Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 23: Difference between revisions
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m fix u tag |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::No it doesn't because contemporary borders are used, not modern ones. And to answer to Grandmaster : a new version has been uploaded, correcting the Armenia-Turkey one, but the problem is still there whith Armenia-Georgia. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 06:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::No it doesn't because contemporary borders are used, not modern ones. And to answer to Grandmaster : a new version has been uploaded, correcting the Armenia-Turkey one, but the problem is still there whith Armenia-Georgia. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 06:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::But it can be fixed without deleting the map, right? Just ask the creator to make corrections, I'm sure he will do that, if there indeed is a mistake. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
::::But it can be fixed without deleting the map, right? Just ask the creator to make corrections, I'm sure he will do that, if there indeed is a mistake. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 07:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::The second anachronism is mentioned above (and on the talk page of the file since yesterday, btw), so no need to repeat it again. And no, I don't think it can be fixed without deleting the map: if it is fixed, it becomes a derivative work based on <u>unfree sources</ |
:::::The second anachronism is mentioned above (and on the talk page of the file since yesterday, btw), so no need to repeat it again. And no, I don't think it can be fixed without deleting the map: if it is fixed, it becomes a derivative work based on <u>unfree sources</u>, which raises a copyright issue. If it's a derivative work, there's a breach of copyright. And if it's not, then it's OR. [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 12:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Derivative work is not a copyright violation, on the contrary, it is the only way to avoid copyright problems. Hewsen's maps used in the articles about Armenia are also derivative works, yet you do not want them deleted. So the issues that you cited as a reason for deletion are not valid concerns. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::Derivative work is not a copyright violation, on the contrary, it is the only way to avoid copyright problems. Hewsen's maps used in the articles about Armenia are also derivative works, yet you do not want them deleted. So the issues that you cited as a reason for deletion are not valid concerns. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::::There's no copyright violation if the derivative work shows a certain degree of originality, and we are therefore back to OR. As for the map of Armenica supported by Hewsen, do you know what is an OTRS ticket? [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::There's no copyright violation if the derivative work shows a certain degree of originality, and we are therefore back to OR. As for the map of Armenica supported by Hewsen, do you know what is an OTRS ticket? [[User:Sardur|Sardur]] ([[User talk:Sardur|talk]]) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:53, 4 March 2024
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nv8200p archived this debate according to him (and I agree with him on this point) "because I saw that there was no consensus". There is however another problem, which I think allow this review: this file (a map) is supported by no sources (what is written in the file summary is not true). People could say a lot about the PoV characteristic of the map (i.e. boundaries of Azerbaijan in 1918-1920), but, in my opinion, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the map is using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia, which makes it completely anachronistic; and it's also why the map is not supported by sources (which use the 1918-1920 boundaries). Sardur (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't need any original research here. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia had only de-facto recognition, which was not equal to de-jure recognition, and they had no internationally recognized borders. I suggest you have a look at this book: [30], called Stefan Talmon. Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile. Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 0198265735, 9780198265733. It says:
So as you can see, Armenia and Azerbaijan both had de facto recognition, and there are conflicting sources on which territories they actually controlled. So I see no point in deleting one point of view and keeping the other. Grandmaster 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Notice how Grandmaster again completely ignored all of the points above and went offtopic. Cherry picking again, since it was recognized De Jure. See also: Histoire et géopolitique des Balkans de 1800 à nos jours by Ernest Weibel p.641. Another one, a legal publication, Revue génerale de droit international public, droit des gens, histoire diplomatique, droit pénal, droit fiscal, droit administratif Publié by A. Pedone, 1922, p. 368. DRA signed a legal treaty, in which it is said that its independence is recognised, including by Turkey.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) See here: [31] The recognition extended to Armenia was 'to the government of the Armenian State as a de facto Government on the condition that this recognition in no way prejudges the question of the eventual frontiers': ibid. pp. Recognition in International Law. CUP Archive. ISBN 1001284348, 9781001284347 Thus, no frontiers were officially recognized. Grandmaster 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) As for the claims that this map somehow infringes copyright, they are baseless. This map is not a verbatim copy of the maps used as sources, as you can see this map is colored, and does not repeat any artistic elements (if there are any) of the source maps. It only shows the same borders as those shown in the source maps, and the facts are not copyrighted. By the same token we should delete all other maps in Wikipedia, if the borders shown on them happen to coincide with those shown on some published maps. Plus, 2 of the source maps were published by the government of Azerbaijan in 1919, so they are PD. Grandmaster 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Alakbaroff (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
See Richard G. Hovannisian's article "The Republic of Armenia" in The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century on page 317. Baku87's other fake map just shows how he either does no research to support his claims or just copy pastes everything that is found on Azeri websites. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment to the closing admin: the map which is voted on comes from this site here, as seen from the other maps on the site, like this and this the map was originally created to represent present day Azerbaijan. This can be further proven from the fact that Baku87 created a map of Baku Earthquake epicenter (in the year 2000) which presented the same borders. More evidence is that we see Xankandi instead of Stepanakert on the map, Xankandi is a modern rename of Stepanakert (there was no city but several villages at that site prior to the foundation of the city). Given this, the map in question is a fabrication coming from an irredentist website which modified the current borders. VartanM (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Misapplication of WP:SPEEDY and article clearly notable. I created threshold knowledge some while ago, but it was recently speedily deleted by Deb. I approached Deb about this (you can see our discussions here and here), but Deb said, "I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see any reason to give priority to this discussion", curtailed our discussion and referred me here. I present two arguments. First, the article should not have been speedily deleted according to the policy in WP:SPEEDY. Second, threshold knowledge is notable under WP:GNG in that there are multiple reliable source citations to the idea. Threshold knowledge, as an article, was not eligible under WP:SPEEDY. Deb speedily deleted the article under A7. As I said to Deb, WP:SPEEDY states A7 "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations", so an article on an academic theory is not covered by A7. WP:SPEEDY even explicitly states that, "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria." Deb did not offer any particular rebuttal to the A7 issue, but said, "I can assure you there are other speedy categories under which it does qualify." I asked for clarification and Deb suggested the article could be speedied "as lacking context" (i.e. A1). I find it hard to see how the article as created, complete with a clear citation, falls under A1. Deb also said, "it would be reasonable to tag it as a dictionary definition": I disagree and that is not a reason for speedy deletion (A5 only applies after an article has been transwikied and so does not apply here). I can see no criterion on WP:SPEEDY that applies. Moreover, if there is uncertainty about what criteria an article may fall under, WP:SPEEDY advises, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I suggested to Deb that it would be more appropriate to take his/her concerns to a WP:AFD, but Deb deferred. I entirely admit that the article that I created was a stub, three sentences + a citation. As I think I said in my initial edit summary, I was being bold. Deb suggested at one point, "you expect other people to do the work necessary to bring it up to standard". I think what I initially created was of some value, but basically, yes, I do expect other people to improve the article. Isn't that precisely how Wikipedia works? Wikipedia encourages boldness and collaboration and I acted under those principles. Speedy deletions are a very important tool in Wikipedia, but WP:SPEEDY exists as policy and I have sought to apply WP:SPEEDY here. I propose the speedy deletion be overturned and, if anyone so wish, the article be Listed as an AfD. Threshold knowledge is notable. Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created: Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford. Another would be: Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388. That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example: Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258 Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962 Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517 Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Note from the deleter: I will not be participating in this debate, except to explain my reasons for deletion. As you see from my talk page, the creator of the article and I had several exchanges, during which it became clear that s/he had no intention of bringing the article up to standard. Had I restored the article because the speedy deletion was possibly on incorrect grounds, I would immediately have deleted it again as lacking context (as I explained in the initial discussion). I could not see how this would resolve the issue, so I spent my time on other things which I felt to be more constructive. Deb (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Fred_M._Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) Speedy Deletion by BOT, was it really a copyright infringement?. Mwalla (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Mwalla
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not NPOV". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since Fad diet clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that Category:Pseudoscience is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the American Dietetic Association has a list of fad diets here. So, I'm invoking principle 3, i.e. new information not previously discussed. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |