Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 22

22 November 2015

Philosothon – The outcome of this deletion review is complex, and some of the participants are new to Wikipedia, so I'll explain in a little more depth than is customary. I'll begin with a discussion of procedural irregularities. This is a non-admin close of a deletion review and I'm closing it before the customary 168 hours have elapsed. It would certainly be possible to question the validity the close on this basis, and I wouldn't be doing this unless had complete confidence that we've had all the necessary input; that this is the correct outcome; that if reviewed, it would be upheld; and that it is unlikely to be reviewed because I don't believe any experienced DRV participants would quibble it. The discussion below might seem like a single debate but in fact it considers three facets of the article and the behaviours that generated it. For the benefit of newer users I'll distinguish the three. (1) KTC's evaluation of the original deletion discussion is unanimously agreed to be accurate by everyone who commented on it. Her evaluation is endorsed. (2) Tokyogirl79 has done diligent research on the subject, as she often does, and she shows that the original discussion was defective. She has produced an array of sources that that debate failed to unearth. These sources were sufficient to show that the earlier debate's conclusion is unsafe. Therefore, we send it back to AfD for them to consider again (which I will do immediately after I've finished this close). In Wikipedian jargon, this part of the outcome is called a relist. (3) Sydney59 is referred to our guidelines on conflict of interest. There are a number of reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers, so we have had to become very good at detecting promotional activity and very efficient in how we deal with it; this sometimes catches good faith users as collateral damage, and I hope explains the impatience some users show during the discussion below. Sydney59 is also asked to confine himself to one !vote per discussion in future, please, and gently advised that Wikipedian discussion closers will check this point. It is okay to comment several times, but very rarely necessary to do so. – —S Marshall T/C 17:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Philosothon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Request by Sydney59 for undeletion (incorrectly) at Refund and then my talk page as the deleting admin. I'm okay with my deletion, but I am happy if people think this should be relisted. -- KTC (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC) @SmartSE, Duffbeerforme, TomStar81, and Tokyogirl79: pinging since you either commented at the original AFD or at Refund. -- KTC (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Uphold Delete This is a promotional articles designed exclusively to advertise for the event in question. We didn't need it a week ago when it was deleted and we don't need it now. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Overturn If this was a promotional article why does it include a section titled "Criticisms"? Also if it was designed specifically to promote the event why was much of content published by me later in a peer reviewed reputable journal; "The American Philosophical Association"? http://www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/808CBF9D-D8E6-44A7-AE13-41A70645A525/v12n1_Teaching.pdf (page 13) This has been further edited by others since this article was first placed on Wikipedia...but the point is it was not written as publicity. Finally if it was "designed exclusively to advertise the event" what evidence is there from the article that this is advertising? What phrases and quotes are there in the article that indicate it is anything more than an account of the history and nature of the event? It has never been stated by any editors what exactly is promotional...in which case it could be removed. Suffice to say it is not advertising nor was it ever intended to be. Sydney59 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Endorse, and suggest this DRV be speedy closed. The primary author of this article is an obvious WP:SPA who is currently under COI investigation, and is abusing Wikipedia for personal promotion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Comment. I am finding some coverage out there. I found these articles from ABC.net.au, Wells Journal, and Bournemouth Echo. However most of what I'm finding is primary: it's either by someone involved or an institution hosting the event. So far I'm not really bringing up a huge amount of things that would overturn the AfD. I'll check a few more places first, but offhand I'm leaning towards endorsing the deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Here's some more: Yahoo, Daily Echo. The Daily Echo is fairly short, so that'd probably be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source overall, though. I'm going to check my school database next. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Here's what's I've found from my school database. Since I can't link to those, I'm going to just list the citations. I haven't compared these against the ones above, so there may be some repeated cites. Selleck, Amy. "New state of mind", Gold Coast bulletin, 24 June 2014. Kumar, Anita. (Student reporter) "Pondering life's issues", Gold Coast bulletin, 07/24/2012. Phillips, Yasmine. "Asking big questions", The Sunday Times, Oct 24, 2010. I'll go through these a little more in a bit. So far this looks to be predominantly local coverage. I found some links that looked to be primary. For Sydney's benefit, I'll explain primary sourcing on Wikipedia: primary sourcing is anything that is written by someone/something related to the event. This means that anything written by Wills is primary, regardless of where it's posted. I'm undecided at this point and I may try going through and cleaning the article. While there may not have been an intent to promote the Philosothon, it's easy to have things come across as promotional when you're editing with a conflict of interest. Why? Because you're inclined to see things in a more positive light than someone that isn't related to the event at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Comment.Please note that none of the newspaper articles, ABC radio programs, nor the host schools coverage on their websites was authored by me. This article was originally co-authored by me, Professor John Kleinig (Metropolitan university of NY) Dr Alan Tapper (Charles Sturt University)and Professor Tzipporah Kasachkoff (Ben Gurion University Israel) and other academic editors. Again notability established I would suggest some editing but why delete?Sydney59 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC) The thing about WP:PRIMARY sources is that they don't have to be written by you. If a school hosts an event, they're considered to be a primary source regardless of whether or not you were involved with the event or were even aware of it. The same thing goes for schools that had students participate. They have a definite interest in writing about the event or students, as taking part in any educational event makes them look good and seem more prestigious - thus making it more likely that people will want to attend their school, give them money, or so on. They may genuinely be excited about everything and may not be thinking "money, prestige, power" necessarily, but because they're directly related to the topic they're also more likely to be more positive and cover the event. It's essentially impossible for them to be truly neutral or to be a good gauge of coverage/interest per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Now what works against the sources here is that they're all predominantly local sources writing about local events. This doesn't mean that they can't be used per se, but they do tend to be greatly depreciated when it comes to judging notability on Wikipedia. They are secondary, but just like schools have an interest in writing about something they're presenting, local papers have a bit of an interest in covering local events or people. It's not something I always agree with necessarily, but this is one of the most prevalent arguments against articles that are mostly or entirely composed of local sources. It'd be helpful if there was secondary, independent coverage in something like an academic textbook or journal article, since those can show a bit of a wider coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Leaning relist. Nothing wrong with the close, no criticism of the closer, but no harm in relisting. Note that academic promotion gets more latitude than garage bands or for-profit corporations or their products. The claim of credentialled academic authors justifies taking a slow look. The article has many references. However, many references to not make Wikipedia-notability. Deletion will turn on whether the independent coverage (which excludes involved schools' coverage) is secondary source coverage, or is little more than reporting of facts (i.e. primary source material). Looking through media reports for commentary or analysis added to reporting takes time and care, and I haven't attempted this yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion The discussion was not as thorough as might be desirable, but I do not see how it could have come to any other conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) DGG, given the boatloads of material on subjects like Robinson family, don't you think we should give some extra time to more worthy non-fiction, and populate categories like Category:Australian educational programs to maybe 1% of Category:Neighbours characters? The project has a clear pop culture bias. Criticism of "predominantly local coverage" is an exercise of majority bias. Promotion? Promotion of educational programs? I think the sources deserve better consideration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Relist without indictment against the original closure. This discussion has already brought up new arguments and sources which, if sussed out in the original AfD, could've changed the outcome. Deryck C. 15:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Relist Sources listed above are strong enough that they should be discussed. Hobit (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Comment. My name is Professor John Kleinig and I am not a Wikipedia Editor so apologies for any lack of protocol. The currently disputed article on Philosothon, falls clearly within the ambit of Philosophy for Children. First of all, I think that the Philosophy for Children article is far too brief as it stands, and the current reference to the Philosothon that it contains would be uninformative were the Philosothon article not also contained in Wikipedia. Second, I don't see any dispute about the Ethics Bowl entry in Wikipedia, which is something of a US parallel to the Philosothon, though it is not as extensive as the current Philosothon entry. Should the Ethics Bowl article be expanded or the Philosothon article be contracted? That may not be for me to judge, though one of the things I've always like about Wikipedia articles is their attempt at comprehensiveness. Third, and of real salience, although the Philosothon began as the vision of just a few people in a particular place, it has expanded considerably over a relatively short time, and there is some reason to acknowledge this in the more extensive format that it currently has. I can envisage a time when the expansion is such that the competition/program gets to the point at which some of the tables might be eliminated and replaced by reference to other web sites, though when that will be is probably for others to judge. Fourth, some concern has been expressed about conflict of interest and the suggestion that the article is largely promotional. Certainly there is some conflict of interest, though as the Wikipedia editors will be well aware, Community of inquiry as such does not entail bias. For the most part the article is objectively written, whether or not it might also be used for promotional purposes. Perhaps there is room for a more extensive airing and development of criticisms, though I notice that the Wikipedia Community of inquiry article, on which the Philosothon is based, does not itself gesture toward any criticisms of that model. So, apart from the contingent criticism implied by a CoI, one might wonder whether there may be other factors at work in seeking to have the site deleted. It is certainly no discredit to Wikipedia to have the current article, and it does contain a fair minded if longish account of a growing movement/competition/program. John Kleinig Emeritus Professor, Department of Criminal Justice John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2411N 524 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 USA Phone: +1 212 237-8415 Email: jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/john-kleinig =[email]='jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu' https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Philosophy/Faculty-Bios/John-Kleinig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.101.134 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Relist There is ample evidence of relevant secondary sources. While some are local it is interesting that even these come from local newspaper articles around Australia and the UK.... It has been established that this article was never designed for publicity. There are academic credentials attached to this article that are lacking in many equivalent Wiki articles. Please relist urgently.Sydney59 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.