Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosothon (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TomStar81 (talk | contribs) at 12:36, 29 November 2015 (→Philosothon: fixing misspelled link. Again.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Philosothon

AfDs for this article:
Philosothon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm relisting this debate as an outcome of this Deletion Review. Although I have no personal opinion about this topic, there is a rough consensus that the sources listed by Tokyogirl79 are worth considering at AfD. —S Marshall T/C 17:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the page seems unduly promotional and there seems to have been some WP:COI argument before. However there were some secondary sources found, and I've found a few academic papers which refer to it as a thing. Together, they're still quite weak, but I'm thinking there is value in having a page on this topic and there are probably just enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG. The question then is how to write it without sounding too much like an advert for the events. JMWt (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.105.85 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm removing the lengthy contact material from this. Also, please assume good faith. This may not be what you meant by "one might wonder whether there may be other factors at work in seeking to have the site deleted", but this comes across like you're heavily implying that someone is seeking deletion because of selfish motives (like trying to get rid of a rival, personal grudges, etc) and not because the event fails Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Not only is this not a good way to argue for inclusion but this also puts a lot of editors on the defensive, which can weaken your arguments quite dramatically. There was good reason for people to question the COI of Sydney59 since evidence pointed quite heavily at him being the event's founder, yet he was not forthcoming with this information and he had to be directly asked several times before he confirmed that he was this man. To put it bluntly, there was good cause for concern over this given the way the article had been written and given that it wasn't entirely easy to find sources for this, I can see where people would think that this event was non-notable, so I don't think that there were any ulterior motives at play from anyone arguing for the article's deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Since the original nomination for deletion there has been additional secondary sources added to this article. These were ignored and hence my request for a deletion review. During the review other sources have been found by Tokyogirl79. So this issue of sufficient secondary sources has been dealt with. To the issue of whether this is an advertisement. The article claims that the Philosothon "aims at encouraging children to think more reasonably and make wiser decisions". This could be interpreted as an advertisement or the fact of the matter....which obviously could also be used as promotion. As other editors have pointed out this is not a sales pitch to sell a product or promote a band it is an educational initiative where the aim is to encourage children to think more reasonably and make wiser decisions. It sits within the Philosophy for Children movement. (There are similar claims made in the Wikipedia article written about P4C and the article about the Ethics Bowl which Professor Kleinig refers to above, which have not elicited the claim that either of these are 'advertisements'. This article was never written as an advertisement and this brings me to whether this article is sufficiently objective. The article was written by me and submitted to an academic journal where it was peer reviewed by several university academics and then edited. (See http://www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/808CBF9D-D8E6-44A7-AE13-41A70645A525/v12n1_Teaching.pdf (pge13) These editorial revisions were later included in edits of the Wikipedia article. Again the claim that there is a lack of objectivity is thereby refuted. If there are further editorial changes that need to be made of the Philosothon article then go for it. I am happy for anyone to improve this article but why delete it?Sydney59 (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still no notability, still reads like and advertisement, and still looks to be pushing an agenda. As was observed in the last afd, Wikipedia is still not a means of promotion - and lets be honest here, given the template added to this afd promotion seems to be the only thing the keep party has an interest in. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In lew of the "not a vote" template on the page I took a look through the history of the Philosothon article. I've found a lot of ISP addresses that go back to Australia generally, but what caught my attention were the accounts Sydney59 (talk · contribs) and Matwills59 (talk · contribs), the latter of which appears to be a burner account devoted exclusively to this article and Matthew Wills, which Sydney59 recreated according to the deleted contributions log. Its not enough at the moment to prove sockpuppetry conclusively, however I wanted to post the results here so that everyone would be aware of the preliminary findings. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Woo there big fellow. Not sure what sock-puppetry is but assuming you mean I am using another persons UserName you are barking up the wrong tree....(very wrong) Given that the event started and has grown largely in Australia then it is not surprising that there is a lot of ISP addresses go back to Australia. That the article has been written by me and undergone many edits by me is not under dispute either. I took a quick look at the pages you have written and there is an impressive list of military pages and particularly pages related to the navy. No doubt this is because you have some background and interest in the area. Are you promoting the US navy, the US war machine... probably... but if the articles are well written I have no problem with that...but I would not dare to call for a deletion of one of your pages largely because I have no background in the area. Likewise, you do you have any background in education, nor in philosophy so please do not pretend to know the difference between promotion and a program which many schools use. By the way the so called "template" is a letter that Professor Kleinig asked to have placed on this review site. You can email him if you want to take issue with him or ask him if I am using him as a puppet. He is a Professor in Education and Philosophy at a renowned US University. I think his assessment of this article as 'objective' goes a little further than yours...respectfully. Sydney59 (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using another user account is one form of sockpuppetry, that much is true. Another interpretation is that the accounts have a vested interest in protecting the article from outside...interference, shall we say. Now like I said, this is informal, and only carried out to get a better lay of the land. I want to make this very clear, right here and right now: You Are Not In Any Trouble. All the post above is meant to note is that there are two editors with similar editorial patterns that have a history on the pages. In point of fact I lack any evidence to purse this through official channels, though I have asked for a look under the hood to see whose behind the accounts my guess is that the two of you are not going to match up. Many users here who have a declared conflict of interest often bump into this problem at least once on an afd due to empirical editor evidence presence in contribution and deleted contribution logs. The above post doesn't officially become relevant to the present afd until the MatWills59(?) edits this afd, then the matter officially graduates from observation to concern for sanctioned action. If editors saw contributions from TomStar81 (talk · contribs) and TomStar810 (talk · contribs) then someone would make the same observation. And your right about my military history contributions, I do have a lot of them but I'm not working for government or the USN. Keep in mind that like Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs) I'm an administrator here, so I'm expected to be suspicious of usernames and contribution histories here on the English Wikipedia when this sort of thing happens. Despite the fact that I have made what I feel to be a relevant observation, I am still obliged to assume good faith, so until the accounts are proven malevolent I can take no action against them. Think of this as a Philosothon; the question being asked is "Should you always listen to the opinions of others?" You're position from the above edits is yes, but others may have a different opinion. In the grander scheme of things, this is a Kobyashi Maru test: everyone solves the problem differently based on their given skill set and interpretation of the guidelines and policies here. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per JMWt and WP:GNG. There are sources (many of which are within the article) that do cover this event, and I believe that it is just enough to meet WP:GNG... barely. And I do mean barely. I agree that the article has issues as far as neutrality and its content, but we as experienced editors need to remember something important: this is completely irrelevant. The article itself needs improvement; that does not mean that it should be deleted per the AFD criterion. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News reveal four independent sources providing secondary source coverage, and Google Scholar reveals an abundance of reliable scholarly sources providing direct coverage. There is no evidence I can find of financial or personal conflict of interest, and there is no shame in writing about something you know about and are interested in. Notions that Australian sources represent excessively local coverage are absurd. This competetion is 8 years old and has gone international. It is unclear to me why this article is being treated with the suspicion usually associated with new start corporations with authors who are trying to sell something. This is a scholarly subject related to education. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philosothon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=692950182"