so to understand the ofense of this acusation. It would even be a reason for processing the acusator. It not only is nonsense but more gravely is difamation."89.155.26.189 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, if you realy what to see references that prove all the article says just go and confirm it with the Franco Montinari Greek Vocabolary, the only reference I know to provide this information. I have said this before, but you seam to ignore what I say. The contection bettween agriculture and education is contemporary to Ancient Greece. I realy don't understando wy you act like this if you dindn´t even made an efort to understand what I say. There is no source for skapsis in the internet, the blog is the only source. Can you understand this? And can you understand that this article would never work as a promotion for the blog? Ask a portuguese reader to tell you all about it, and read the introduction to Waht is Philosophy? of Gilles Deleuze, which is the post that redirects here. I you are capable of understanding philosophy you will see that your worries are pointing to the wrong direction. This is becaming extreemly ofensive!89.155.26.189 11:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to get out of the virtual world and veryfy a more that reliable sorce as the vocabolary I've mentioned? And that would involve providing multiple, reliable sources that meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. This Vocabolary is more that enough. I can't understant wy you steel complain? If every time that a subject is not verifyable in the net would be deleted thaere wuold be no Wikipedia for starting. All has a first time, and for Skapsis the first time in a sistematic and resposnsable manner is the blog.89.155.26.189 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:ATT. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable, verifiable sources and blogs are generally not considered such sources (including yours - and mine, for that fact). We also don't allow original research or mere dictionary definitions. If you can provide reliable sources confirming the assertions you have made, please add them. Otherwise, my opinion remains the same. --ElKevbo 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, sources don't have to be available online. Sources from other media such as print are perfectly acceptable. But please be aware that merely defining this work using a dictionary or similar source would not allay my concerns and establish the notability of this subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --ElKevbo 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be perfectly happy with a dictionary, but... Delete. As it stands, neither dictionary.com, nor my library have heard of the word and if you remove technocrati and blogspot links from the Google search no English language results remain when searching for this word online. (The blog link can be deleted if it is really spamming should it provide notable after all). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

ELKevbo, if you knew the dictionary I am puting forward you would se it's not about mere dictionary definitions, as is contanis the most advanced reserch about the subject in Italian academy. This is a ver authoritative source.Sarasoar 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And..., MacGyverMagic, you didn't read all I have said. There is not occurrence of this word in most ancient greek dictionaries, how can you expect to find it in the web????Sarasoar 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for research on a Greek term for which "There is not occurrence of this word in most ancient greek dictionaries." Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. And don't take this so personally. You have simply chosen an improper forum to publish your somewhat intriguing research. I'm sure there are other websites and institutions that would be interested, but unfortunately it is not appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia. -- Satori Son 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming to realize tha wiki is nor about seriouse knowledge but about democratic knowledge, and if you remember your schooling days, if you had any, you know that ther is no sence for democracy in real knowledge. Or you know about it or you don't, and if you know you must show from where, which is what I did in the first place. Vulgar dictionaries may not copmly to the requirments, but this kind of vocabolary dose. I'v used it in major academic works, and it is beeing used all over the academic woeld. Inform your self.Sarasoar 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any way, this continuos nonsense is descrediting wiki and because of that I to move the article for deletion, and if possible, all delition of any of my editing in this place. It is ridiculouse tha way you work. Noy seriouse and not academic. You are just bad encyclopedians. And, by the way, there is nothing good about being encyclopedian.Sarasoar 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Move for speedy close as creator has requested deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, at the moment it's a 3 line (content free) article with no assertion of notability and no references, and what appears to be an indiscriminate list of random links - unless it's tidied up not even a candidate for Wiktionary. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"And, by the way, there is nothing good about being encyclopedian." That's us told. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Although clearly created for self-promotional purposes, I thought there might be something to salvage here. But upon closer look, there doesn't appear to be any significant use of the term beyond the author's. I fail to see any evidence of notability. Deli nk 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research unless the subject can be documented with some verifiable references. Tarinth 18:40, 27 March 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.