Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 22: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::Phillips, Yasmine. "Asking big questions", The Sunday Times, Oct 24, 2010. |
::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. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 15:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
: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. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 15:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
Please note that none of the newspaper articles, ABC radio programs, nor the host schools coverage on their websites authored by me. This article was originally co-authored by me, Dr Alan Tapper and Professor Tzipporah Kasachkoff. Again notability established I would suggest some editing but why delete?[[User:Sydney59|Sydney59]] ([[User talk:Sydney59|talk]]) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:56, 22 November 2015
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 double blind 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)
Please note that none of the newspaper articles, ABC radio programs, nor the host schools coverage on their websites authored by me. This article was originally co-authored by me, Dr Alan Tapper and Professor Tzipporah Kasachkoff. Again notability established I would suggest some editing but why delete?Sydney59 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)